Lords Sitting of 15 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

BIAFRA: UNITED NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL AID
2.35 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the initiative and instruct their representative on the Security Council to propose that an international operation be organised to supply food and drugs to the starving population of Biafra.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate to initiate a proposal of this kind in the Security Council which, under the Charter, is concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security, not with the relief of suffering. It is the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations which are particularly concerned with relief work. In this connection the United Nations Secretary-General, U Thant, announced in
2
Geneva on July 10 that he had already assured the Head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, through which he considered all international relief to Nigeria should be channelled, of his fullest co-operation. U Thant had already had useful discussions with the heads of some of the Specialised United Nations Agencies involved in this humanitarian work and undertook to pursue the matter further with the whole family of United Nations agencies on his return to New York on July 13.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the objections of Colonel Ojukwu to British participation in this relief work, should not an international operation be organised which could be operated by the International Red Cross but be under the ægis of the United Nations? Secondly, to meet the objections of the Prime Minister of Nigeria, General Gowon, could not arrangements be made for all relief planes to be inspected by representatives of the International Red Cross and a representative of General Gowon before taking off for Biafran territory?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords. to the first part of my noble friend's question I would answer that the International Red Cross are doing what they can to impress on Colonel Ojukwu the fact that the relief operation is a purely humanitarian effort designed to save lives, and I they are trying to persuade him to agree to a land route to make safe corridors for this relief to get into the Ibo part of Nigeria. I must make it quite clear that we are in no position to force Colonel Ojukwu or to force this issue at all, and

3
we can only call on those who have influence with him that now is the time to use it in the interests of relieving the suffering in Nigeria as a whole.
On the point about air supplies, here again, as I said, the main co-ordinating agency must be the International Red Cross and we hope that the discussions between them and General Gowon and the Federal authorities which are going on it the moment will find ways of getting he relief supplies where they are so badly needed. I should also say that Lord Hunt is in touch with the Red Cross and the Federal authorities. I again make the point which has been made previously by my noble friend: that to get the large quantities of food needed to make any impression on the problem, air supply will not be enough; we must have land corridors.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, however admirable the international organisations for relief are—and they are indeed admirable—they simply cannot have the same authority as the United Nations between one side and another in a civil war of this nature. Disregarding the legalistic side of it, is this not above all the sort of occasion where the United Nations should intervene, and intervene beneficially?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I said, we are in no position to force this issue, and I believe it would be inappropriate for us to suggest forcing it in that way. I agree that this is a terrible problem and one upon which international relief organisations have so far failed to make very much impression. I believe we should give them time to do it. I know time is short; I am not suggesting there is any lack of urgency, but it is a matter for the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations and I do not think there would be much profit in trying to force the issue beyond that.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that this has now become a human calamity which overrides political considerations? Might not the United Nations contribute in two ways? First, could not the Security Council instruct U Thant to invite urgently all member States to participate in a vast relief
4
project by air and land, guaranteeing to both sides neutrality of the conditions of relief? And, secondly, could it not carry a resolution calling for immediate cease fire and negotiations for a settlement, either through the Commonwealth or through the Organisation for African Unity'? Has not this become a human disaster which demands that we should break through the legalistic barriers which now prevent relief to 3,000 children dying every day and a million in a month?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course I am aware that this is a vast and terrible human problem. I do not suppose there is any Member of your Lordships' House who is not as well aware of it as is my noble friend. I can only say to him that we understand that the Secretary-General, who is, after all, the key figure in the whole of this matter, is urgently considering the whole question. I can say no more about that at this moment except to say that if he can devise some sort of solution to or some sort of contribution to solving the problem, Her Majesty's Government will gladly support any arrangements he is able to make with the Federal Government to help with relief operations. There are two problems here. One is the one my noble friend mentioned, the need to bring the war to an end, to achieve a cease fire and solve what problems lie beneath the civil war. But the more immediate problem is to try to relieve the suffering caused by the civil war. This must be done through the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations, and the Secretary-General is working very hard on this problem.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, I am sure, quite by chance, he is giving the impression that he is more worried about the form in which things are being done than about what is being done? Surely this is an occasion when the United Nations, which represents all nations, should be able to do something constructive and useful, and surely the Government representing us should be pressing them to do it.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course I am not more interested in the form than the substance of the problem. I am surprised that the noble Lord should

5
suggest that, and if I have given that impression I apologise to him and to the House. We are gravely concerned about the substance of the problem. We believe that for the moment the best way to move towards a solution is to allow U Thant, the Secretary General, to continue with the work and with the consultations that he is holding. I would point out to my noble friend—and this has been said often enough from his side of the House —that we do not control the United Nations; we are only members of it. I believe that we may soon hear some signs of progress from the Secretary General, and I beg your Lordships to allow him to complete his consultations before doing anything to force this issue further.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to ask two brief questions of the noble Lord, if I may. The first is this. In this emergency do Her Majesty's Government accept the need for immediate action, through the International Red Cross or though the United Nations, or unilaterally by this country, against the wishes of the authorities, both in Lagos and in Biafra, should such a step become necessary? The second question that I want to ask is whether Her Majesty's Government accept the fact that the moral case for a ban on the export of arms to Nigeria is now unanswerable?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot go all the way with the noble Lord on either of his questions. I would have grave reservations about saying that Her Majesty's Government would support action taken in defiance of the wishes of a Sovereign State. I would also take issue with him about the unquestionable nature of the moral case against supplying arms to the Federal Government. 'He is well aware of the arguments behind the fact that we continue to supply arms to the Federal Government of Nigeria, which we regard as the legal Government. As I say, this is a Sovereign State, and I should be quite reluctant to associate the Government with any suggestion that we should do something against its express wishes.
LORD BOOTHBY: It remains a scandal!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two
6
questions. He has told the House that there were certain legal implications which prevented us taking the initiative in the Security Council. Can he say whether there is any precedent for invoking the moral law? That is my first question. Secondly, are we, every day or every week, still sending arms to Nigeria?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the second part of my noble friend's question I think I have answered by implication. We have not changed our policy of supplying arms, as we did in the past, to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
LORD BOOTHBY: Shame!
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the first part of my noble friend's question is concerned, I did not actually say that there were legal difficulties, or legalistic difficulties about this. The fact is that the Charter of the United Nations lays down that the Security Council is concerned with the maintenance of international peace and security. All we have said is that the Security Council is not the proper agency for solving this problem; the proper agencies are the Specialised Agencies through which we, Lord Hunt, and the Secretary General of the United Nations are working.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, on the question of arms supply, is it the fact that we are supplying the bulk of the automatic and small arms which are causing the casualties, and if we are, is it not absolutely wicked?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, while I agree that the supply of arms to the Federal Government is a matter of great importance and gravity, it is outside the framework of the orginal Question, and I must ask the noble Lord to put down another Question.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as the original Question concerns relief, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the continuance of the supply of arms to Nigeria is proving a hindrance to the acceptance of relief by starving people in the Biafran territory? Does not that humanitarian consideration of a desperate kind call for a reconsideration of Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning arms?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am aware of the deep feeling that exists in the House about this particular problem of the supply of arms to the Federal Government. I can only say that, having experienced the depth of that feeling and taken the sense of your Lordships' House, I will see that it is brought to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in view of the statement by my noble friend that U Thant is making or is expected to make a statement this afternoon, may I ask my noble friend whether he will undertake to make a Statement to this House tomorrow based on the statement of the Secretary General?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think I should correct a misapprehension which may be my fault. I did not say that U Thant was about to make a statement this afternoon. I said that I hoped that we would be hearing something from him soon. I am not aware of the exact time or date of any statement; but if a statement is made, I will try, through the usual channels, to bring it to the attention of your Lordships' House.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one further question? Is it not the case that the holding up of relief is due to the fact that there is a difference between the Lagos Government and the Biafran Administration regarding the supervision of that relief? Is he aware that many of us have urged, both on General Gowan and Colonel Ojukwu, that they should accept International Red Cross supervision of the relief that is provided? Would not my noble friend also agree that, so long as Her Majesty's Government are providing arms to one side, it would be very difficult indeed to get the Biafran Government to agree to the conditions of cooperation for that relief?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the question of the supply of arms is concerned I have, as I said, appreciated the deep feeling that exists in your Lordships' House. I can do no more than to say that I will bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend. I can make no other promise at this time in your Lordships' House.
I think I have answered the other part of my noble friend's question. We
8
are hopeful that the discussions that are going on now between the Red Cross and the Federal Government, and between Lord Hunt and the Federal Government and the Red Cross, will result in some effective system of control and inspection being implemented. But I cannot promise any further than that.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: My Lords, I understand that the Government base their case for supplying arms to Nigeria on the fact that the Government of Nigeria is the legal Government. Do not the Government recognise the right of secession in some cases, and the exercise of secession? It happened, after all, with this country in the case of Ireland; and, surely, it would have been thoroughly justified if some part of Germany had seceded from Hitler.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, we have had a quarter of an hour on this Question. I recognise that this is a matter of great concern to the House, but it is also my duty to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that we really ought to be going on to another Question.

GIBRALTAR: USE OF MALTESE LABOUR
2.51 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:

1. Whether they have consulted with the Maltese Government as to the possibility of supplying Maltese labour to Gibraltar should the Spanish problems increase; and

2. Whether, in view of the shortage of housing accommodation in Gibraltar, it would be possible to make use of one or two obsolescent liners for the time being.]

LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, at the Gibraltar Government's request we asked the Maltese authorities about the possibilities of attracting Maltese labour to Gibraltar. We were advised that the

9
prospects of success of such a project were small. I understand that nevertheless the Gibraltar Government has a limited scheme of this nature under urgent consideration. In answer to the second part of the noble Lady's question, I can assure her that the practicability of stationing a liner at Gibraltar to serve as a hostel for workers has already been closely examined. Expert opinion was that the cost of it would be disproportionately large. Furthermore, the shortage of housing accommodation in Gibraltar is not as acute now as it was. Under their development plan the Gibraltar Government are providing housing not only for Gibraltarians but also for immigrant labour which they wish to attract to Gibraltar for permanent settlement.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the full answer he has given. Is he aware that I was in Malta last week and I was left with the impression that this matter had not recently been discussed? I stand corrected if the Minister says it has been. Would the Minister agree that if we could get the Gibraltese and the Maltese to work together to solve their mutual problems is would he of very great help to both sides?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I agree that it would be a great help. We are now considering this whole problem with the Government of Gibraltar—especially the problem of attracting labour from Malta to Gibraltar—a.nd if there appears to be any prospect of success when those consultations are complete we will, of course, approach the Government of Malta again.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as Her Majesty's Government have decided, and quite rightly so, to send a manpower mission to Gibraltar—and I would congratulate them on their choice of members of this mission—I presume they will be looking at this question in view of the terms of reference of this manpower mission. May I ask the noble Lord whether their findings and recommendations will be made available to Parliament? With regard to the terms of reference, could the noble Lord say what is specifically meant by "future developments" in this context?
LORD CHALFONT: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said about this mission and its composition. As the House will know, Lord Beeching has agreed to head the mission and my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith has agreed to be the other member. The terms of reference, as announced last Thursday, are to review Gibraltar's manpower requirements, taking into account future developments. I cannot go into any more detail about those terms of reference, nor can I give at the moment an undertaking about how the report will be dealt with when it is received, but perhaps if the noble Lord will revert to the question a little later we may be able to give him an answer.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, could the Minister say anything more about housing in Gibraltar? When I was there about ten days ago I asked what the situation was regarding housing and I was given the answer that it was extremely difficult for Gibraltarians to obtain property in which to live. In answer to my noble friend the noble Lord, he has said that the Gibraltar Government were attempting to redress the balance in that respect.
LORD CHALFONT: I cannot give any great details about this. There is a housing development scheme under way in Gibraltar. I understand it has gore some way to relieving the severe housing shortage to such an extent that the Gibraltar Government are now setting aside fifty flats a year—it does not sound much—for the housing of immigrant workers alone under their immigration policy. So I think it is true to say the situation is better than it was.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether there is any redundancy among dockyard workers in Malta? That is the type of work that would be required in Gibraltar in certain circumstances.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, that is another question. The redundancy of Maltese labour is outside the framework of the original Question, but perhaps, if my noble Leader would allow me, I could say that the situation in Malta is much better than it was in respect to unemployment and redundancy. It is for that reason that there is some difficulty in getting people to go to Gibraltar.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, despite what may have been said in other means of communication, dinner will be served this evening from 7.0 to 8.30 p.m. I also understand it will be similarly available on Thursday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.56 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, until the House rises for the Summer Recess, Standing Orders No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended, and that Government business do have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other business during the same period.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, can tell us when the House is going to rise for the Summer Recess. Can he confirm or deny the rumours that we shall be sitting for one week after the House of Commons have gone to their summer holidays—and they will not even be sitting after lunch?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not sure that that matter arises on this particular Motion. It is customary to announce simultaneously in both Houses the Recesses and the rising of Parliament. I think the noble Lord perhaps has a point in suggesting that if we are going to sit this length of time there is no need for us to make the simultaneous announcement. On the other hand, if we are going to sit later there is an argument that we should make the announcement later. I think it is possible, from internal evidence on the Order Paper, to see that we shall be sitting until the end of this month, assuming that those Orders are fulfilled. But it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the intentions of another place.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, could the noble Lord give us something a little
12
more definite, because we all have our arrangements to make, and it is very difficult, and sometimes very expensive, to make arrangements at the last moment.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate the importance of this matter to individual Members. I should not like to suggest that I am prepared to give personal advice to any noble Lord in difficulty, but clearly it is hoped that an early announcement will be made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL
2.58 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is deceptively short. It is in fact one of the most hopeful and important measures ever to come before your Lordships' House. It is about paper gold. Gold has always had a fascination for mankind. It is an irrational thing, if you like, because of course the practical uses of gold are limited. Before the First World War gold was the universal money, used both internally and externally. Though before 1914 it was necessary to supplement gold by the issue of notes, even in those days the notes were freely exchangeable for gold. Nowadays there is no country in the world in which gold coin is the basis of the currency as it was in those days. For internal purposes, everywhere we have "managed" currencies.
In international affairs, however, we have not moved so far. We no longer have the gold standard in its old form, but gold still is, in an important sense, the basic element in the international monetary system. It accounts for about 40 billion dollars out of the world's total of about 70 billion dollars of international reserves. And because the belief in gold is still strong, it will continue to play an important part for many years to come. But this means that for an

13
important part of its international reserves the world is dependent on the rate at which the metal can be dug out of the ground. What we need is a means of creating international reserves on the basis of a rational and collective judgment about the world's needs.
It is many years now since Lord Keynes put forward proposals in his plan for "Bancor", a new form of international money, proposals which caught the imagination of many people. His ideas were too Far-reaching for his time, but they were an important stage in the evolution of opinion to the point at which we are at least able to establish a genuinely international paper asset, resting on the agreement of the nations of the world to uphold its value. The S.D.R. scheme tray seem to many people a very modest beginning, but in the long history of the development of international monetary affairs, it is a new departure of great importance.
The essence of S.D.Rs. is that they will he created by the I.M.F. without any subscription of gold or currency by countries which take part in the scheme. This is the most important difference between S.D.Rs. and existing drawing rights in the Fund. It does not of course mean that the S.D.R. scheme is an unconditional licence to print money on an international scale. S.D.Rs. will be allocated in proportion to Fund quotas, and the amount to be created at any one time and the rate at which they will be allocated, will be matters for the Fund to decide collectively. In any decision of the Fund about the amount of S.D.Rs. to be created and allocated, a crucial factor will be the judgment of the Fund about the world's total need for new liquidity.
It follows, of course, that S.D.Rs. cannot be called into being simply to solve a situation of payments imbalance. It is fundamental to the scheme, and indeed a precondition of its activation, that participating countries should take positive measures towards restoring equilibrium to their own balance of payments.
The S.D.R. scheme will stand on the foundation of the existing world monetary system and we have got to make sure that that is a stable foundation. The measures which we have taken to correct our balance of payments and the
14
measures the Americans are now taking are a major contribution to that stability. That is why the signatories of the March Washington communiqué expressed the view that, with the prospective coming into force of the S.D.R. scheme, existing stocks of monetary gold were adequate. In this sense the description of S.D.Rs as "paper gold" is apt. The value of S.D.Rs will be related to a given weight of gold. Their acceptability will be based on the fact that they will be backed by participating countries' existing holdings of gold and currency, for which they will be exchangeable on certain conditions. This means that they will be effectively as good as gold or currency, and we have stated our intention to include any United Kingdom holdings of S.D.Rs as an addition to our reserves.
My Lords, I have dealt in general terms with the nature and purpose of S.D.Rs. A more thorough explanation is in the White Paper (Cmnd. 3662) which I would urge noble Lords to study, if they have not already done co. As the White Paper makes clear, the legal framework of the scheme is being provided by amendments to the Articles of Agreement of the I.M.F. These amendments have been approved by an overwhelming majority of the Governors of the Fund—in a postal vote which ended on May 31—and on the basis of this approval the Fund is now seeking formal confirmation from member Governments that they accept the amendments The process of enactment will be complete as soon as the Fund has received acceptance from three-fifths of the members having four-fifths of the voting power. In common with many other member countries the United Kingdom Government could not participate in the S.D.R. scheme without new statutory powers. We are therefore asking Parliament by means of this Bill to equip us with the necessary new powers before notifying the Fund that we accept the amendments to the Articles embodying the S.D.R. scheme.
The purpose of the Bill can be quite simply stated. It is to extend the existing powers of the Treasury in relation to the Exchange Equalisation Account to engage in all transactions in S.D.Rs, under the amendments. The Appendix to the White Paper, containing the amendments, is essentially a companion document to the Bill, since the powers

15
under the Bill are determined by the amendments. A similar procedure was used for the Bretton Woods Agreement Act of 1945. The choice of the Exchange Equalisation Account as the agent and depository for all the Government's dealing in S.D.Rs was a natural one.
There is one footnote which I ought to add to the Bill and the White Paper, in the interests of clarity. I have been talking as if the Bill and White Paper were concerned exclusively with the Special Drawing Rights scheme. A number of other amendments to the Fund's Articles of Agreement are proposed besides those which embody the S.D.R. scheme. The most important relate to the voting procedures in the Fund. They involve changes in the weighted majorities required for certain decisions under the Fund's Articles. These other amendments are described in pages 15 to 20 of the Appendix to the White Paper. There are one or two minor and highly technical consequences for certain transactions with the I.M.F. involving the E.E.A. My Lords, the major objective at the outset must be to get the machinery for creating S.D.R.s to run smoothly, and to gain acceptability for the new asset as a medium of international settlement. I ask your Lordships' House to give a Second Reading to the present Bill in the confident hope that we shall see the achievement of this objective well within the lifetime of the present Parliament.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Beswick.)
3.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this Bill asks Parliament to give its consent to an international scheme to which Her Majesty's Government have agreed. Any criticisms which any of your Lordships may have to make of the scheme are not necessarily or primarily criticisms of Her Majesty's Government. We all know that in order to get an international agreement at all on a matter of this kind the United Kingdom Government may be compelled to accept a great deal less than they would have liked. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord's description of the scheme which this Bill asks us to approve as a great advance in the control of world currency. I am deeply disappointed that the recent conferences at Rio and Stockholm have
16
produced nothing more than this pitiful little mouse which we are now asked to welcome. I always like to be kind to small animals, but nothing could be more untrue than to describe this scheme as a great advance, still less as a novel movement. It is really nothing more than a very under-sized and rather crippled imitation of the plan which the late Lord Keynes first proposed at Bretton Woods 25 years ago but which proved unacceptable to our allies.
I do not want to trouble your Lordship with many figures, but it has been calculated in the International Monetary Fund publication, International Financial Statistics, that for the two pre-war years the total amount of world monetary reserves (at that time they were over 90 per cent. gold), including convertible currency held as reserves by the central banks, was greater than the annual amount of world imports: to be exact 107 per cent. of the total amount of world imports. Now, in the 1960s, the total amount of world reserves including everything—the gold tranche and the currency reserves held by the International Monetary Fund, and all the reserve funds held by all the central banks—is, I believe, not more than 45 per cent. of the average annual imports of all trading countries added together.
In 1937–38 the total amount of world imports was, I think, about 27,000 million dollars, and the total amount of world reserves was about 29,000 million dollars—substantially more. Now, in the 1960s, the latest figure of imports I have seen, which is probably a year or two out of date, was 160,000 million dollars, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has just given us the figure for the total amount of reserve currencies of 70.000 million dollars, of which 40,000 million is gold and 30,000 million is paper currency. That is a great deal less than half of the total amount of world trade arrived at by adding together everybody's imports.
There you have the reason why there is so much difficulty among trading nations in preserving any kind of convertibility in their currencies. They are operating on such a very thin shoestring of reserves of international credit money that they cannot carry on successfully for more than a year or two, without finding themselves with such a large trade deficit

17
that they have to take un-neighbourly steps to prevent other people getting any of their currency and to keep out other people's imports.
Twenty-five years ago at Bretton Woods, Keynes' original plan for a clearing union would immediately have increased, in the form of international paper currency, the total amount of world credit reserves by no less than 25,000 million dollars, which might have been right for that time. In the event, the International Monetary Fund, which Keynes was compelled to accept as a very poor second best, started off at its inception with just over 8,000 million dollars-worth of currency reserves. Since then the two increases which have taken place—the 50 per cent. increase in 1959, and then the 25 per cent. increase at Tokyo in 1964 —have been nothing like commensurate with the growth of world trade. The Tokyo increase amounted in absolute figures to the sum of 4,000 million dollars.
The best estimate that we can get from the Government, which was given in another place a week or two ago, of the additional amount of monetary reserves which will be added to the world's stock by this scheme, is that in the first five years after it has been activated—and remember, my Lords, that it is not likely to be activated until 1970—it will be somewhere between 1,000 million dollars and 5,000 million dollars. There you have the measure of the hopeless inadequacy of this scheme to deal with the world's greatest economic problem.
I should like to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on the clarity with which he introduced the Bill. He advised us to read the Government's White Paper (Cmnd. 3662), which I have no doubt many of your Lordships have attempted to do. The first six pages of it contain the Government's own explanation and are, I think, very good and are clearly expressed, as was the noble Lord's own speech. But I am afraid I cannot say the same for the next 46 pages, which contain the Report by the Executive Directors of the International Monetary Fund. I think this is a very good example of what the late Lord Keynes used to describe by the word "Cherokee", which he invented, and which meant the translation of English into incomprehensible jargon.
18
I have often been told that international bankers do this quite deliberately, because they do not think it is good for politicians to understand what they are trying to do, being afraid that the politicians, who know even less about it than they, may interfere if they get to know what they are up to. That is supposed to be the reason why the bankers often clothe their reports or proposals in language of such impenetrable obscurity that it cannot be understood, even by the most intelligent member of the United States Congress, so that neither that legislative assembly nor any other is likely to interfere.
That is why they have to describe what I think is really a very simple change in the rules governing the purchase of gold tranches by saying this:
" By permitting the exclusion of purchases under the compensatory financing facility and the holdings of currency acquired by the Fund as a result of those purchases, the definition in Article XIX(j) will make it possible for the Fund to continue the present practice of treating the compensatory financing facility as separate for the purpose of applying the Fund's policies on the use of its resources."
I should not object to this obscurity —in fact, I should welcome it—if only it covered something substantial and interesting. But it is a little hard to read through it and then to realise that it covers only a possible 1½ per cent. increase, or, at the best, a 6 or 6½ per cent. increase in the present world reserves of which there is such a pitiful shortage at the present time.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, told us something about gold, and the reason why we should not go on with &old as the chief credit base, and a good deal was said about that question when this Bill was introduced into another place. In the Government's White Paper, which gives a clear explanation of what they are trying to do, they deal with this point in paragraph 7, where they say:
" It is sometimes suggested that the problem could be solved by increasing the price of gold, but Her Majesty's Government, in common with most other Governments, believe that this would do more harm than good, and would mark a retreat from the concept of rational management of the world monetary system."
I do not know exactly how you retreat from a concept, but this sentence would

19
be very true if only it could read that it
" would do more harm than good, because it would mark a retreat from the reality of rational management of the world monetary system."
The position is that we do not have the reality; and what is the use of talking about not wanting a retreat from a concept, when there seems to be no immediate prospect of ever having the reality?
The noble Lord gave us the proportion —40,000 million dollars of gold reserves, compared with only 30,000 million dollars of paper. Of course, what we ought to have, and what Lord Keynes said we ought to have 25 years ago, is what he called a quantum of international credit, not determined in an unpredictable and irrelevant manner such as the production of gold, but governed by the actual requirements of world commerce. That, my Lords, is precisely what we have not got. We have got world reserves, a world monetary system which is still mainly governed by the price of gold; but by holding down artificially the price of gold to perhaps half of what it would have been if it had moved in step with other commodities we have immensely reduced the value of these gold reserves. We are getting the worst of both worlds: we have halved the usefulness of such gold as we have and we have not provided anything like enough paper currency to make up the difference—and that is the root of all our difficulties.
Of course, if we could have enough special drawing rights to create another 70,000 million dollars, perhaps, of reserve currency, then we might be able to get on without gold at all, and the price would not matter. But surely it is reasonable to point out—and it is a most tragic irony, really—that if there had never been any International Monetary Fund at all, if we had had no international monetary organisation after the war and if gold had been allowed to find its true market value, we should have far more world reserves than we have now and we should all be in a better position than we are now. That, of course, is the real practical argument in favour of the French Government's contention that we ought to go back to the gold standard, which is theoretically quite indefensible.
20
But if you have got in practice to have more than half your world reserves in the shape of gold, then why not have its true value, which would immensely increase the usefulness to the world of these gold reserves?
My Lords, I am afraid there is a great disposition among both bankers and other people, too, to fall into the fallacy of thinking that national balances and deficits are comparable to the balances and deficits of the income and expenditure of a private individual, a firm or a business—which of course they are not. You cannot carry on world trade without somebody having a deficit, because the total amount of deficits and surpluses in international trading accountancy must balance, and the purpose of having reserves is to enable world economic growth to go on over a considerable period while some countries have an inevitable deficit on their trading account. In the case of businesses or companies, it is perfectly possible for every single tradesman, every company, every business, to make a profit, and provided that some of that profit goes into investment, new capital, then everybody will get richer and everybody's prosperity will increase.
The question of whether, say, the county of Kent or the county of Surrey has a favourable or unfavourable balance with the other does not matter to the economy of the country. It simply means that if, say, in the year 1968, Kent has a favourable balance, the people of Kent have then acquired more claims in Surrey on the national pool of money than the people of Surrey have done in Kent. And if the world had a unified system of commerce and currency then, of course, the question of whether Britain or France or Belgium or the United States had a deficit or a surplus would not matter any more than that. But what has happened nationally is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, told us, every great trading country now, whether it is a free country or a totalitarian country, has a managed internal currency. Even those countries which use gold to a large extent have a managed currency; and although they have not all managed it perfectly, or even well, they have on the whole managed it a good deal better than if it had been left to the blind forces of gold which it used to be forty years ago. But that has not happened with world

21
international currency. For world international currency we have failed to have a sensible managed plan, and the international credit resources which we have created are pitifully inadequate to finance the growing international commerce of the modern world.
My Lords, we must of course accept this Bill for what it is worth, but do not let us represent it as a giant stride forwards in world economic affairs. It is not. The agreement to which this Bill gives assent is in fact more than twenty years too late and nearly twenty times too little; and that is the only thing I can say about it. If you try to make out that it is anything better you will only create disappointment later on and, what is worse, you may prevent everybody from trying to do something better than is done in this agreement.
3.27 p.m.
LORD CARRON: My Lords, as an engineer just touching on politics and banking very marginally indeed, I do not know that I should want to accept particularly any of the strictures that might be implied in the noble Earl's observations. I must say that all of us appreciate his disappointment that we have not been able to go further in this field. At the same time, we have to realise the background against which the negotiations were set. I think it causes many of us massive surprise that we have been able to advance even so far as we have gone, having regard to the intransigence of many of our international—shall I say? —friends. From the attitudes that have been displayed in certain quarters in the last two or three years I should have thought it almost impossible to have reached the stage we have reached now.
This Bill does not attract the interest and spectacular treatment accorded to many Bills discussed in recent times in your Lordships' House and another place. Neither has it the dimensions of many other Bills. However, it can be stated with truth that few have possessed the potentiality for medium-term and longterm impact upon the fortunes of nations as that contained within the subject-matter of this Bill. We are invited to approve a course of action which is designed to remove a very real threat to international trade and consequently a threat to the wellbeing of nations, especially our own, and to provide a means to
22
stimulate world trade to the increasing benefit of nations. If success is achieved by the adoption of the S.D.R. scheme, the future prospects of the developing nations will be very considerably enhanced.
As has been said, the White Paper [Cmnd. 3662] explains in detail the provisions of the S.D.R. scheme in the explanatory note and in the appendix. It is unfortunate, but I suppose inevitable, that more often than not there is misunderstanding of international financial operations resulting in quite wrong assessments of the realities. I hope your Lordships will agree that it would not be amiss to spend a few moments in having r look at the reasons for the initiation of the S.D.R. scheme and at what is involved, in rather simpler terms than those of the White Paper. It should be emphasised that the S.D.R. scheme is generally said to represent the first step—and I underscore "first"—towards a solution of the serious problem of international liquidity. I think it would be useful to consider briefly the nature of the problem.
As your Lordships are aware, international liquidity is the supply of means of payment available to official holders for international settlements. For practical purposes, this means gold and currencies, principally United States dollars and sterling, to which is usually added reserve positions in the I.M.F.: that is, the amount which countries can draw from the Fund virtually on demand. It is important to remember that although gold is only one element in the total supply, the remaining elements derive their acceptability in part from the fact that, directly or indirectly, they are exchangeable for gold. Gold is therefore the basis of the international monetary system. In recent years a number of disturbing trends have emerged. First, the total supply of international liquidity has expanded much less rapidly than international trade. In very broad terms this means that the cushion available to meet fluctuations in international trade has been shrinking, relatively speaking. The risk that countries might, as a result, have to restrict international trade has grown commensurately. At the same time, not only has the proportion of gold in total reserves been falling, but so, too, has the absolute level.
This situation will not correct itself autonomously. Indeed, the chances are

23
that if nothing is done, it will get worse. It is not possible to increase the rate of gold production; indeed, this is likely to decline in the years ahead; and both this country and the United States have adopted policies designed to bring about surpluses in their balance of payments which will restrict the amount of reserve currencies available for international settlements.
This is the problem which the S.D.R. system is designed to help solve. It will provide a means of making controlled additions to world liquidity in a rational manner. The supply of international liquidity will then be less dependent on the United States' or the United Kingdom's balance-of-payments deficits (which are unacceptable domestically as well as internationally) and on the vagaries of gold production and sales. The new scheme will give the international community a chance to ensure that the world's productive capacity is not grossly underemployed for want of international reserves or, indeed, grossly over-employed as a result of the superfluity of them—because S.D.Rs. can be cancelled as well as created. Moreover, the distribution of the new reserve asset will not, like gold, depend on the accident of geography but will be made to all members of the I.M.F. which wish to participate, in proportion to their existing quotas.
I would emphasise strongly, and I hope it is clear from what I have said, that the S.D.R. scheme is not designed either to provide a solution to our balance-of-payments problem or to obviate the need to find a solution. Indeed, the Scheme will not come into operation until there is convincing evidence of progress towards a better balance-of-payments equilibrium in the world. Nor must the Scheme be regarded as a panacea for all the economic ills of the world. It is, as I mentioned earlier, a first step and is, therefore, a point of departure rather than a point of arrival. Doubtless there will be a long road to travel before the world has developed an international monetary system which is fully adequate to ensure the continued expansion of world trade and the continued growth of prosperity. But let no-one doubt the profound importance of the fact that this first step is now being taken.
24
My Lords, may I spend a few moments in presenting in such simple terms as I understand, how the scheme will operate? S.D.Rs. will be activated on the initiative of the Managing Director of the I.M.F. as and when the world balance of payments is seen to be in better equilibrium and the need for an increase in liquidity is generally agreed to exist. In practice, for the first activation a substantial reduction (but not the complete elimination) of the U.S. deficit will probably be necessary. To activate the Scheme will require an 85 per cent. majority of the voting power of I.M.F. members. The significance of this is that if all the E.E.C. countries vote together they can prevent activation, their combined voting power being 16·5 per cent.; the U.S.A., 22 per cent. and the United Kingdom, 10·4 per cent. A decision will normally be taken to make annual allocations over a five-year period with the possibility of varying the annual rate within the period should the situation warrant it.
There has been little discussion over the amounts likely to be dispersed, but, informally, it is generally agreed that, for the first allocation, a total of 1,000 million dollars a year is the most probable. Out of this total, every country will receive an allocation in proportion to its I.M.F. quota. Since total official reserves are around 70 billion dollars, we may expect the new scheme to add some 1½ per cent. a year. The United Kingdom would get about 100 million dollars a year and the United States about 200 million dollars.
The form that the facility will take will be a Special Drawing Right in an affiliate account of the I.M.F. Some countries, for example, France, claim that this indicates that what is being created is simply a new form of credit, not a new reserve asset. It is true that the United States and the United Kingdom, together with a number of other countries, would have preferred the facility to take the form of a unit, to emphasise its asset-like qualities, but the distinction is largely a verbal one. The outline scheme states plainly that what is envisaged is a supplement to existing reserve assets. The S.D.R. will be available to a country to purchase convertible currency unconditionally; there will be no question of having to submit to a

25
judgment by other countries on prospects of policies, as with an I.M.F. credit tranche. Moreover, most countries will be including their S.D.Rs. in their official published reserves.
It is true that a number of rules for the transfer of Drawing Rights have been laid down. Broadly, countries are expected to use S.D.Rs. only when their total reserves are failing and not simply to change the composition of their reserves. There is a limit (three times the quota) to the amount of S.D.Rs. which a country is obliged to accept. Moreover, there is to be some obligation to "reconstitute" S.D.Rs. This is a complicated and technical matter which has been the subject of prolonged debate in the Group of Ten meetings. The formula which has emerged is that over any five-year period a member's net average use of the new facility should not exceed 70 per cent. of its allocation. This means, if we assume that for the United Kingdom the first distribution will be 100 million dollars a year, that during the first five years the United Kingdom will be able to make net purchases of 350 million dollars of foreign currencies with her S.D.Rs.
But the timing of the use of the facility is left entirely to the country concerned. Provided the balance-of-payments position justified it, a country could use all its allocation for the first three-and-a-half years and then hold intact its allocation for the last one-and-a-half years. Alternatively, it could use 70 per cent. each year. If in one year it was a net receiver of S.D.Rs. from other countries, providing them with corresponding amounts of currency, then this excess over its allocation would be taken into account and would enable it to use its Drawing Rights more fully in subsequent years.
My Lords, on the whole question of "reconstitution" it is perhaps worth emphasising that this will not mean repayment of anything in the normal sense. Since most countries will include S.D.R.s in their reserves, reconstitution of these rights, that is, the sale of some dollars to purchase some Drawing Rights, will not affect the total of a country's reserves, only its composition. Although it will be possible for countries to make bilateral deals with one another to exchange Drawing Rights for currency, all
26
the accounting will be done by the I.M.F. staff and in many sales and purchases of S.D.Rs. they will provide guidance and help as to which countries might most appropriately take part—very much as they do now on the question of which currencies are to be involved in an I.M.F. drawing.
The various rules governing the use of S.D.Rs. should be seen less as restrictions on individual countries' freedom to use the new facility than an arrangement to ensure credibility and status of the facility itself. Since the facility is to be genuinely "created out of nothing" and to have no backing in the normal, sense of currencies of gold, it is necessary, at least at the outset, to have some rules which will ensure that it is not abused; that it will circulate among all countries and will not end up in unduly large quantities in the holdings of one or two countries. It is to be hoped, and indeed expected, that as we gain experience with the use of the new facility, the need for strict rules will gradually diminish until it becomes fully comparable with gold or the reserve currencies.
As I mentioned and as your Lordships are aware, the precise technical details are contained in the White Paper. May I also commend to your Lordships a perusal of the article by Mr. L. P. Thompson-McCausland in the June issue of the Bank of England Bulletin—if I may say so, one of the most, if not the most, informative publication in the United Kingdom. I have tried to present in simple terms an interpretation of the S.D.R. project held by myself and many others. I should be grateful if, in his reply, my noble friend, speaking for the Government, would correct any erroneous impression I may have gained. Necessarily a project of this kind requires legislation by the Governments concerned which is, of course, the reason why this Bill is before Parliament. Your Lordships will, I am sure, not only give a Second Reading to the Bill but also welcome the subject matter as one of the most far-reaching international projects initiated for a considerable time. It is vitally necessary, however, to realise the limitations of the Scheme and not o confuse its operation with other items of international finance in which we as a country are at this time so critically involved.

27
In conclusion, I think it fitting that tribute should be paid to the work performed in Rio de Janeiro last year by my right honourable friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and also the personnel from the United Kingdom who, by their strenuous efforts, expertise and patience, have, in the various discussions which have taken place, including those at Stockholm, made an invaluable contribution to this project of such worldwide importance.
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I find myself, happily, almost in agreement with nearly everything said by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, except that I think that he has been a little harsh about the efforts and the work of the Group of Ten. They have now been working for four years and have produced a scheme which he referred to as a "mouse". That was hardly complimentary about the efforts which these gentlemen have put in, particularly when the noble Earl went on to say that there is not much hope for the continuation of this scheme.
I have had the privilege of being a member of your Lordships' House for only a brief span of years, but this piece of paper, the International Monetary Fund Bill, is to my mind the most vital and the most momentous Bill which has come before this House in that time. As the culmination of years of thought, intensive negotiation and foresight, it is insignificant, in size, alongside the massive legislative terms that we have seen before us of late. But I venture to predict that before the turn of the century—probably years before—this tiny Bill will be regarded as a breakthrough comparable only with that of Rutherford in 1904 in generating a power to do things that had long needed to be done.
My Lords, we all well remember the early days of the I.D.R.D., with its staff of about eleven. Little support was given to it after Bretton Woods, and not for some years, until the advent of people like Mr. Eugene Black, were World Bank bonds really acceptable on the market. To-day, nobody would deny that the World Bank and the I.M.F. have done some pretty useful work in the past twenty-one years. To my mind, the I.M.F. arrangement for S.D.Rs. is a concept of a new philosophy of attack upon
28
the post-war problem of limited liquidity in the rapidly expanding role of world trade. This philosophy gives us a future progressive and logical order of money events in place of the fortuitous happenings of the immediate past.
The point the noble Earl has missed, I think, is that the purpose of this scheme is to give the international community an ability to control world reserves, rather than what has happened in the past, when the fluctuation in world reserves has dictated to the international community. They now have three pieces of useful arm amentarium. They have the old armaments of gold and reserve currency balances, but the S.D.R. scheme will allow them to fluctuate between all three and thus gradually eliminate the short-term disturbances which have bedevilled us for years. Perhaps, too, it will shortly lead to the fulfilment of the noble Earl's wish—in which I join—for a realistic value of gold.
Internationally, my Lords, this scheme means one more cornerstone in the structure of a lasting world peace; a weakening of the viciousness of the balance-of-payments problems; improvement in both the quality and the quantity of development aid programmes, and closer ties within the Commonwealth itself. And the sooner the scheme starts, the better. I did not take it from the opening speech of my noble friend that he had an idea of when the scheme would commence. Perhaps in his reply he could give us some indication of when he anticipates that the first allocation of the S.D.R.s will be made.
I subscribe to the views of my noble friend that the unconditional liquidity produced by this new philosophy does not have any direct bearing on the role of sterling, as such, in this country but it certainly means that over the years to come the money we produce here will become infinitely more secure from the vagaries of uncontrolled events. We shall still, however, have to earn our keep in even greater measure, and it must be made quite clear that this Bill does not produce a formula for any slackening of effort by anyone here at home. It is for us alone to put flesh on this backbone—and I hope a little fat as well. My Lords, I welcome this Bill. My thanks go out to the deputies of the Group of Ten for all their efforts in bringing

29
it about, and not least to the leading efforts of this Government, with all their tribulations, for bringing to fulfilment the aspirations of many years.
3.50 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I shall be brief. I am afraid that I cannot altogether share what I regard as the somewhat wild optimism of the noble Viscount who has just sat down and who seems to think that we have now turned the corner and seen the light. I doubt whether that has happened. But I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on the lucidity and clarity of his speech. The only thing I cannot quite understand is why he commended to our attention the nonsensical mumbo-jumbo of the White Paper. This is, of course, a typical product of the international bankers and economists who are now concerned with making everything they write quite incomprehensible, in order to disguise their own total failure to provide us with an adequate international monetary system since the war.
One thing pleased me enormously about the noble Lord's speech. He put gold in its proper place. He said, as is true, that it has been the basis of international credit for thousands of years. I think that it will remain the basis of international credit for thousands of years to come, because it is the only medium of international exchange that commands universal and total confidence throughout the world. It has always been so, and it always will be so. It may be said that it is irrational. I cannot help that. It may be irrational, but it is a fact.
Gold is of extreme importance and I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who said that all our problems would have been enormously diminished if gold had been allowed to find its proper value for itself, which it was prevented from doing by that wretched Bretton Woods Agreement. It is sometimes forgotten that President Franklin Roosevelt, when he first became President, hauled the world out of the greatest depression it has ever known—in defiance of all the international bankers and economists—by increasing the dollar price of gold. From that moment recovery began, and we did not look back.
Then at Bretton Woods a gentleman called Harry Dexter White got command
30
of the situation, beat Maynard Keynes, and insisted on fixing the price of gold at a wholly artificially low price, though gold remained the basis of credit; and refused to accede to Keynes's attempt to supplement gold with an international currency, which he called "Banco"!. I never thought it a very happy name. That was defeated. Ever since Eretton Woods we have been all struggling more or less against this shortage of international liquidity. That is at the root of many of our problems. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has truly said, if we had allowed gold to find its proper place and price along with other commodities in the world, we should not have been beset with all the troubles we have been having for the last twenty years. These S.D.Rs. will do nothing to solve the incessant balance-of-payments problems.
I would describe this Bill, not in the glowing, almost heroic, terms employed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, but as a halting first step—I agree in the right direction—muddled up with a lot of verbiage which nobody can understand. But if one wades through the White Paper and gets to the gist of it, one sees that it is in fact a haltir g first step in the right direction. The full story is still to be told, and I hope to unfold it to your Lordships on Wednesday next.
3.56 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I listened with great interest, as I always do, to what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said on this Bill. I am sorry he thought that this was such a modest effort, and. I am sorry he has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. With respect to both, I think they are mistaken in their assessment of this Bill. I think they underestimate its potential. The noble Earl complained about the volume of new liquidity which would be created in this way, and that despite all the labours of these various authorities they had brought forth only a small animal. But it is the growth potential of that animal that matters. In view of the fact that the animal is now born, and therefore capable of growth, I think that we, have cause for some optimism.
I think that the noble Earl was mistaken in his arithmetic about tie first five years. Some of the figures were

31
given in another place, but he talked about the volume of liquidity to be created initially, whereas the range of figures which were given were for an annual creation, not for a five-year period. As my noble friend Lord Carron said, this is an annual addition to international liquidity.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should like to get this clear. I think I am entitled to quote something the Minister said in another place. He said that he did not go beyond saying that the figures which have been talked about
"range between one billion dollars and five billion dollars as a first creation issued over the first one to five years of the scheme."
I did not read that as going on accumulatively increasing each year.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it may appear that my right honourable friend in another place said one to five billion dollars in one to five years, but the fact of the matter is that it will be an annual increase. It will depend on the circumstances at the time, and the confidence which is vested in these S.D.Rs. if confidence grows then the amount to be created in this way will grow.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It will grow to more than one billion a year?
LORD BESWICK: Certainly, my Lords. I do not propose to get involved with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, about the question of gold. Maybe his optimism about this practically useless metal is justified, but I doubt it. Just in the same way as we phased out—as I tried to say in the speech which the noble Lord praised for its clarity—this particular metal from our national currency system, so I think, over the years, we shall phase out gold from the international scene. For the time being, however, these S.D.Rs. are an addition to gold and other reserve currencies.
My noble friend Lord Carron asked whether I would correct any erroneous impressions he might have received, either from the Bill, or from the White Paper. I am pleased to tell him that I have nothing to correct at all. Indeed, both he and I would have been very surprised had I tried to correct those impressions, because of the source from
32
which he obtained them, and I think that he put the mechanics of the scheme very clearly indeed. My noble friend Lord Hall asked about the timing of the scheme and about its coming into operation. It is expected that the various Governments will be able to ratify the Amendments by the beginning of next year. To some extent it depends upon the French, but I would expect that we should see the first allocation during the course of 1969. I am glad that, despite his reservations, the noble Earl said that he had no intention of criticising the Government or opposing the Bill. I hope, therefore, that we shall now be able to agree to its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
4.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I do so in the confident belief that your Lordships will give a lead to the country by unanimously supporting the principle enshrined in the Bill. That principle is effective and indisputable equality of opportunity and treatment for all our citizens, irrespective of colour, race or national origin. It is on that principle that Britain must base its hopes of building a genuine and successful multi-racial society.
This Bill has nothing to do with keeping immigrants out or sending them home. The immigrants are here. They must be integrated into our national life or we shall suffer in Britain the tragic consequences of racial discrimination that we have witnessed in other parts of the world. We cannot change people's hearts or attitudes by legislation but we can alter their behaviour. We cannot legislate against prejudice, but we can use the law to destroy discrimination, which is a manifestation of prejudice; and when discrimination has gone prejudice will find it harder to flourish. This Bill will make it impossible for the "Alf Garnetts" in our midst to claim they are a respectable minority; it will diminish the possibility of domination by the ignorant or of rule by instant rabble.

33
It is an esssential part, although only a part, of our great task of educating public opinion to acceptance of non-discrimination as an automatic and essential part of the British way of life. The 1965 Race Relations Act pointed the way. It was a radical innovation but, within its limitations it has proved not only that legislation on race relations is effective, but that the key to success lies in conciliation and settlement. We have now decided that the time has come to apply those principles over a much wider area and to strengthen the position of the Race Relations Board.
So, my Lords, we have designed this Bill to wipe out the main disadvantages from which some of our citizens suffer in their daily lives as a result of discrimination against them on racial grounds. We are concerned with equal rights and equal responsibilities but not with privileges. Nor it is our purpose to impose penal sanctions. Naturally, as a last resort, sanctions are necessary to enforce the law against those who are determined to give expression to their prejudices and are not amenable to conciliation; but At would be wrong to impose this sanction by making discrimination a criminal offence. Any necessary enforcement will therefore be by civil process.
For purposes of greater clarity, we have accepted proposals that the Bill should define discrimination more closely than the 1965 Act, and Clause 1 makes clear that to discriminate means to treat someone less favourably than other people because of his colour, race, ethnic or national origin. The Government have also decided that this Bill must extend to a much wider range of public places than is covered by the present Act, and also to the provision of insurance and credit facilities, to employment and to housing. These are the areas in which discrimination is most significant and legislation most needed. Part I of the Bill sets them out in detail and defines the circumstances in which discrimination in them will be unlawful.
It is not merely a question of access to public places; it is the whole range of the provision of goods, facilities and services. This is where people meet for the common exchanges of ordinary living, in shops and public parks, in hotels, pubs and boarding-houses, in the cinema and the holiday camp, in buses
34
and trains, in confrontations with their bank managers, in negotiations with estate agents, as applicants for insurance policies or for mortgages to buy their homes. This is where people must be treated on their merits as human beings and not by grading according to the colour of their skins. Equally, the Bill is not designed to give any group an advantage and nothing in it is intended to inhibit the exercise of proper commercial judgment in, for example, the assessment of insurance premiums or consideration of individual credit worthiness.
The second main area covered by the Bill is housing, and Clause 5 makes it unlawful to discriminate in the disposal of housing accommodation and business and other premises. Legislation to prevent discrimination in housing is fundamental to the development of good race relations in this country. We must reverse the present trend towards the creation of ghetto areas in which coloured people are confined both by their economic inability to break out and by the refusal of society to make readily available to them accommodation which they can afford. Legislation, properly applied, can help to prevent the concentration of coloured people in substandard housing and the creation of social tensions. I believe this cannot be disputed. What is at issue is the scope of a provision dealing with housing.
First, I think it is essential, as the Bill provides, that local authority housing should be covered. I know of the great efforts which many local authorities are making to deal with the difficulties in areas where large numbers of immigrants have made their homes. These efforts will be much strengthened by the support of the law which will make it easier for them to carry out their duties as Lousing authorities. In this connection, I warmly welcome the report of the General Purposes Committee of the City of Birmingham which was published last week, and the comments of two of its leading members. Alderman Beaumont Dark, Chairman of the Housing Committee, said:
"We shall have no special houses for immigrants and no special areas either. So far as I am concerned they are Birmingham citizens and will be treated as such."
He added that immigrants 'had shown they were very good ratepayers, and could

35
make wonderful homes out of the most appalling slums.
The report adds up to a massive attack on the immigrant ghetto problem, but again Alderman Griffin, leader of the Conservative controlled council, struck the right note when he said:
"We are not specifically doing anything in relation to immigration and housing. We do not discriminate. It will just happen that when we get around to certain districts there will be a big move of coloured people."
Unfortunately, according to the Press, this equality of treatment is worrying some members of the council. Alderman Charles Collett, leader of the Right Wing of the Conservative Group, is reported as saying:
"The needs of Birmingham born families must be met first".
If he was correctly reported, he was advocating discrimination, and that would be unlawful under this Bill.
For a number of reasons, however, the majority of immigrants do not look to local authorities for their housing, and nearly three-quarters of the available accommodation in this country is privately owned. This has made it essential to bring private housing within the scope of the Bill. I know this is a controversial issue, on which even the authors of the Street Report were unable to reach a unanimous recommendation. Clearly, individuals must be free to decide to whom they will sell their houses, and we cannot compel a person disposing of his house to sell or let it to a particular individual. Thus purely private sales between individuals are outside the Bill. But it is a different matter to refuse to sell a house on grounds of racial prejudice and to deny anyone the right to buy the home of his choice on those grounds alone.
Clause 5 is therefore drafted in broad terms to cover all those concerned with both private and local authority housing. To do less would be to shirk a major responsibility. Even so, although the sanction of the courts will be available to those who have to administer this provision, it is not a field in which the ultimate power of the law will be an appropriate weapon in any but the most flagrant and objectionable cases. So the Bill makes a firm declaration of principle, and within its terms there is scope
36
for the Board to use their conciliation procedures to secure equality of treatment for all who are seeking decent homes for themselves and their families.
Clause 7 provides certain exceptions to the housing provisions which will, I think, be generally accepted. The principle of exception is that where there is a personal relationship clearly going beyond the commercial relationship of landlord and tenant, the law should not intervene. We have taken certain criteria as justifying exclusion. First, the accommodation must be in premises in which either the owner or one of his relatives lives. Second, apart from the accommodation in which the owner or his relative live there are no more than two other households. Or in the case of a boarding or lodging house, exemption will apply only to houses where, for the first two years after the passing of the Bill there are no more than twelve residents and thereafter no more than six residents. The third criterion for exclusion is that some of the accommodation, other than the means of access, must be used in common by the owner or the relative concerned and any of the tenants, boarders or lodgers. In short, we exclude from the housing discrimination provitsions the person who lets part of his house to not more than two other households or has not more than a small number of lodgers, and shares part or parts of it with any of his tenants or lodgers. But this applies only to small-scale lettings because the Bill makes discrimination unlawful for people letting accommodation on a larger scale even when there is some sharing of facilities with tenants. Similarly, people who let the houses in which they live, in, say, three or more small units, such as bedsitters, also come within the scope of the Bill; they are not excluded.
I believe this provides a reasonable basis to meet the generally accepted view that where a person shares the family home with others, his freedom of choice of tenants should not be restricted. By relating a large part of the exception to the number of households it will be easy to identify the status of many premises, particularly those of the type in which immigrants frequently make their homes. If it is established that there are more than three households on the premises they will not be excepted under the Bill

37
and no further inquiries will be necessary to establish relationships or who shares what facilities with whom.
I turn now to employment. There are encouraging signs that coloured people are being accepted in industry on their merits; but it is equally true that there is still a great deal of discrimination against them and that many of them are becoming identified with unskilled and menial tasks because they do not get the promotion to more responsible posts to which their qualifications entitle them. There is evidence that coloured youngsters leaving school are not getting the jobs for which they are qualified on the same terms as their white contemporaries. These children, my Lords, are the product of our own educational system, brought up in our own traditions. There are obvious and great dangers to our society if they find themselves on the labour market as second-class citizens.
I know that there is a great deal of good will among many employers and trade unions who try to ensure that discrimination does not occur, but their efforts will be strengthened if they are backed by comprehensive legislation. Clause 3 therefore makes discrimination unlawful in recruitment, dismissal, training, promotion and conditions of service, and is designed to ensure equality of treatment in all aspects of employment so that men and women will not be handicapped in achieving their full potential by any considerations of colour or race. Clause 4 will ensure similar equality in membership of trade unions and employers' and trade associations. As with housing, there are some exceptions to the employment provisions. The first is domestic employment; the second, where ships' crews share living accommodation. In neither instance would in be right, in the Government's view, given the personal nature of the relationshhips involved, to place obligations under the Bill on the individuals concerned.
One exception from the Bill can make a positive contribution to the processes of integration. This is the provision which protects an employer who is genuinely concerned to create or preserve a racially balanced labour force. This has been criticised on the grounds that, because it gives recognition to a form of discrimination, it is objectionable. This is not so. It was my experience as an
38
employer that my Jamaicans and Nigerians could not work peaceably together. The only alternative to sacking one group or the other was to keep them apart. This worked, but it would not be practicable in all businesses. There are circumstances in which an over-rigid insistence on the general employment provisions of the Bill could have the effect, not of furthering the process of integration, but of hindering it. Certain industries, and certain menial jobs, are becoming identified with newly arrived coloured labour and this is just as undesirable as the refusal to admit qualified coloured people to an industry or to a business which is at present all white. It is right, therefore, to protect from an allegation of discrimination an employer who wishes to Prevent this sort of situation from arising and is genuinely seeking to promote good race relations in his labour force.
It is supremely important, however, to protect those of the second generation who are no more newly arrived immigrants than the rest of us, and, in what I regard as perhaps its most important provision, the Bill insists that everyone who has been wholly or mainly educated in Great Britain shall be treated as belonging to the same racial group. My Lords, you cannot he an immigrant if you were horn here. There will thus be no opportunity for employers to differentiate between those who belong to this country in every sense of the word because some of then are coloured: and the Bill also makes it clear that in determining whether an employer is behaving reasonably the extent to which he already employs people of different racial groups and accepts the principle of not discriminating will be taken into account. I hope that in time, particularly when the second generation makes up an increasing part of our labour force, its racial composition will be of no consequence whatsoever, and there is a provision in the Bill for the repeal of the relevant subsections when it seems expedient to do so.
These employment provisions will not apply during the first two years to employers with not more than twenty-five employees, and in the next two years to employers with not more than ten employees. This is a precaution to ensure that the administrative procedures

39
under the Bill are not overwhelmed in the first few years of its operation. Thus, Part I covers the main areas of human activity in which discrimination has been shown to occur and where it is most significant.
Part II contains the provisions for the investigation and settlement of complaints and for enforcement in the courts. It provides that, as under the 1965 Act, the legislation will be administered by a Race Relations Board. The present Board, to whose work over the last two and a half years I would pay a warm tribute, consists of only three members. The new Board, faced with a much larger field of operation, will consist of not more than twelve members, including the Chairman. With a Board of this size it will be possible to select members who can command the confidence of all those with whom they will have to deal. The Home Secretary has already announced that one of the members of the Board will be Sir Roy Wilson, the President of the Industrial Court, who has agreed to serve on the new Board and to place his unrivalled knowledge at their disposal. In addition, the Home Secretary intends to appoint two other members to the Board with special knowledge of industry. My right honourable friend proposes also to appoint one member of the Board with special knowledge of local authority housing. Other members will be selected on as wide a basis as possible, including, of course, members of the immigrant communities. The Board will also have powers to appoint assessors who can bring special knowledge and experience to bear on any particular type of case.
Clause 13 provides that the Race Relations Board shall discharge their functions in accordance with arrangements approved by the Home Secretary. This will ensure that the administrative and procedural arrangements to be established by the Board will be more readily understood and accepted by public opinion. For example, there is a provision that the Board may appoint certain of their members to deal with particular classes of complaints; and in approving their arrangements the Home Secretary intends to require the Board to set up a sub-committee which will include the two members of the Board
40
with special knowledge of industry, and with Sir Roy Wilson as its first Chairman to deal with complaints about employment.
The Bill provides for the continuation of the system of conciliation committees. Experience has shown that committees on the existing pattern provide the best means of settling cases. In appointing members of these committees the Board will have regard to their new responsibilities, particularly in housing and employment, and will ensure that the members of the committees are fully competent to deal with the various cases which come before them. Conciliation committees will also have power to appoint assessors. It will continue to be the first duty of the Board and their committees to attempt to settle cases by conciliation, because this is the key to success in legislation, the main purpose of which is to secure the settlement of disputes by agreement. But existing arrangements will be much strengthened by the new power given to the Board to investigate complaints themselves.
There is an important provision in Clause 14, excluding from the normal procedures of the Board and their committees complaints relating to discrimination in employment, trade unions and employers' organisations. This fulfils the Government's undertaking, given last July, that in relation to employment, the new legislation would provide the fullest opportunity for industry to use its own machinery for conciliation. This acknowleged the strong feeling on both sides of industry that complaints or racial discrimination in industry are best left to be settled by industry's own well established procedures. Although the Government do not accept that complaints about employment can be left entirely to industry, the Bill provides full scope for industry to use its own machinery to settle complaints. Only where it has been unable to do so does the question of resort to other methods arise. The fairly elaborate procedures in the Bill in relation to employment give as much guidance as possible, and we cannot be certain that they will prove appropriate in every detail. Clause 15(2) has therefore been included to enable the Home Secretary to amend them by regulation.
There is an important provision in Clause 16 which empowers the Board

41
to make investigations where no specific complaint has been received or a complaint has been withdrawn. I regard this as a necessary extension of the Board's powers. There will certainly be occasions when the Board have every reason to believe that discrimination is taking place but do not have a specific allegation on which to proceed. I see it as part of the public duty of the Board that in these circumstances they should be able to seek assurances that discrimination is not being or will not continue to be practised.
I turn now to Clauses 18 to 22 which provide for enforcement. These have been criticised because they do not give powers of enforcement to the Race Relations Board themselves or enable the Board to summon witnesses or demand the production of documents. This criticism is based on a misconception of the proper functions of the Board. Their essential task is to settle cases of discrimination by conciliation and it would be inconsistent with this to give the Board judicial authority or compulsory powers. It would be necessary to provide sanctions against those who refused to comply with the instructions of the Board, and these could only be criminal sanctions which would run counter to the whole philosophy of the Bill. The possibility of court proceedings will always be in the background as an encouragement to co-operation, and this will be reinforced by the fact that the Board, and not the Attorney General as under the present Act, will be empowered to bring proceedings to the courts.
The Government have considered whether individuals should also be free to take proceedings. In so far as this would provide a form of appeal against the Board and preserve the individual's freedom of action, it has some attraction; but the Board also have a public duty to perform in preventing baseless or deliberately vexatious complaints from reaching the courts and innocent parties being put to unwarranted inconvenience and expense. A balance has to be struck between securing the confidence of minority groups and making the enforcement procedures fair and acceptable to the community at large. I think that the provisions in the Bill have got this balance about right.
42
Although it would seem desirable and consistent with accepted legal procedures in this country that it should be the courts which enforce the law, the Government take the view that it is better for the courts which deal with cases under the Bill to be specially constituted. Clause 18, therefore, provides that proceedings for enforcement in England and Wales will be brought in specially designated county courts to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. These courts will sit with two assessors having special knowledge and experience of problems connected with race and communit3 relations. In this way we shall maintain the principle that the enforcement of the law rests with the courts and at the same time bring special expertise to bear on the type of cases which may arise under this new legislation.
The present Act provides for the enforcement of the law by injunction and we believe that this should continue to be the main sanction in the future. Where it appears that someone has engaged in a course of conduct which is unlawful under the Bill and is likely, unless restrained by order of the court, to continue that conduct in the future, the Board may apply for an injunction to restrain him from doing so. There may be occasions on which a single act of discrimination has been committed in circumstances where there is also adequate supporting evidence to indicate that such an act is part of a course of conduct within the meaning of the Bill. In those circumstances it will be open to the Board to proceed to the courts for an injunction if they think fit.
The Board will also be empowered to seek damages either separately or together with an injunction. Damages provide an appropriate remedy against single acts of discrimination which have resulted in an individual suffering material loss. We have considered carefully whether the Bill should provide for exemplary damages or damages by way of compensation for mental anguish or humiliation and have concluded that on balance such a provision would be inappropriate. The Bill is founded on the principle of conciliation and the power to award punitive damages would be inconsistent with this. But we think it right that compensation for loss should be payable, and the Bill provides not only for payment for actual

43
expenses incurred, but also for what is described as "loss of opportunity", that is, the loss of any benefit which a person might have expected to receive but for an act of discrimination; for example, the opportunity to buy a particular house in a particular locality when nothing comparable is available, or the opportunity of a particular post when no similar employment is available. I think this is as far as the provision for damages should go. The Bill also provides that the Board may seek a declaratory judgment that an act is unlawful. This provides a useful method of placing society's disapproval of discrimination on record in circumstances when other remedies are not available.
In Part III of the Bill, Clause 23 constitutes a statutory Commission to be known as the Community Relations Commission and sets out its terms of reference. This Commission will replace the present National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants which was appointed in 1965. The functions of the Commission will be broadly the same as those of the existing Committee which has done so much over the last three years to foster good race relations in this country; but with the Committee's agreement we have taken the opportunity of altering its name and revising its terms of reference to take account of the changing social situation in this country. Until now the Committee has been concerned primarily with newly arrived immigrants. In the future it will be more concerned with the problems of the second generation, those born and brought up in this country who are distinguishable from the rest of us only by the colour of their skin.
The new terms of reference, therefore, direct the work of the Community Relations Commission to the more general question of community relations in a multi-racial society. The Government have never underestimated the importance of voluntary effort in the field of race relations and we hope that by creating this new body on a statutory basis we shall give added point and emphasis to its work. The Home Secretary has given an undertaking that three members of the new Commission will be appointed from among those actively concerned in work at the local level.
44
The Bill also provides that the new legislation shall bind the Crown. The public service has an exemplary record of non-discrimination; a rough check last year showed that there are at least 16,500 coloured civil servants, of whom 4,500 are in professional posts, middle management or above; but the Government consider that, in order to give a lead to the country as a whole, it is important that the Crown should be bound by the provisions of the Bill. It will, I think, be generally accepted, however, that the Crown must retain discretion to apply nationality rules to employment in the Civil Service, the Armed Forces and the Diplomatic Service, and this is provided for.
This Bill, then, has three main purposes. First, it is declaratory and puts the attitude of the Government and the nation to discrimination beyond doubt. Second, it provides machinery for conciliation between those who have suffered discrimination and those who have chosen to practice it, and also establishes a statutory body charged with the duty of fostering good community relations. Third, it provides a sanction for those cases, which I believe will be few, where conciliation has failed.
I believe that, with the support of legislation on this basis, we can so influence public opinion and conduct that we shall establish a pattern of civilised behaviour in time to avoid the tragic consequences which could so easily result from present social tensions if we lacked the courage to deal with them. We must demonstrate by our actions, not only to immigrants and their children but to all our other citizens and to the world at large, that in this country we live and act by the doctrine of equality of treatment and opportunity, irrespective of race or colour. It is because I believe that legislation has an essential part to play in achieving this that I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Stonham.)
4.34 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this Bill was materially amended on Report in another place only last week, and eventually received its Third Reading there at 4.50 a.m. on Wednesday morning. I think that a great many of your Lordships wish that the Government

45
would so arrange their business that your Lordships' House could have a rather longer time than that to consider a Bill of this far-reaching importance. I should also have expected that the Government would consider this Bill sufficiently important to make it the first and only business of the day in your Lordships' House, whereas, in spite of there being 29 names on the list of speakers, we were not enabled to start the Second Reading debate until 4 o'clock.
For my part, I deeply regret that a position has been reached where a Bill of this sort is thought to be needed. Up to three years ago, the concept of race did not enter into English law. All persons lawfully resident within Britain were alike in the eyes of the law; and that, I say, is as it should be. The use of threatening or abusive or insulting language or behaviour was an offence if it was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. It still is. That is right, and it is enforceable, because the police are trained to be keepers of order; they are not trained to be censors of speech. Then the 1965 Race Relations Act was passed, which made such language or behaviour an offence if it was likely to stir up racial hatred. This was, of course, a limitation on freedom of speech, a right which hitherto we had maintained with determination because we in this country, regardless of Party, cared passionately about freedom of speech even when other men said things which were hateful to us personally. Now we have this Bill, with its major enlargement of racial legislation. The Government think that it will relax racial tensions. Some others think, equally sincerely, that in certain contexts it may worsen them. I should like—indeed I am sure we should all like —to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for having taken so much trouble, not only to state the main aims and principles of the Bill but to go through its provisions in some detail. I felt that he, was looking at the Bill and its probable effects through rose-coloured spectacles, but that does not lessen my indebtedness to him for his speech.
What will be the effect of the Bill? Will the Government be right, or will those who are opposed to such legislation be right? Where is the truth going to lie? For this is the only test of the Bill that matters. The fact is that nobody
46
can yet be certain. With a Bill like this we are in deep and mysterious waters, because it impinges sharply on human nature and human emotions, and no one can be altogether certain what the reactions will be.
Time after time I have said, in Parliament and outside, that the greatest social problem of the next half-century in this country is going to be the problem we have created for ourselves in the last fifteen years by the huge in numbers of immigrants which successive Governments have admitted. Thirty or forty years ago, the most intractable social problem was unemployment. Nov it is immigration, and in particular the relationship, the whole complex of relationships, between the newcomers and the British-born population. I welcome the more, therefore, the effort and the spirit underlying that Birmingham Report published last week to which the noble Lord referred.
At last, all this is being recognised and approached as a real and vast problem confronting us all. For far too long it was being evaded or played down. Press and Parliament alike seemed to some of us to want to sweep the realities of it under the carpet, and sometimes even to brand as a racialist anyone who dared to take it out and look at it squarely. That is the simple reason why a great number of our people showed by their reactions that they welcomed what they thought Mr. Enoch Powell was driving at in that recent speech of his, not his dangerously provocative language about the Tiber flowing with blood and so forth, but what they thought was his candour in facing a problem to which they believed, rightly or wrongly, that nearly all the politicians were turning a blind eye.
Throughout the larger part of Britain all this is still no problem at all. In the County of Wiltshire, where I live, it hardly exists, outside one town. If the million or more immigrants were spread evenly throughout the country there would be no serious problem anywhere. At the moment they form only 2 per cent. of the whole population. The problem exists, and the arguments for and against this Bill arise, because of the concentration in particular towns and cities. If one or two families from overseas came

47
and settled in the village where I live, I do not for a moment believe that there would be any tension, any complaints of discrimination, or anything else. But if there were a great influx so as to change the whole character of the village, to make it almost impossible for the newly married couple to find a home, tension would rise, and it would be wrong to condemn the tension as prejudice.
The root of the problem, my Lords, is not prejudice, not colour, but numbers. The tensions would be there just the same if the newcomers swamping that hypothetical village were not Indian or African, but Italian or Spanish. I believe that the British people are by nature most wonderfully tolerant, but there is bound to be resentment if children's schooling is held back because the local school becomes over-crowded with incoming children who have little English; or if women who have grown up in the place find that they cannot have their babies in hospital because all the maternity beds are needed for the newcomers whose homes are so overcrowded that they cannot have their babies at home. All this has to be weighed in the balance against the natural, intense resentment of the newcomers if they find house agents who are against them and landladies who are against them, and employers who will not give them a fair chance.
What I am trying to do is, in a few words, to give a balanced account of the background to this Bill, which I venture to think not enough people have been fair-minded enough to do. There are those who say that a Bill like this should he rejected on principle because personal liberty entails a right to discriminate. Then there are those who say that everyone who questions the need for such a Bill must ipso facto be prejudiced, racialist, un-Christian. Both groups are wrong. Both are stopping their thinking too soon. I am sure that Parliament's duty is to probe more deeply, and to try to understand, to understand equally, the feeling of humiliation in the immigrant who is refused a job or a lodging, and the converse feeling among many British people in the high immigration areas, that on top of the fact that the life of their home towns has been altered out of all recognition and against their wishes by Government policies, Parliament now
48
wants to legislate still further in support of the newcomers.
I do not think that any political Party can take much credit for the part it has played in the past in allowing this situation to arise. In the years of unrestricted Commonwealth entry, when the greatest numbers of immigrant workers were arriving, the social and educational problems which unrestricted immigration was bound to bring were culpably ignored by almost everybody. In common, I hope and believe, with all your Lordships, I am deeply anxious that this should be a country of peace and good will, where there is equal opportunity for all, and where tolerance reigns and prejudices are educated out of the silly heads of the people who suffer from them. We are not there yet; and, frankly, I set rather more store by educating people to grasp even the fringe of that ideal than by enlarging and sharpening the legal sanctions against those who are too stupid or too selfish to do that.
It is seldom that application of sanctions makes people more tolerant, more understanding, more willing to love their neighbour. We shall be able to see whether it does in this case, because this Bill is certainly going to become law. I would not vote against it myself, and I respectfully hope that none of your Lordships will do so, though I could not myself vote for it as it stands at present. I see how to make a case for it, and I see how to make a case against it. One who takes for granted the case in favour of it may be greeted as a Christian but by those who forget that the command that ye love one another was never to be made enforceable by law. One who sets forth the arguments against it will get dismissed as a racialist by those who seem opposed to bringing this tremendous human problem of race and colour up out of the depths, and looking at it quietly and reasonably. Both these views are superficial.
I think there is no doubt that there is a minority of people who are practising discrimination in this country to an extent which cannot be ignored or glossed over. The P.E.P. Report, published in April of last year, seems to me to establish that. To some people what I am going to say now may sound strange, but for my part I feel less worried about the grown men who have themselves

49
chosen to come ever the seas and live in this country and now complain that they are discriminated against. If I choose to leave England and go to live and work in France or Italy or Jamaica or Ghana or India or where you will (assuming, of course, that the authorities allowed me to work there), I should not expect to be treated by everybody exactly as if I were a native of the country; and if I did not like the way I was treated, I should still have the choice—I could go home. I had come voluntarily, and I could go voluntarily, and I should have no strong grounds for complaint. I deplore the sort of questionnaires which some well-meaning societies try to hand out to immigrants, encouraging them to report in detail any incident of believed discrimination against them. That does no good to anyone.
But with the children of immigrant families, born and brought up in the new country, the case is different. They have had no choice. The new country is the only country they remember, wherever their parents came from and whatever the colour of their skins. Far and away the strongest argument in favour of this Bill is that, without it, the present signs are that many of those children, when they come to leave school, might not get equal opportunity of securing jobs that measure up to their capacities. That would be the way of doom for Britain: a generation could grow up having full right to look to Britain as their country—for they would have known no other —yet under-privileged on any fair comparison. The cancer of bitterness would grow and there would be no cure then. If this Bill can prevent that it must carry the fervent hopes of us all with it.
I do not propose to discuss its details. I bear in mind that there are 29 noble Lords who have indicated their wish to speak on Second Reading, and we shall have time to pursue the details in Committee. Let me only say that the new Clause 1, moved in on Report in another place looks to me at first sight a doubtful improvement on the original Bill. I welcome the fact that the Bill employs the conciliation rather than the criminal procedure, a fundamental change on which I am sure the Government were wise to yield to the Opposition during the debates on the earlier Race Relations Bill in 1965. I, too, should like to
50
express appreciation to the members of the Race Relations Board and their staff for what they have done. I was disappointed to hear that the noble Lord, when describing the enlargement of the Race Relations Board for their new and wider duties, did not mention the necessity for appointing a woman to the Board. I should have thought that that was very important. I hope that we shall be able to make sure that this Bill does not, in practice, outlaw discrimination between one person and another which is otherwise justified, and is not eased on colour, race, or ethnic or national origin. I am anxious too that the Bill should leave the balance scrupulously fair, and in seeking to add weight to the balance in favour of the one shall not he at risk in overweighting it against the other.
For my part I trust that when the Bill becomes law, as it will, all differences will be sunk in the common effort to promote, with or without its help, true racial harmony. Everyone lawfully in this country should have fair and equal treatment with everyone else, and that is up to each one of us. I have said that if the Bill can prevent a conviction of underprivilege from spreading and crystallising among the immigrant community, it must have the hopes and wishes of us all behind it. Equally strongly it needs to have behind it the acceptance and support of the native-born British population. Personally, I am certain that it will not retain that if Governments allow immigration to continue at the present high rate. The first step to deal with that is to stop the unconditional entry of dependants between 13 and 16 years old, those of an age who, on arrival, will go a most straight into the labour market without having had, like all other children here, a British education.
My Lords, it is education alone which, in the long run, can save the situation, on both sides. No underprivilege for the newcomer: no disregard for the British way of life which the British nation has created and wants to see developed and enriched but not altered out of recognition. Parliament owes an equally compelling duty to uphold both those gliding principles. It may be held that legislation is a form of education: possibly it is, but it is not a substitute for education. On the education of everybody the

51
future depends, and one great aim of education always is to bring people to understand other points of view without acrimony or anger. Another great aim of education is to help people to learn not to turn aside from realities, but to recognise them for what they are and seek to mould them towards the greater happiness of everybody—and I repeat, "everybody". This, my Lords, is the spirit in which I hope we shall all examine this difficult Bill throughout its coming stages, and beg that compassion and understanding for all concerned, whether native British or immigrant, will be uppermost in our speeches and our minds.
4.54 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in regretting that a Bill on race should be necessary. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, this Bill is not just about race; it is about equality of opportunity and about equal rights. Therefore, on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I want to welcome the measure wholeheartedly, although I hope to see it further strengthened during its passage through this House.
This subject is, of course, an emotive one. There is no denying the fact that there is a great deal of prejudice in this country against coloured people. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I do not think it is just a question of numbers; there is a colour reaction underlying all this. The reaction to Mr. Enoch Powell's speech showed it—the reaction in particular of the dockers and even in circles which ought to know better. There is a mental revulsion which many of us find quite deplorable; but in fact there is too much prejudice in this country at the moment for any of us to ignore it. There is a great deal of ignorance. Many people honestly believe that, given the same education and surroundings as the white man, the coloured person will still be inferior. In my view there is absolutely no proof of this and it has certainly not been my experience in other parts of the world and in this country.
There is a great deal of ignorance to be dispelled about coloured people and their demands on the State. A quick
52
glance at the recent Facts Paper produced by the Institute of Race Relations will put into perspective many of the allegations levelled against the coloured community. This type of education is needed. Those of us who read the article in the Sunday paper, I think it was the Observer, on Wolverhampton will recognise how much ignorance and prejudice we have to combat. We are in no possible danger of having the country overrun by immigrants, for out of our total population they number less than 2 per cent., and during the past three years the number of voucher holders entering the country has dropped by almost two-thirds.
Contrary to the belief that immigrants and their dependants are a drain on our health and social security services, in fact two-thirds of all coloured Commonwealth immigrants are economically active and constitute 8 per cent. of Britain's total labour force. Between September, 1964, and January, 1968, unemployment among their numbers never rose above 3 per cent. They contribute more to, and take less from, social security than the general public. Expenditure per capita for the migrant is £48 7s., compared with £62 4s. for the rest of the population. Only in the field of education and child care is slightly more per head spent on the coloured child, and surely this is money well spent, for in the classroom or the nursery school children work and play together almost unaware of the differences in skin colouring, and it is this early integration which, I believe, is undoubtedly the most important factor for ensuring that we get true integration later on.
But these facts have got to be put over day and night if we are to overcome the ignorance and the prejudice which we can see all around us. There is, in my view, far too little appreciation of the contribution which the coloured immigrants make and the decent homes they can provide and make for themselves when they are given a fair chance to do so, as so seldom they are. But above all there is too little appreciation of the problems which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said—and I think this is the crux of what we are dealing with here—are building up now and will build up to greater dimensions over the next few

53
years if we allow ourselves to tolerate intolerance and discrimination. That is why the action of the so-called "rebel Conservatives" in opposing the Bill in another place has, in my view, done a great deal of damage to the cause of racial harmony. They have, as Mr Powell did in his speech, provided a rallying point for race prejudice and ignorance. They have afforded a veneer of semi-respectibility, however slight and however nauseating, to those who think and act in terms of racial discrimination. The fact that some of them did not intend this to happen is neither here nor there. This is a fact which will be with us for many months to come.
I think the basic problem is how best to ensure that coloured boys and girls—many of them born here, some of them never having left this country—are given an equal chance with the white children with whom they are at school when it comes to jobs, housing, services, and so on. How, in fact, do we ensure that because of their colour they do not become second-class citizens? If they do, there will be even more bitter frustrations which will find their own outlets, and those outlets will be violent ones. We should not forget that many of the coloured children going through our educational system axe not just looking for jobs; they are rightly searching for careers, and they are entitled to have them. At present they are not getting a fair deal. It is difficult for them to find white collar jobs. Some firms maintain a polite but firm colour bar, as the P.E.P. Report shows. How often do we find banks, big stores, insurance companies offering a real career to a coloured school-leaver?
The colour problem is the problem of a minority. Our traditions of personal freedom demand that we solve it. I do not accept the argument that this legislation gives an unfair advantage to a minority. It does nothing of the sort. It does something to ensure that the minority does not suffer unduly through the ingrained prejudices of some of our people. Just as the trade unions, in the last century and the beginning of this century, got the protection which is due to a minority, so we ought to give protection where we can to the coloured people in this country.
54
To the argument, "Why legislate?", I give three answers. The best American observers tell us, without doubt, that a background of legislation is essential to give confidence to the coloured people that discrimination will not be tolerated by law. Secondly, the people of this country are fundamentally law-a siding and will tend to obey the law when it is laid down in clear terms. Thirdly, legislation stiffens the backbone of the relatively spineless. No longer is there the excuse that, "Discrimination has nothing to do with me", or "Personally, I have every sympathy, but a number of my staff would object", and so on. That sort of attitude has been holding up integration in quite a big way, and with legislation there is some hope that we can overcome it. We have to make sure that non-discrimination becomes the rule and not the exception, and we must accelerate, if we can, the speed with which ignorance and prejudice can be dispelled. It is not easy. I know that you cannot legislate to make people good, but you can legislate to make people realise that the State considers prejudice and discrimination to be wrong.
My Lords, on the Bill itself, I want to make the following points. I am considerably mystified, as was the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, by the new definition of "discrimination" the Bill. Of course we ought to have a definition, but the way I read it it could be interpreted to mean that separate but equal treatment falls outside the scope of the law. If this is so, it world be lawful for a factory to provide separate lavatory facilities, provided that they were of an equal standard; it would be lawful for a licensee to practise apartheid by providing different bars for different races, provided that the fittings, the prices and the facilities were just as good in one as in the other. I do not like that sort of thing. I hope that we shall be told that this is wrong, but it will take a good lawyer to prove to me that this would not be "equal" treatment.
I suggest that we adopt the adaptation of the definition of discrimination given in Article 1 of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimitation of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. This reads as follows:
"For the purposes of this Act discrimination means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or

55
preference based on race, colour or national or ethnic origins and references to discrimination shall be construed accordingly."
Not only is this a clear statement, but I join with those who hope that the use of phrasing similar to that to be found in the United Nations Convention would help to provide an opportunity for Parliament to ratify the Convention itself. My friends and I propose to put down an Amendment on this matter and to seek support for it. Discrimination is a difficult problem. It used to be said of General Eisenhower that his success in building up a harmonious multi-national headquarters in the war was because he let it be known that he did not mind his staff calling one another, "a son of a bitch", but if they referred to "an American son of a bitch" or "a British son of a bitch", they were going to be fired on the spot. This shows how important it is to have some backing for what one is doing.
I believe that the Bill is weakest in the protection and redress which it affords to the complainant. As the Bill stands, neither the Board nor their committees will be able to ensure that the complainant gets back a job which he has lost because of discrimination, or accommodation of which he has been deprived because of discrimination. The remedy provided in the Bill is a purely negative injunction, which merely prevents the discriminator from repeating the offence. I do not think it is a question of providing criminal sanctions at this stage, but the damages included in the Bill are not worth very much. The man who was refused a labouring job and who then came to the Board to complain that he had suffered from discrimination would be told that to investigate and to settle the complaint would unquestionably take some weeks, and that in the meantime he should try to get another job as soon as possible. The damages which he would be awarded might be as little as the loss of one day's pay or, at the most, the difference between unemployment benefit and what he would have earned on the job.
It is for this reason that I believe there is a strong case to be made for giving the Race Relations Court power to issue positive orders. This was asked for by the Board in paragraph 56 of their second Annual Report, that for 1967–68,
56
and it is argued at length in Chapter 18 of the Street Report. The kind of orders which the Street Report had in mind are, for instance, that the court could order a firm found to have practised discrimination to report on the measures which it had taken to comply with the Court's orders. The Board could also perhaps require a respondent in the field of housing to offer the next available accommodation to the complainant. These are not criminal sanctions, but things which could be done as part of the civil procedure. The Court could require an employer to offer the next vacancy to a complainant; or require a union or trade association to admit a person or withdraw a decision to exclude a person from membership.
The Government should think again on this matter. If we do not get into this Bill some such provision as this, then I am sure that something of the kind will have to go into the next measure that comes along in this field. The basis of the Bill is largely conciliation, but the American experience indicates that only if there is seen to be efficient enforcement does legislation really have the desired effect in changing social behaviour. I believe that the Board must be seen to be a powerful agency, able and willing to protect a minority and to demonstrate that active racial prejudice has no place in our modern society. This is the case which we make for the Bill, and this is why we are going to support it.
I suggested to the Leader of the House immediately after this measure was introduced in another place that if it was the intention of the Home Secretary to appoint a Select Comittee to monitor this Bill, to see how it was going on, this might be a good opportunity to make such a Committee into a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. I believe that this need no longer be a controversial measure. This House has a great deal to contribute. It has a great deal of experience in these matters in all parts of the House, and I hope that the Home Secretary will give consideration to the idea that the first committee of this kind on race relations might be a joint one.
5.8 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I welcome this Bill because I am impressed by the evidence that a bit of legislation helps in a task

57
of this kind. I want also to say how wholeheartedly I welcome and agree with the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that tits Bill—be it as some of us believe a good Bill, or be it, as he suspects, perhaps not quite so good a Bill—is but one item in a far greater process: the process of education, and indeed the process of dealing comprehensively with all the practical problems of community relations in this country. I believe that the Bill is necessary, but I see it only as an item.
I should like to say a word or two about that larger context within which I see the Bill as an item. Centuries hence our successors may be astonished at this phase in human history, that there was so much trouble arid discussion about the colour of human skin. If one looks at the matter in that way, it is altogether astonishing. Why should the colour of human skin be such a tremendous issue, any more than the difference between blue eyes and brown eyes and grey eyes, or between the different colours of hair? But we know that it is not just the colour of skin; it is the colour problem intermingled with a legion of other problems concerning culture and ways of life, and whether people have always lived in a place or are new arrivals. A whole tangle of social and economic problems develops, and, as well as the frank colour prejudice which certainly exists, there are the prejudicial troubles caused when colour becomes a symbol for things more complex than itself. That, I believe, is part of our contemporary tragedy in this country.
I see the Bill as a necessary item in the immense efforts that we need to be making to get good community relations, which have been described as "equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of tolerance". If that is to be, it calls for a delicate balance between the readiness of newcomers in any community to adapt themselves to that community and the readiness of those already in the community to accept differences of outlook and to be very sympathetic and tolerant. In the past three years I have seen something of the efforts made by many voluntary bodies in the sphere of community relations, through the part which I have in the work of the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants. I should like to commend the Report of that
58
Committee for 1967, as it gives a full and fascinating picture of work done in community relations in many parts of the country; and, indeed, it describes vividly something of this human scene which is the context of the Bill.
The N.C.C.I. now has 64 voluntary liaison committees working in different parts of the country. The term "committee" here is very significant, because there is an immense variety of bodies in the country dealing with community relations, and those bodies are of very different sorts. They range from militant groups which exist for the purpose of protesting and making a noise about grievances to groups of white citizens, right at the other end of the scale, trying very hard to do good but being rather paternalistic and sometimes rather surprised when they do not quite meet the feelings of immigrant communities or communities of people of other races. But the best work is, I believe, done when you get a group of citizens, including persons of different races, working together in a common understanding, realising that the problems are common to both of them and doing their best to help with them in practical ways.
The work of the N.C.C.I. has included specialist panels whose researches have been able to give the Government information and advice about the needs of particular localities. It has also included training courses for professional people whose work increasingly involves them in matters of race relations, though their professional training may not have specially prepared them for those problems. The police officer, the magistrate, the school teacher, the educationist in other spheres, and many kinds of social worker, have not necessarily been trained in race relations matters and they, perhaps, find themselves suddenly involved in them. The N.C.C.I. has been giving help by skilled educational courses, warmly welcomed by professional people, about the racial problems which they encounter in their work. In this present month of July there are taking place some 30 classes for talks of this character in different parts of the country. Of course, the work of education includes helping the immigrant communities to understand things about this country which they badly need to know and understand, and also helping our community generally to

59
know what is the contribution that some immigrant communities have been giving to our economy and our culture.
Before I leave the work of the N.C.C.I. I would mention one very interesting activity; that is, the provision of preschool age playing groups for children. Playgrounds are provided where children, before they have quite reached the age for going to school, can play together and get to know one another, which of course they usually do without any inhibition about the colour of one another's skin. The provision of these playgrounds has been found to help greatly when children go on to school, and the difficulties of school problems can be very much lessened by them.
I welcome greatly the fact that the N.C.C.I. is now to give place to a new body called the Community Relations Commission, because the work will now be not with those correctly called "immigrants" but with the second or third generations who are now our fellow citizens. I hope that the new Commission will have in its membership men and women with really scientific knowledge of the problems to be tackled. I hope it will have a chairman, not who cares more about these matters than I do—because one will not be found—but who will be able to give a great deal more time to what will be an immensely growing work than I have been able to give to the work of the N.C.C.I. I hope, also, that the Government will realise that £200,000 is a small budget for these immensely important operations. If this work is to grow as it should grow, it will cost more; and I am sure the Government know they must face that.
It is in the context of all this that I see the present Bill as designed to help, and I believe that it will help. But I want to make three criticisms of it. My first criticism is with regard to the definition of "discrimination" in Clause 1. I am glad that on the Report stage in another place the definition was enlarged, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that it is a great pity that the definition was not carried further still. Is it possible to improve upon the words used in the International Convention document of 1965:
"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour or national or ethnic origin"?
60
Those words make it clear that discrimination may include not only the provision of unequal services, but also the provision of services in separation.
The Home Secretary, when tackled about this, gave personal assurances (OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/7/68, col. 240) that of course he entirely agreed that it was inconceivable that separation could slip in without being banned as discrimination. He said that his advice was that there was no loophole in the new clause, and that it was inconceivable that the Race Relations Board could take a different view. But if that is so, is it not possible to make it quite clear in the definition of discrimination that there is no loophole, especially, as we have been told so often that the purpose of this first clause is not only to make the law but also to enunciate a principle for all to understand? May I put the matter thus? When the Government spokesman replies, will he tell us whether it would be bad law or impossible law to use the words:
"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour or national or ethnic origin"?
My second criticism is about the powers of the Race Relations Board. Together with a good many other people, I regret that the Board are not given power, when they deal with a complaint, to compel the presence of witnesses and to require the production of papers and statistics. I think that the lack of those powers by the Board may mean two things. The first is that complaints may just cause irritation and be inconclusive if the information for dealing with them is not available. I think that it may also mean that matters might find themselves going to the courts when they need not otherwise do so just because recourse to the courts is the only way of getting the necessary information. I do not think that to give these powers to the Board turns them from being a conciliatory body into a judicial body. I should have judged, rather, that the lack of these powers weakens the Board's capacity to do the very thing that they are meant to do; namely, conciliation.
In this discussion, again and again dental language has been used: it has been discussed whether there are enough teeth or too many teeth in the Bill. I would see the matter rather as where

61
teeth are to be located. Courts always have teeth, and we do not want too many matters going to the courts for the teeth of the courts to bite on. I believe that in this particular matter, if the Race Relations Board have just these few more teeth they would do their conciliatory work better and the teeth of the courts would be less likely to be employed in a serious matter of where there was a complaint and yet the information was not available.
My third criticism concerns racial groups in employment. I feel a bit uneasy about this kind of situation. A well-qualified man applies for a job, but it has to be said to him: "Mr. X, we are sorry. You are the best qualified applicant for this post, but we cannot give it to you because the quota requires that we should give the post to another racial group." These are matters about which perhaps the Government may even now have, I will not say second but third or fourth thoughts. But for all these criticisms I welcome the Bill, believing that it will be a help in the great ongoing work of education in community relations.
My Lords, it is not only a matter of how in this country we can get the most just and peaceful arrangements for our own community. It is also a matter of what contribution this country can be making to what indeed is a world crisis. Race relations are a crisis in the world: whether in the world as a whole there is to be racial conflict or racial harmony. And what happens in any one country can have immense effects for good or for ill upon other countries—far more than we commonly realise. I believe that the help which this Bill gives to the building up of good community relations in this country will be a contribution which our country can make to racial harmony in the world at large.
5.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I count it a great privilege to follow the most reverend Primate, who speaks with such great authority on these questions. I may shorten my speech by saying that I agree with every word that the most reverend Primate has said; and I say with satisfaction that some of the points which he has made occurred also in the notes which I may now discard.
62
I believe that the most reverend Primate's words will be echoed in the Church to which I have the privilege to belong. I heard from a noble friend who is very well acquainted with the subject that the poorest members of the Roman Catholic community have been the persons most sympathetic and kindly to the newly-arrived immigrants. If that be the case, it gives me very great satisfaction. It does not give me surprise. There is a line of a Roman poet which may be translated:
"Myself, not ignorant of evil times,
I have learned to succour those who are oppressed".
It is not so very long ago, after all, that notices went up on factory gates, "Hands wanted—No Irish need apply". The age which was grimly referred to in Liverpool as "The Stone Age" is not prehistoric. Is it not good news, then, that Liverpool has distinguished itself above other cities for harmonious relations with the immigrant community?
My Lords, the Irish community is today adequately integrated into our society. It has been a long and difficult struggle. Much is owed to those who, both in high positions and in much lower positions, acted as the leaders of that community. What undoubtedly is most needed in to-day's situation is the development of good leadership among the various immigrant communities and the extension of confidence to those leaders by the British Government and the Ministries. Every effort must therefore be made to encourage wise leadership among people who have not always found the most prudent leadership in past years. It is with the hope that that necessary factor of leadership will appear that I would conclude my remarks.
5.30 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I must start with an apology to the House. At this moment I should be in the West Country fulfilling a long-standing engagement of an official nature, and I am afraid that I shall be unable to remain until the end of the debate. But I certainly look forward to reading with great interest what other noble Lords have to say.
My Lords, I think we all agree that racial discrimination is, in fact, a disease of society and that it is a disease based

63
very largely on ignorance and fear. It may be natural for a child to be afraid of the dark but it certainly cannot be maintained that it is the mark of a civilised man to be afraid of a dark skin. If I am right in my contention that forms of racial discrimination as we see them in this country to-day are, in fact, a disease, they must then be treated as a disease and, what is more, as a disease which affects not solely the patient but society as a whole. In the past we have suffered from many such diseases, physical, epidemic and endemic. In the old days we had the Black Death, bubonic plague and smallpox. More recently we have had epidemic typhoid fever and tuberculosis as an endemic disease of society. These diseases have now been largely conquered; and I think we can learn something by looking back at how they were conquered and why they are no longer the plague of the society in which we live. This can give us a clue as to how we should treat this present evil disease of society.
First, it is essential that we should recognise that racial discrimination is a pathological state. It is not an act of God about which we can do nothing; it is something where, if we are wise enough and brave enough, action can be taken to better the situation if not entirely to cure it. In this respect, if not in some others, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he says that there is a growing danger in the tendency to-day towards sweeping all these unpleasant things under the carpet—just as, in the old days, so many physical diseases were pushed to one side because people did not like to face the fact that they were suffering from, say, cancer. So we must recognise, as we are recognising, that this is a pathological condition.
Secondly, the physical diseases which I have mentioned have been dealt with by laws, by laws which enforce public health, by laws of hygiene, by laws against the; defiling of water, against spitting in public places and so forth, about which we have now almost forgotten. What are needed now are laws against defiling our society with the excrement of diseased minds as well as bodies and laws; against spitting foul words in the atmosphere as well as
64
against spitting germ-laden sputum into the atmosphere to infect other people with those horrible diseases. This Bill sets out to do that. It follows a previous Act and it is a great advance on that.
I am sure that it is right—and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Stonham stressed this—that the emphasis should be on conciliation. That is the theme which runs through the Bill and it is right that it should. But I am afraid that this Bill carries the desire to conciliate too far. The most reverend Primate was absolutely right when he spoke of the need for the Race Relations Board to have powers to subpoena witnesses, to bring them before the Board themselves, to demand the production of documents—because without that power there will be great scope for those who wish to obstruct, to delay the process and, possibly, to force the Board to go to a court of law—simply in order to produce the documents which, had they been able to have them beforehand, would have made conciliation that much easier. I therefore support the plea that the powers of the Race Relations Board should be strengthened in this respect.
I agree also with other noble Lords who have condemned Clause 8, the racial balance clause. The object of this Bill is, by means of conciliation, to make people forget about race, to bring them to judge their fellow human beings as human beings and not as members of a particular race or ethnic group. By allowing, even in a fairly modest form, a clause such as this (which deals with the racial balance in certain small firms) to become law is defeating the general purpose of the Bill. It is underlining the fact that different races exist; it is bringing that into the ambit of the law. I hope that before this Bill becomes an Act it will be improved in that respect.
But my Lords, although the physical diseases to which I have referred—tuberculosis, typhoid and the rest—needed legislation in order to conquer them, they were not conquered solely by legislation. It was not solely a question of ensuring by law that, for example, milk, water and food supplies should be clean. There was also needed a great deal of basic and applied research. There was needed positive action to build up positive health, and there were needed good living conditions and, in the widest sense of the word,

65
a great educational programme. Those things are needed also to deal with racial prejudice.
To deal first with research, much good research is being done at present and has been done over the past years. I am proud to be associated with one of the bodies responsible, the Institute of Race Relations, which was started some ten years ago very largely through the efforts of a far-seeing man, its present Director, Philip Mason. Under the auspices of the Institute of Race Relations, and collaborating with it, is the Survey of Race Relations in Britain, sponsored and made possible by a generous grant from the Nuffield Trust and ably carried out by Mr. Jim Ross, Mr. Nicholas Deakin and their colleagues. That survey has now come to an end—not because they have finished the task, not because they know all the answers, but solely because the money has now run out. Much useful work has been done, and the report, when it is published some time during the course of this year, will, I am sure, provide those who are interested and concerned with this problem with a great deal of basic information which is necessary; just as we needed basic information on the causative elements of these diseases, typhoid, tuberculosis and their carriers, and the conditions in which they spread.
This research has been carried on, and will be carried on and should be carried on, not only by the Institute of Race Relations but also by the universities who, I am happy to say, are showing a greatly increasing interest in this subject. People are now beginning to realise—and this is a healthy and a hopeful sign—that research into these matters is not merely the province of the intellectuals, possibly "do-gooders", people who want to find out solely for academic interest; but is becoming of interest to those who realise that it is of practical importance to the everyday lives of everyday people and to the everyday profits of everyday business.
Clause 24, my Lords, makes it possible for the Government to make money available for research, and I am happy to note this. It is very important that it should be done. But I press the Government on this point, and I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies he may be able to give some specific assurances
66
about what form of assistance is to be given and how soon we may expect to hear what that assistance is going to be.
Clause 24 makes it possible for the Home Office to carry out research. I hope that my noble friend Lord Stonham will not take it wrongly if I say that I hope sincerely that the Home Office will not carry out research. I do not believe that a Government Department which is interested in so many aspects of law enforcement, and in the other side of this whole problem, is a suitable Department to carry out research; any more than I believe that the Ministry of Health is a suitable body to carry out basic research into matters of public health and medicine. By all means make the money available, but I hope that it will be made available to bodies less directly and, if I may say so, less subjectively concerned in this matter.
I turn now to an aspect that has been mentioned by other speakers, the importance of good living conditions. No matter how much we may enforce the law; no matter how much we may find out by research what are the causes of bad race relations, so long as coloured ghettoes continue; so long as certain sections of the community are, Air one reason or another, forced to live in substandard houses, crowded together in bad conditions, worse than the average run for other people, so long is there bound to be a colour problem. The article in the Observer yesterday, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, makes terrifying reading, but it is very important reading for anybody who takes an interest in this subject, and I wish those who do not take an interest in it would also read the article.
We come next to education—by, which I mean education of the ordinary, decent-minded people in this country who are so sadly ignorant of what are the true facts concerning immigration and what are the feelings of immigrants. I say it with the greatest respect but I think that some remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, showed how much in need he is of education in this matter. The noble Lord mentioned that he saw no difference between himself going to Pakistan or Jamaica or a Pakistani or Jamaican coming to this country; that he would not expect

67
different treatment, why should they—and so on.
I do not want to misquote the noble Lord, but I would point out to him, and to many others who say the same sort of thing, that, speaking in purely human terms, there is all the difference in the world between someone from a great and rich country, with all the security of that country behind him, going to some place which has at one time been a Colony and has only recently emerged from being a Colony, and some poor person, with a low level of education, coming from that former colonial territory, to this great, rich, busy, frightening country of the United Kingdom. To compare the two shows a complete and fundamental misunderstanding, or ignorance, of the whole problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, very helpfully quoted some figures about which people should know far more than they do; some of the basic facts about immigrants; how they are made up, and what sort of people they are. For instance, to add a few to the figures which the noble Lord has already given, 43 per cent. of the junior doctors in our National Health Service are immigrants from one country or another, as are 30 per cent. of the pupil nurses. There are many other figures of that kind which show to those who have eyes to see, and who are not already blinded by their own prejudices, that this country would be a poorer place to-day were it not for the immigrants who have come here; and it is not the immigrants who are taking wealth out of this country.
It is much against my nature and instincts ever to incite any one section of the community to take action against another, or to incite any one part of the community to strike against the rest. But I must say that when the dockers and the Smithfield meat workers were marching upon Westminster in a protest against coloured workers I wondered to myself what would have happened if every coloured worker in the country had decided to down tools for one day or for one week, and what effect that would have had on the lives of those people.
My Lords, Clause 23 allows the sum of £200,000 for this general dissemination of information, if one may call it that and for helping local authorities
68
to face the various serious problems which confront them. That is a lamentably small amount. I hope that it is not an indication of the seriousness with which Her Majesty's Government regard this problem. Surely we have only to look to the recent history of the United States to see, far too clearly for comfort, what would happen if we failed to act now, and if we failed to act wisely.
Looking at this in purely financial terms, and simply from the hard-headed business point of view, and disregarding all the human aspects of the question, it would pay this country, it would be good business for this country, to make £5 million available in order to solve the problem of race relations and prevent the kind of losses which took place in a few short days in Chicago only a year ago. It would be a very sound investment indeed. I hope that the Government do not look on this £200,000 as the limit to what they can give. I wish it were £200 million, but I am being more realistic than to put that figure forward. Nevertheless, I hope that before long, when the money is used up, as it should be very speedily, the Government will make at least £1 million a year available for research, for education and for the provision of actual, practical help to local authorities in solving the real and physical problems, because it would bring back a quick and a great return.
I welcome this Bill. We see that it is a big step forward, if we look back only three or four years and see where we were standing then. It will go some way towards meeting these pressing problems, particularly if Clause 1 is modified as the most reverend Primate and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, have suggested. I hope that it will be, or that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will make it clear that there can be no risk of misinterpretation as the clause stands. I believe we can say that when this Bill becomes law we shall have made a significant step forward along the path of creating a better society in this land.
5.51 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I am not a racialist—and I am sure that my many Commonwealth friends all over the world would bear me out on this—but I am not very happy about this Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, should have considered

69
it necessary to label anybody who is against this Bill and votes against it as a racialist because that is totally untrue.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness like to withdraw that? I said nothing of the sort.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I will certainly withdraw it, if that is not what the noble Lord said. I am not happy about this Bill. Though I am not a professional lawyer, parts of it do not appear to me to make good law. I would quote the words of the right honourable Member for Ashford, who said in another place:
"We are passing a vote of no confidence on our own people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 23/4/67, col. 90.]
We have so far in our history absorbed Romans, Danes, Saxons, Dutch, Huguenots, Belgians and Poles—I hope I have got them in the right historical sequence —and we have had no need for legislation of the kind that we have before us to-day, which picks out a special group. If we have to make a declaration, like the honourable Member for Marylebone in another place, I should like to rest our new regulations on the Declaration of Human Rights as embodied in the Charter. May I remind your Lordships of the actual words:
"…encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."
As it is, we have lifted out a certain section of the community for special protection. I doubt very much whether this is wise and whether in the long run it will not create more ill-feeling than it endeavours to assuage. The giving to the Race Relations Board of powers to assess damages, which will be extraordinarily difficult to establish, appears to me also to be fraught with hideous legal complications. But I am no lawyer and I prefer to lease that matter to the experts. I should like to echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who asked, referring to the Board, whether any woman has or is going to be appointed to it.
Where I think there is a misconception of the public attitude towards our coloured neighbours is this. Our people, who I think are among the kindest people in the world, are never averse to helping
70
strangers within their gates—with one proviso, that they are not swamped by numbers. This is the fear which at the present moment is stalking our country. I am sure that if it was not for this fear, we should not have anything like the troubles that people are anticipating. We are a heavily populated island already. We have to look forward to a rapid natural increase. We are warrnd that in some thirty years' time we may be a 100 million people. How and where are we going to house, school and hospitalise this number? Already this question of excess population has occupied the weekend papers and political speeches. I am sure that these facts of our over-population must be made known to the people of those other countries who are still thinking of us as an open refuge, as a land of golden opportunity. I am certain that on the Indian continent the problem of our over-population has not sunk in and is not fully realised.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness realises that over the last few years more people have left this country than have come into it. The immigration—emigration balance is in favour of immigration. In view of that, is the noble Baroness still oppressed by our over-population?
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: Yes, my Lords, because the natural increase is going to be very rapid and we cannot count on people emigrating. They may or may not do so. I am sure that without panic measures—and I really look on this Bill as a panic measure—so long as the continuous stream of immigration was arrested, we should in time absorb the immigrants who have already settled here. In fact the Report of the Race Relations Board says that there has been a distinct decrease in overt discrimination.
It is interesting to note that three-quarters of the cases of discrimination take place in clubs or pubs. Is this not really very natural? We all know that even in our own village pub if a stranger arrives, if only from a town or village a few miles away, he is regarded with a certain amount of suspicion until people have got used to him, whatever the colour of his face. I remember during the war when I was canteening troops on the South Coast, we had both coloured

71
and white U.S.A. troops. My canteenists preferred the coloured troops, and it took quite a long time to get used to both, until we realised, of course, that both were fighting for us.
My reason for speaking in this debate and for criticising this Bill is a special one. It may not be a very popular one. I am not making a sentimental appeal. I want to be purely factual. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, told us that 2 per cent. of the population of our country is coloured. But there is another set of people in our country, forming more than half the population, against whom there is far greater discrimination than there is against the coloured population. I am speaking about British women. I would repeat, without fear of contradiction from anybody: there is more discrimination against women in this country.
The Home Secretary has stated:
"But there will be growing tension if coloured youngsters leaving school in the next few years cannot readily get jobs for which they are qualified on the same terms as their white contemporaries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), 23/4/68; col. 57.]
What about the British qualified woman bus driver, against whom there was discrimination by her male colleagues just a few weeks ago? What about the difficulties British women have in getting into medical schools? If they could go into medical schools in increasing numbers, we should not be so dependent on foreigners. What about equal pay? Are the African males to be protected and not our own womenfolk? Women have been very patient and through the last fifty years of their political emancipation they have relied on persuasion and justification through their achievements, against tremendous odds, gradually to grow out of their status as second-class citizens.
But, my Lords, this Bill may put ideas into women's heads. I have seen great advances in my forty years and more of political life. I voted against my own Party on the L.C.C. when they refused to employ married women teachers in the 'twenties. And look how the wheel has turned. I could give your Lordships many examples in my life of discrimination against me, but I will not bother your Lordships with personal reminis-
72
cences. To give the devil his due (if the Prime Minister does not mind my using a colloquialism), he has given very much more recognition to women in politics than my Party have done in past years. But I would draw his attention to the dangers that this Bill may unleash so far as the women's societies in this country are concerned.
I should like to counsel our coloured and immigrant friends to be patient; to conform to the traditions and even the prejudices of the British; to try to live as nearly in custom and law as their immediate neighbours, and they will win through as communication, understanding and education grow: because as I said earlier, ours is a kindly race, if slow to make approaches. I believe that good communications are needed more than legislation. If we can stick to the Declaration of Human Rights we shall never go very far wrong. As it is, I am uneasy about this partial emasculation of the Declaration and fear that, like all half measures, it can create more trouble than it will solve.
6.2 p.m.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: My Lords, I am sorry to have to differ from the noble Baroness who has just sat down in regarding this Bill as a panic measure. On the contrary, I regard it as an urgently necessary measure for the safeguarding of those very human rights in which she believes. And I think the more ideas that are put into our heads the better. My own head is always open to ideas as I am often short of them.
I am sure we should all agree that the issue with which this Bill is concerned is not a Party issue. Nor is it solely a national issue. To my mind, it is, above all else, a human issue, it is a moral issue, and an international issue which to-day is convulsing many parts of the world. It is convulsing a highly developed, sophisticated and civilised society in the United States of America. It is an explosive force in Africa among more primitive societies. It is, as we all know, the cause of all our troubles with Rhodesia, of our estrangement from South Africa and of the ferment which is to-day at work throughout the whole of that vast and stormy continent. It cannot, therefore, be denied that it is a threat to peace.

73
The manner in which we deal with this problem of race relations here in our own country may well have world-wide repercussions. Hence the vital importance, national and international, of the Bill we are discussing this afternoon. I know that there are many in this House who contend that legislation will do more harm than good—that is a phrase that I hear on all sides. I can only suppose that what they mean is that those who are practising discrimination will be so incensed if they are prevented from so doing that their racial prejudice will be increased by any obstacle which is placed in their way. Are we then, in order to placate them, to allow them to indulge in discrimination to their heart's content, quite regardless of the injustice towards their victims? That is surely the only alternative if conciliation (and remember that conciliation is the first purpose of this Bill) has failed.
Let us learn something from the experience of the United States; and let us remember that in the United States it is the delay in legislating that has done harm rather than good; and further, that no human rights legislation passed there has been repealed. On the contrary, their reaction to their present difficulties has been to widen the scope of Federal Law.
Many laws which protect the public are, I find, very unpopular. For instance, breathalysers are very unpopular with dangerous drivers. But we cannot deny that they have acted as a deterrent and saved many lives. This law will, I am sure, act as a protection and a civilising force. I think that this legislation is well summed up in four sentences from the First Report of the Race Relations Board, and if your Lordships would allow me, I should like to read them, because they are more concise than anything I can say.

"(1) A law is an unequivocal declaration of national policy.

(2) A law gives support to those who do not wish to discriminate, but who feel compelled to do so by social pressures.

(3) A law gives protection and redress to minority groups.

(4) A law reduces prejudice by discouraging behaviour in which prejudice finds expression."

In other words, although, as we are constantly reminded, and even re-reminded this afternoon, laws cannot change our hearts, laws can and do
74
change our habits, and a habit may well become a second nature.
I think that we have all read the very fine debate in another placed, marred only by the unseemly insults hurled at Mr. Quintin Hogg because he had the courage to speak his mind and to speak it brilliantly. There was one feature of that debate which surprised me. Throughout all its stages—Second Reading, Committee and Report—the position of the victims of discrimination was hardly discussed at all. Anxiety was almost entirely concentrated on the possible hardship of potential discriminators. Yet surely we must all agree that to be discriminated against is a very unpleasant experience and a very genuine grievance for which there must be summary redress, and that discrimination is humanly and socially undesirable, and, incidentally, economically wasteful.
Once more American experience has proved that some sanction is necessary. I know that there are perfectionists on the Left—and perhaps I am one of them —and there are wreckers on the Right who both maintain that this Bill is unworkable. But may I remind them, myself and your Lordships that under the 1965 Act—and that was a much weaker one than the present Bill—no 1ess than 94 per cent. of the cases dealt with by the Race Relations Board were settled by conciliation alone. But such conciliation could never have been achieved, and could never have had a chance of being successful, if it had not had the backing of some form of sanction. I therefore welcome the fact that the present Bill strengthens those sanctions, and that it is going to cover the vital fields of housing and unemployment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that overcrowding and slum conditions are in many places the villains of the piece, and that race has been made the scapegoat.
May I add one word to those who appear to regard persons of minority groups in our midst as an unnecessary and unmitigated nuisance. May I remind them that the presence of these groups in this country stems directly from our imperial past. And yet, by a strange irony, it is often those who are most proud of this past and who hanker most nostalgically after its old glories, who are most ready to forget our responsibilities

75
to these people, who are an integral part of it, and the obligations which we owe them.
My Lords, I realise that this problem should be approached so far as possible with judicial calm and not overloaded with emotion. Yet there are two quite unrelated incidents which I cannot banish from my heart and mind. One was the report I read in The Times last week of a meeting somewhere in Wales addressed by Mr. Enoch Powell, at which a schoolmaster, a Mr. Karl Francis, is reported to have said that the lives of the coloured children he was teaching had been almost destroyed by Mr. Powell's speech. And Mr. Powell is reported to have replied:
"If I could wish it"—
that is his speech—
"and all that has followed from it out of existence I would never, never do so."
What that schoolmaster describes as the destruction or the near destruction of the lives of these innocent coloured children, the loss of their faith in us, perhaps worse still the loss of their faith in themselves, aroused no compunction, no regret, no remorse in the man who caused it. He would not undo it even if he could. Here we have the credo of a racialist, naked and unashamed, not of some poor benighted, unlettered, ignorant man, but of an intellectual of the first water, the eminent professor of a great university, a distinguished Member of another place.
The other incident is one which many of your Lordships I think must have shared with me. It was the scene outside the House of Commons when the Kenyan High Commissioner was insulted by an unruly mob of Mr. Powell's followers from the docks, simply because his face happened to be of a different colour from their own. Such happenings seem incredible, except that, alas!, we know they happened. They are a negation of every tradition, of every principle this country has stood for, practised and honoured throughout the centuries and throughout the world. We have always had a proud tradition of tolerance and hospitality to those in need; we have always opened wide our doors, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, mentioned, to the citizens of other countries who were the victims of persecution or of oppression. We have
76
taken in Flemish weavers; we have taken in Huguenots; we have taken in the Jewish victims of Hitler's Terror. And we have been repaid for it: we have been repaid by their loyalty and by the skills which many of them have taught us.
But here we have our own fellow-citizens of our own Commonwealth, not strangers outside our gates, who want to come here and find a home with us and to live amongst us and work with us and for us. It is these who, although they have been admitted to this country after passing stringent tests, are now rejected. I think it is a terrible blot upon our escutcheon and it is one which we must erase as soon as we possibly can. To my mind, it is a disgrace that we are obliged to-day to invoke the law in order to protect our own fellow-citizens from insult and injustice. I agree that legislation is a tragic necessity, and I think it is an indictment of our civilisation. But we have no option but to take this action and to take it with both hands.
This Bill may have many flaws and imperfections—some of them have been mentioned this afternoon. Some may be amended here in Committee; and some may be improved in the light of experience when it comes into action. It may even be that its mere existence will make its application unnecessary. But one thing is essential—and that is that it should be passed.
6.16 p.m.
LORD HIRSHFIELD: My Lords, I believe that I echo the feelings of all your Lordships in this House if I say how pleasing it always is for all of us to listen to the words of the noble Baroness who has just resumed her seat. On the other hand, I must say, speaking personally, that I find it an awesome experience to follow immediately upon a great Lady with such a wealth of experience. But it is an interesting thing for me because, if I may reminisce for just a few seconds, I occupied her father's desk at school. I remember how he carved his name in that desk. I thought his carving with a penknife was rotten, but, my goodness!, the speaking ability of his daughter is much better than I could ever hope to emulate.
The noble Baroness, certainly for the first time in your Lordships' House, and

77
possibly for the first time if one includes the debate in the other place, mentioned the waves of Jewish immigrants into this country. Because she has mentioned that I might also say that a board in the same school where her father was indicated that the Rothschild who was there was the first Jew to be allowed to take his seat in the Commons; and indeed it was his son who was the first person to be elevated to the Peerage by Mr. Gladstone. I personally am happy to see that there are one or two more of his flock in your Lordships' House these days.
My Lords, I believe this Bill is a necessary and urgent piece of legislation. There can be no doubt, after the abundant evidence which has been produced on the subject recently, that racial discrimination in housing, in employment and in various consumer services does exist on a serious and, at the moment, mounting scale. Equally, there can be no doubt that, while legislation of this kind does not banish discrimination, it is—as the United States and most Western European countries have found—a necessary foundation for building racial harmony. To my mind, these points cannot be disputed. I have therefore been surprised and concerned at the opposition which this Bill has aroused, and I believe it is this opposition which demands our fullest consideration to-day. The opposition has come broadly from two sources: first, from those who may be called the anti-legislators; those who believe it is fundamentally wrong to legislate on these matters, or to provide legal protection against discrimination for our immigrant community. Secondly, the opposition is from those who believe legislation is needed but that this particular Bill does not go far enough.
Let me deal with the anti-legislators first. Essentially they argue from the standpoint of the individual. It is wrong, they claim, for the law to curb the freedom of the individual to sell his house or the insurance organisation to offer its policy to whomever they wish, and that it is wrong to restrict the freedom of an employer to employ whomever he wishes. Anyone, if he wishes to discriminate—so they claim—should be free to do so. The weakness in that argument is that it ignores completely the wider social and community problems which are created
78
by such individual decisions. Freedom of this kind for individuals in a community faced with the kind of problems we have is bound not merely to sustain but to strengthen racial prejudice. Wherever a minority is denied the rights and the freedoms of the rest of the community, it is bound to grow more resentful and more antagonistic towards the rest of the community, and that, in turn, will create a more hostile and a more tense society.
We have seen in recent years in the United States of America the enormous price which a society has to pay if it ignores the rights of a minority. To-day, despite the fact that it is the richest society the world has ever seen, America is a tense and divided society. Its citizens, for all their material wealth, often appear to lack a sense of security and wellbeing. What we are in danger of doing if we deny the need for this legislation is not merely allowing injustice and prejudice to grow but threatening the whole quality of our community life in the years ahead. I cannot believe that we shall do this.
The second form of opposition lo the Bill comes from those who argue that it does not go far enough in preventing racial discrimination. Here I believe we should acknowledge the validity of some of those criticisms, and I must say I accept some of the criticisms that we have heard from a few of those who have spoken in your Lordships' House this afternoon. For example, I cannot see at the moment how the employment provisions in the Bill can be interpreted in any other way than giving the employer the right to continue racial discrimination—under the pretext of maintaining a fair balance in the composition of his labour force. I can more easily accept that there is a problem with employers who possess very small staffs, but the Bill provides for that situation and I feel it does so fairly and reasonably.
During the debate on this Bill in another place my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, explained effectively why the Race Relations Board will be primarily a conciliatory body and why they are denied certain powers of enforcement. There was strength in his argument and I hope experience will prove him right. Nevertheless, it is

79
understandable for many to consider that unless the Race Relations Board are given sufficient powers to carry out the Act—which in some important respects they do not appear to have under the provisions of this Bill—there is a serious danger that they will be unable to carry out their work adequately. Therefore, like some other noble Lords, I would suggest that the Government look once again at some of these aspects of the Bill. It would be a tragedy if, having taken the decision that legislation is necessary, the Government then, through a misguided attempt to gain approval and support in the more reactionary sectors of industry and the community, destroyed any real effect and benefit which the Bill might have had.
It would also be a tragedy if it were felt that the Bill was in itself sufficient to meet the challenge posed by racial discrimination in our society. Fortunately, the Government have already done a good deal more. The special educational and other social needs of the immigrant community have been recognised in the new local government grant structure which was introduced last year. There still remains much more to be done in the recognition and provision of services for these special social needs, but I welcome the start which has been made.
But what is also needed, as we look at the problem of race relations in the years ahead, is not simply legislative or social policy solutions but a comprehensive domestic and international approach. We need a continuing commitment by successive British Governments to the principles of racial equality and harmony in all spheres of public life, domestic and international. And this must involve, above all else, a fresh concern for our relations with the underdeveloped countries. The gap between rich and poor countries in the world is increasing, and it is increasingly a racial as well as a material gap. What we must recognise is the attitude which we now take to our overseas aid and foreign economic policies will not only influence the size of the gap but also the whole quality of life in the international community and at home. A world of rich white nations and poor black ones will be a tense, divided and explosive world. In such a world we should be on the defensive, fear-
80
ful of what might happen, and it would be fear and insecurity more than anything else which would breed in our society intolerance and hatred and do irreparable harm to the kind of ideals and aims which lay behind the Bill we are considering to-day.
This Bill is about race and colour. Prima facie, therefore, it is not about religious discrimination, which it is well to remember. It is also important to realise that a question all too often still asked in this enlightened State which has offered peace and asylum to so many over the long years is, "Is he English or is he a Jew?". Noble Lords certainly do not have to be reminded that one who is a Jew by religion can be as British and proud of it as anyone else. The Jew is especially interested in a debate on coloured immigration because he has often experienced the problem from the inside. He has been the victim down the ages of propaganda of the pattern which—alas!—is now heard here, and which has been affecting the most fair-minded citizens. So it is a time for the Jew to stand up fearlessly and give an example of humanity towards another minority group.
There is one more reason why no Jew can sit back and allow racialism to grow. If he is true to his religious upbringing he recognises that man was created in the image of God—not white man, nor black man, but man, every man. As Abraham Heschel has put it:
"God is every man's pedigree. He is either the Father of all men or of no man. The image of God is either in every man or in no man."
I should only hope that this Bill will pass your Lordships' House "nem con". I urge the widest possible support for it, and I would just add these few remarks, because it is known to some of your Lordships that I carry out certain work in the sociological fields and aspects of rapid technological change. Let us not overlook on the one hand that this nation needs rapid technological change; otherwise, by comparison with its competitors abroad it will have more unemployment more quickly. Let us also realise, however, that with the introduction of rapid technological change it is the coloured people who will first be inclined to lose their jobs but for this kind of Bill. I should like to leave your Lordships with those words and sentiments.
6.30 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, opened our debate this afternoon with a speech, I thought, of admirable clarity in which he explained the provisions and intentions of this Bill. I take, frankly, a far less optimistic view of this Bill than he does. I can, however, greatly shorten what I have to say because I agreed so emphatically with nearly everything said in the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who opened on this side.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the Home Secretary in another place pointed out, at the outset of their speeches, that we must carefully distinguish between the questions of the numbers of immigrants whom we admit and the way we treat those lawfully here. With that I find it all the easier to agree because I made the same point myself nearly four years ago when I first spoke on this particular topic in this House on December 1, 1964. If, to justify the position I am going to adopt this afternoon, I do not deal with the argument in great detail, it is because anybody who takes the least interest in my own attitude to these problems can find it in that speech and in subsequent speeches, on March 10, 1965, and November 3, 1966.
Although the questions, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham said, are distinct, yet they have a close relationship; and the relationship was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. Unless the most careful restriction is placed on the numbers of our immigrants there is no chance whatsoever that this Bill will bring about the results which Her Majesty's Government desire. I said nearly four years ago what I have said ever since, and what I now repeat. I think that on this question of the numbers of immigrants whom we can profitably admit to our shores the great masses of the public have throughout shown much more wisdom than the politicians.
Equal and humane treatment for all our citizens lawfully here, whatever their colour, is I think the aim of every one of us, no matter to what Party he belongs and irrespective of whether he thinks this a good Bill or a bad Bill. But the fact that we are in favour of equal and humane treatment for all our citizens does not in itself mean that any
82
legislation is necessary. All our citizens at present enjoy equality before the law. The case for this Bill must be that a new law is required, and in a moment I will come to my reasons for thinking that this is probably right.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally leaves this aspect, would he bear in mind that he has committed himself to the view that unless there is strict control of entry of immigrants, on the lines suggested by his noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, this legislation will fail? The only new restriction, so far as I am aware, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was that we should exclude children between the ages of 13 and 16, a comparatively small number of the dependant immigrants now coming in. Does the noble Lord think that the exclusion of that small number will make this absolutely right?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I hesitate to make this a triangular intervention, but what I said was that that was the first obvious step to take.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I really do not want to enter into great detail, because I do not wish to make my speech too long. What I am saying is that, while I agree with the Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that we must consider separately the questions of the numbers we admit and the way we treat our citizens, of all colours, lawfully here, the questions are interconnected; because unless we maintain—and even, I think, make conditions more stringent—the control of the entry of further immigrants I believe that this Bill will fail in its objects. I may be right or I may be wrong, but it is not very wicked to take that view.
I was saying that to achieve that aim of equality of treatment does not necessarily require new legislation of the type that is now before us—or, indeed, new legislation at all. As my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor pointed out, when you seek and are eager to immigrate into another country, you do not demand that it shall change its laws. That is a simple fact which I think should be generally recognised. The great desire to enter this country is still exhibited by innumerable would-be immigrants who are not, as a condition of coming to

83
this country, demanding any change in our law.
Nevertheless, let me go on to say why I do not for that reason propose to oppose this Bill. Though it is, I think, clearly established that the mere desire for equality of treatment of the immigrants does not necessitate legislation, nevertheless it is a fact, I think, that the P.E.P. Report and other careful reports which have come before us strongly suggest that some changes are necessary if equal and humane treatment is to be fully enjoyed by the immigrant people. Even more important than its being enjoyed by the immigrant people, is that it shall be enjoyed by their children who are born here and have never seen any other country. Therefore I come to the conclusion that certain reforms are required to bring about the desired result, and some of those reforms may well be changes in the law.
What I hope will be appreciated is the very great difficulty of the legislation that is necessary if we are to bring about the result we desire, and the real danger that such legislation can do more harm than good, unless it is wise and carefully considered. On the question of the merits of the legislation there are real, genuine and honest differences of opinion, inside the Parties, between the Parties in this House and in the other House, and it is really no good describing any opinion from which you happen to differ as prejudice. I said in my first speech on this subject in your Lordships' House that I did not think I was prejudiced on racial matters but that I did not know, because I did not think that a prejudiced man is ever aware of the fact. I simply do not know how one finds out if one is prejudiced. I even reminded the House of that admirable statement of the late Lord Hewart:
"The only impartiality possible to the human mind is that which arises from understanding neither side of the case."
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, who made a most strenuous and somewhat violent speech, attacked the Conservative Members in another place who voted against this Bill. But the reason they voted against this Bill was that they thought it was a bad Bill. There again they may have been right or they may have been wrong. But if you happen to think a
84
Bill is a bad Bill you are not really wicked in voting against it. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, seemed to assume that the only possible grounds for opposition to this Bill would be some unworthy grounds. Let me make it quite clear that I do not think that people who wish to preserve the environment in which they and their fathers and grandfathers have lived, who wish to preserve that environment as what our history has made it, and do not wish it to be utterly transformed by alien immigrants are wholly unworthy people. I do not think there is anything necessarily wrong with that desire. People sometimes say, "Ah, but we must have a multiracial society". Of course we must have a multiracial world. Of course, we must have, so long as we have a Commonwealth, a multi-racial Commonwealth. But are we quite sure that we want every little bit of it to be multiracial? I personally do not desire that in the least, and I quoted in previous debates, not some reactionary such as noble Lords may think me, but Don Salvador de Madariaga a great Liberal, and I read what he had said on this subject.
My Lords, if we are to legislate (I agree with the Government in thinking that there is a case for legislation) to improve the lot of some of these immigrants, and even more so of their children born here, who have never known any other country, what are the requirements of the difficult law we have to devise? First of all, I think that the law should be clear and simple. It should involve the minimum interference with the ordinary lives of decent people. It should not contain provisions which strike the native population as oppressive or unfair; and, finally, it should not itself give rise to greater evils than it seeks to cure. In all that I think perhaps Ministers may agree with me. They may differ from me when I say that I do not think that all those requirements have been met in the provisions of this Bill; but that is my view. I could give many examples. I think the Bill contains some strange provisions. It says that you may sell your own private house to anybody you like, but that if you want to sell to a member of a particular class in the community, or a particular nationality, you must not employ a house agent for the purpose. Is that right? I think it needs rather careful consideration.

85
What rather worries me are some of the strange legal provisions in this Bill, which even the Minister who moved the Third Reading in another place got wrong. Let me quote his words. He was referring to the night when the Bill got its Third Reading as an historic occasion. He said:
"I believe that it will be an historic occasion when this Parliament declares that discrimination in all fields covered by this Bill is not only morally wrong, but an offence in law".—[0FFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 9/7/68, col. 446.]
"An offence in law" strongly suggests that he thought that a criminal offence was being created; but of course it was not. I do not want to make too much of that, because it may have been merely a slip of the tongue. But it is rather remarkable that that statement should have been made by the Minister who was moving the Third Reading.
One of the things that troubles me, as a lawyer, is the strangeness of the legal provisions. The prohibitions do not create a crime; they create a new type of quasi-tort or civil wrong. But they do not allow the injured party to sue on his own behalf; the Race Relations Board initiate the proceedings. Nor will the trial take place before a judge alone, but before a judge with the assessors referred to in Clause 18(7). All these are novel provisions. Let me say at once to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that I admit that they are not necessarily wrong just because they are novel. The Government are embarking on legislation in a rather new field, and it is difficult. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will think that these provisions are sufficiently novel, and that we are departing so much from well-established tradition and well-tried legal provisions—both the traditions of the criminal law and the traditions of the law of tort—that it will be most desirable carefully to consider these provisions in detail in Committee.
In fairness to the Government, I say at once that I am not saying that these provisions are necessarily wrong, but I am saying that they require the closest examination. In saying that I have not overlooked what was said in the interesting speech of the Attorney General at the concluding stages of the Report stage in another place. I fear that some of
86
these novel legal provisions, and particularly what is said about damages, may cause great difficulty in carrying out the provisions of this Bill and may give both parties a sense of injustice, both the man who seeks the damages and the man from whom the damages are being sought. If I may mention one other clause which worries me, it is Clause 22, which, unless we take great care, may be capable of causing some danger of blackmailing threats. This is the clause which deals with privileged communications and seems to make it possible that any person, whether he has a real grievance or a purely invented grievance, can communicate with the Race Relations Board, and nothing that he says can ever be disclosed to anyone. He is, therefore, if he chooses to lie or to make the most injurious falsehoods about the people about whom he complains, capable, it seems to me, of creating trouble and injustice without being liable himself for any of the consequences.
Some provisions in the Bill seem to me to be unnecessary. I think that there are some evils which the Government see and against which they have attempted to provide in the Bill but against which there might be very real remedies without legislation at all. Let me take the example of insurance. I suppose it is conceivable that some insurance company might ask some coloured man for a higher premium than the risk really justified, but if that happened generally I should have thought it was virtually certain that there would be other insurance companies who would come in to cover the risk. The noble Lord who immediately preceded me made me wonder whether my memory was correct, but I believe there was a time in the history of this country when it was suspected that the Jews were being discriminated against in the matter of insurance. I may be wrong, but I believe—and it is an interesting fact if my memory is right—that one of the results was the formation of one of our greatest insurance companies, the Alliance. If that is correct, it seems to me to indicate how wrong we are, if we wish to deal with discrimination, in believing that it is always necessary to deal with it by legislation.
My Lords, I confess that I dislike this Bill because I believe it will have

87
almost the opposite effect to that which I recognise the Government genuinely and sincerely seek. I think it may cause ill-will that could well be avoided. Nevertheless, there are in the Bill provisions which have been carefully considered and which I think we must now be willing to try. I am sure it will get an unopposed Second Reading in this House, but then I hope we shall subject it in Committee to very careful consideration, to see whether we can exclude some provisions that are unwise and improve the form in certain respects.
There is one other thing which I would say. The 1965 Act has been mentioned here this afternoon and in another place last week, and it was said that when that Act was introduced as a Bill some people made equally pessimistic prognostications about its effect. I was glad to hear—I think from one or two of the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon—that that Bill had in their view done a considerable amount of good. Curiously enough, they attribute that good to something that was not in the Bill at all when they introduced it but was introduced by Amendments of the Conservative Party.
My Lords, I do not think that Act has had wholly desirable results. There have been some undesirable results. I think my noble friend, Lord Elton, who is to speak later in the debate, has had the experience—I know other friends of mine, both in this House and elsewhere, have had the experience—of people who have had something really important to say about race relations, the position in their town and their street, and who are frightened of even giving their names because they think that free speech on this subject has been virtually abolished by that Act. That view is not diminished by a recent prosecution under the Act at Lewes Assizes, although I am glad to say that the accused on that occasion were well defended and the jury acquitted them all. My Lords, I apologise if I have occupied the House too long. I think that this legislation, in part, may be required, but it requires the most searching examination.
6.57 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I must, first of all, offer an apology to the Lord Chancellor and the House that when I have finished, or shortly after-
88
wards, I shall have to leave the House and thus not be able to listen to the other speeches, including the concluding one, but I am due this evening to speak in my own district to a number of immigrants from various communities; therefore I am at least fulfilling the conciliatory purpose of the Bill if I am absent from further proceedings in this House.
The noble Lord who has just sat down gave us a very interesting speech, and I rather gather that he is in favour of the Bill but wishes to improve it. I am sure he will do his best to see that that is done when the Committee stage is reached. Meanwhile, may I say that I was interested when he confessed he was not quite sure whether he was prejudiced, and I can advise him to apply one little test, which is to turn to the pages of the Observer, if he has not read them already, and carefully read those pages regarding the opinions of certain citizens in a certain town in the Midlands of this country. If, after reading those opinions, he is complacent and indifferent and unconcerned, I would say that he can rightly conclude he is prejudiced against the coloured immigrants of this country.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I just say that I have no doubt one can find out that one is prejudiced. What I was wondering was how one finds out that one is not prejudiced.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I would say myself if, on reading those pages, you feel yourself morally concerned, then you are not prejudiced against the coloured immigrants, but are prejudiced in favour of certain moral values. I offer that to the noble Lord and I am sure he will gain by it.
To return to the Bill, may I say that it naturally concerns me, as it does a number of other Members of this House, because I am the descendant of an immigrant. My name obviously comes from that element from abroad which has richly increased the British stock. I am referring not only to Canute, of course, but to those later immigrants, including a noble lady who married one of our monarchs, and my own grandfather, who came at the same time from that country but not on the same boat. There are other Members of this House, I know,

89
who can trace back their ancestors who were immigrants from various countries to a much greater length than I can, some even going back to the days of William the Conqueror, I understand, who was a kind of aggressive immigrant.
It has been remarked to me that we ourselves are a very mixed community. I remember Miss Rathbone startling the other House one day by saying that we were a mongrel race. Personally I should never use that kind of language but when it comes from a lady, and a very elegant lady at that, no doubt it was suitably translated. It is true that we are all more or less of immigrant stock. In fact those who are English are immigrants, for before they came there were the British, and even those were not of the original stock. This applies to most countries of the world. Even India, which I know fairly well, has mainly an immigrant population. The Indians themselves were by no means the original race. There were the Dravidians, and before them there were the aboriginals of India. The same is true of any other country one may name. There is not a pure stock in the world; they are all mixtures.
We are perturbed in this country because recently we have had a number of immigrants from abroad whose pigmentation happens to be darker than our own. But we are all coloured. We constantly use the word "coloured" as if it were synonymous with sable or dark, whereas we are pinkish or pasty-faced, as the case may be, and the spectrum proceeds from one extreme to the other. We are all coloured. Unfortunately, although the majority of human beings in the world are dark-coloured brown or black and then through the various shades, we in this country with our 55 million people are mostly pale. Because there has been an influx of immigrants whose distinctiveness from ours is more obvious, we are concerned lest this is a threat to our national characteristics. In trying to analyse the cause of the undoubted prejudice that exists in this country against certain types of immigrants, I have come to the conclusion that the reaction is due to what I call the gregarious fear of intrusion or invasion from another community. This is very unwise and takes many forms. Sometimes it takes the form of fear of the intrusion of different theological or
90
religious ideas; sometimes it takes the form of fear of intrusion of different political or ideological ideas; and sometimes it takes the form of fear of the intrusion of some other sub-race of the human family.
We should appreciate that our problem in this country regarding immigration is not peculiar to ourselves. The whole world has the same problem in one way or the other. In India fix centuries there has been a caste system, although legal action has been taken with some beneficial effects regarding the untouchables. It has been interesting to see that legislation can assist in educating a community, but nevertheless the feeling still exists in that country that there are certain people who must be avoided because they belong to a particular community. Equally in Africa there are certain tribes who assume that they are superior to other tribes, who believe they must not mix and that in some magical way they are distinctive.
Do not let us assume that our own problem here is peculiar or singular to ourselves. It occurs in one form or another in many other parts of the world. Nevertheless, we have to grapple with our own problem. I am glad indeed that in this House at least this P ill is receiving overwhelming support, in contrast with the divisions which existed in the other place. It is quite true that just as wars begin in the minds of men so does prejudice begin in men's minds; one cannot eradicate it. If people want to be stupid and foolish, if they want to be conditioned to assume that their group, community or gang is superior and that all others are inferior, one can do nothing about it except to try to instil in them a little enlightenment.
One remembers again the article which occupied two whole pages in the Sunday Press describing the reactions of people in a certain area. I hope that the Members of Parliament for that area, no matter to what Party they belong, will take an opportunity to appear together on some public platform and say: "We may agree or disagree regarding the curb on further immigration, but we, members of all Parties, are unite d in feeling that the people of this town should see to it that they treat one another with decency and respect" I appeal to those Members who live in

91
that area and who belong to another place to do that. If they did that, especially in regard to one of great scholarly eminence, it would have a profound psychological effect, not only on that district, but on the whole of the country.
Although one cannot change the minds of men if they are cemented in prejudice, one can prevent the expression of their prejudice. When I leave this House to go to my own district to speak to these diverse immigrants, I obey the law and observe the traffic lights. But if there were no traffic lights, I might be disposed to obey my impulse and go at 50 or 60 miles an hour, knocking people down in the process. I do not do so, partly because the traffic lights exist to remind me of the law and partly, I hope, because I try to be a decent, law-abiding driver. So it is with this menace of racial prejudice. It is irrational, but people are irrational. They live very often by irrational impulses, by emotion, instincts and conditioned reflexes—things which often dominate men's behaviour. Nevertheless, in respect of other matters because of legislation their impulses have been checked; and because of that checking they themselves gradually come to have a more enlightened view of mankind and its values.
I wish to say this before I conclude, because it is unfair to speak for as long as some Members of the House have found it necessary to speak. We in this House ourselves suffer from prejudices and disabilities. The time has now passed when the fact that one was a Peer of the Realm brought instant obsequiousness and the touching of the lock. Unfortunately, we have now become in some ways figures of fun. I am not so much thinking of that side of the matter, but the fact that we suffer from the disability that we are not as free as other citizens may be. We cannot vote. Let us imagine that the Lords Temporal or the Lords Spiritual suffered not merely that disability but others, and because of growing prejudice against them, when they wanted a room in London or Blackpool, or wherever it may be, they were asked: "Have you ever been to prison?"—"No."; "Have you ever been in a mental hospital?"—
92
"No."; Have you ever been a Member of the House of Lords?"—"Yes.", and it were then said: "Then I am sorry, the room is already let." If such a reaction, frivolous and facetious as it may seem, were to take place, we should all join together and say, "It is absurd that we should allow such a prejudice to exist in that way". We would take action to see that the prejudice was not expressed. We should see to it that no Peer, Spiritual or Temporal, was unable to take a job, to insure properly, or to get accommodation which was available for other people, merely because he happened to be a Lord Spiritual or Temporal. Of course, that would be ludicrous.
Therefore, I plead for all to realise that, just as we would not tolerate such stupid prejudice against men and women in this House because they happen to be Peers of the Realm, so also we should apply the same principle to those whose only difference happens to be a darker pigmentation of their skin. I am not saying that there are not other factors, for there are, and one knows what they are. But I say that the mere factor of the obvious difference in pigmentation is the thing that is uppermost in the minds of many people and leads them to react with even blinder prejudice than to other immigrants. This applies particularly to the poorer people of this country. This does not apply to those who are better off and who perhaps have friends in this House who have comfortable mansions where they can go and stay as friends. It is the poorer folk who have to bear the burden.
For that reason I trust that this Bill will be passed into law, although we must recognise that we still have a tremendous job to do in educating the minds and spirits of people so that they shall be enlightened and civilised. Let us also realise that, if this Bill is passed, it can check the expression of those stupid impulses, and help us to transcend our natural inheritance of dislike of those who are not like us and to understand the inner meaning of a text which, in one way or another, is in not only the Christian Bible, but all the scriptures of the world:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
7.11 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I was very sorry when the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, left the Front Bench, but I am rather pleased this evening because his move seems to have liberated him. May I also say, as a matter of interest, that I believe the inhabitants of the Western Hebrides are descended from the first people who occupied those machar lands after they became habitable from the ocean, so that they, at least, are perhaps aboriginals. I should also like to say that I found it much more difficult to get a job as a Peer than if I had not been a Peer.
Old men find that making new friends is not a very easy or a very common experience, so I was greatly pleased when the other day I met a man of very high character, a Tamil from Ceylon. During that meeting, when we approved of one another, I told hilt that making friends with him gave me added pleasure because he and his race had been very unfairly discriminated against by the Socialist Government in 1946. That was before the Socialists "saw the light".
It has always seemed to me that this matter of discrimination is principally a question of good manners. I sympathise very greatly with all that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, but I think he is going the wrong way about solving the problem. Gentleness is often very much better than force, and my differences with Her Majesty's Government today arise principally from that fact. If the Government had taken a gentler way with Rhodesia, we should have been in a better position than we are in as a result of their taking the hard way. That has always been my view; and not only on the question of Rhodesia. I think that this Bill will do harm, because it will make the situation worse (and I shall give some reasons for saying that), and in two years' time the situation will have deteriorated. But in looking back then we shall forget the situation as it is to-day, and we shall say that the Bill was, after all, needed. That is the way in which bad legislation is apt to seem to justify itself.
One of my objections to this Bill is that when it becomes an Act it will not be applied indiscriminately as between all men. It has been argued here as if
94
it were applying merely to relations with coloured people, and as if that were the only discrimination. But of course there are any number of other discriminations. As the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, pointed out, at one time there were firms which would not employ Irishmen, and I believe that even to-day there are arms that will not employ Scotsmen or Welshmen. But we laugh at it, and dc not care.
There is a provincial firm which I admire very much and which does a very fine job. It is run by Jews who Jo a lot of export work and, naturally, they bring us exchange. They also raise our reputation, because their work is so excellent. They give very good terms to their employees, but their Christian employees complained to me that, while they get good wages and conditions of work, none of them ever gets promotion. All the promotion in the firm goes to the Jews. Now if the Jews are a race—and, with great deference, I feel that people who have been customarily subjected to inbreeding for 15 centuries must be called a race—then I think they come under the condemnation of this Bill. But I am perfectly certain that the Race Relations Board will never attack those people for that; and even if they did they could not get very far, because they could easily centre their business on one of their branches abroad, and we should then lose the headquarters of a very flourishing and profitable business.
There are many other examples. There are all these Indian restaurants scattered around London. I have never been into one, but I am perfectly certain that they employ Indian immigrants for their staff; and they must do so, because they want to make their fellows feel at home. It is exactly what the Huguenots did when they came to this country. I am quite certain that this Bill will not be put into operation against people of that sort, and it would be a great misfortune if it were, because I think those activities are perfectly justified.
I should like to refer to subsection (1) of Clause 12 which says:
"Anything done by a person in the course of his employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as done by his employer as well as by him, whether or not it was done with the employer's knowledge or approval."

95
We have just had the Press and people of this country crying out in indignation because a Miss Sweet was held to be guilty of some offence against the drugs law of which she neither knew nor could have prevented. But this clause gives a discontented employee or workman a chance of taking revenge on his employer, who may know absolutely nothing about what is going on and be no party to it. That seems extremely unjust.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the difference between this Bill and the case the noble Lord mentioned is that there is a defence provided in the Bill. If he will look further down the clause, he will see that. This is not an offence of absolute responsibility.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I shall withdraw that.
I now come to Part II, which settles the position of the Race Relations Board. I am perfectly certain that if the Board are to be composed of people of the highest possible character and of very great ability, whose duty is to accept complaints and inquire about them, those inquiries will have to very minute, because, obviously, after this Bill becomes law nobody will discriminate. There will always be some other reason given, which may be true or false. After all, we are really legislating about what a person thinks. The Board will have to make their inquiry and come to a decision. Their position will be very much that of the Holy Office of the Spanish Inquisition when it was first introduced into Spain.
It has always been a shock to me, when reading Spanish history, to realise what a very fine character Torquemada was. None the less, the Spanish Inquisition had a very grievous effect upon the history of Spain; and while I do not anticipate that the Race Relations Board will have such a dire effect on us, I think that a body constituted like this, with these powers of inquiry, is a danger. When they come to their conclusions we must remember that those conclusions may be wrong or may be right, but if they are wrong it will produce a very deep sense of injustice in the people who are aggrieved, and that will make matters far worse.
96
My Lords, I shall not divide against this Bill, but one of my reasons for distrusting it is its place in the context of the Government's whole position—previous legislation which has been passed and recent declarations by Ministers of the Government about the population, saying that people with large families are a menace to the country and are taking unfair advantage of their neighbours.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord?
LORD SALTOUN: Certainly.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord has just made a statement about families, saying that it was Government policy. There has been no statement of Government policy on that subject at all. It is not Government policy.
LORD SALTOUN: It was very unfortunate, as I think it is going to have an effect on racial prejudice, because it will be heard only by what you may call the educated classes in Britain. The others will all disregard it; and it will very much tend to add to racial prejudice. I certainly should not vote against this Bill, but I very much fear that it may have consequences which are contrary to those for which the Government hope.
7.23 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have listened with great interest, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, but I must disagree with him by saying that I accept and welcome this Bill. I know it may have one or two defects, but it is on the right lines and a step in the right direction. I think the position has become much more serious and grave than the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, appears to imagine. It is not just a question of good manners, but needs considerably more encouragement if we are to get the full integration that we require.
The Bill has been generally welcomed on this side of the House and, with certain qualifications, on the other side. As the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has reminded us, the Conservative Party in the other place voted against the Bill. I have tried to find out, with some difficulty, what the policy of the Conservative Party is over this matter. Here we are, my Lords: we are faced with a situation

97
where there are nearly one million coloured immigrants, 2 per cent. of the population of this country, and it seems to me that there are three alternatives. One is that one could do nothing. One could adopt the traditional policy of laissez-faire: one could forget all about it. Secondly, one could encourage the immigrants to return in large numbers to their countries of origin, but I should not have thought that that was practical on economic grounds, and certainly it would not be acceptable on moral grounds. Therefore, the only acceptable alternative is the third one, which is to encourage integration.
It is no good bringing in red herrings by saying that the whole problem would be solved if we did not permit any more immigrants to come here. As my noble friend Lord Stonham said, it would be quite wrong to prohibit children from joining their relatives and parents; but even if that were done, we should still have one million coloured people in this country. That is something we have to face, and it is no good pulling these red herrings along and trying to pretend that the whole problem would be solved if we stopped further immigration. That is why I welcome this Bill. It covers a wider field than the previous Act; and, furthermore, it now lays down that discrimination is wrong in principle. It also strengthens the machinery for conciliation. It should give support to everybody who is trying to eliminate racial discrimination in many fields. It should make all of us face things and think again about our attitudes to this question—perhaps the most important question of our time, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said.
Several noble Lords have referred to the P.E.P. investigation into this subject. It appears from this—and I have also studied it—that there is considerable racial discrimination everywhere, but particularly, as my noble friend the Minister reminded us, in the fields of housing and employment. The Report also makes clear that the coloured immigrants, and particularly those from the West Indies, are the ones who suffer most. This investigation made tests, and it was clear that there was far less discrimination where the colour was not different, particularly in the case of people from Cyprus or from Hungary. Therefore this
98
is a situation which must be faced, and the integration of these large numbers of coloured people is important. I cannot agree that it will solve itself in time. Indeed, I am informed that the problem will become even more acute as the years go by. When the bad housing districts, the slums, are cleared, many of the immigrants living in them will have to be transferred to other housing, mainly council houses. That is already happening in Birmingham—and I welcome the report which was contained in The Times of July 13. I think, if I may say so, that Birmingham is tackling this problem in a most admirable way.
There is also the question of the children. Many of the children of these immigrants will have been born here and educated here. Some of them will have gained excellent qualifications at sc tool. They are not going to be content to do the lowest-paid jobs; and yet I understand that at present discrimination is worst against those with qualifications. I am not talking here about professional people but about skilled labour, craftsmen and applicants for office jobs. There is therefore the utmost need for every encouragement to mix and integrate and for these immigrants to be accepted by the whole community. The alternative will be the gravest social problems and unrest, as we dare witnessing to-day in the United States. I think that all of us who know the United States and Harlem and some of the worst slums of Chicago must realise that that kind of situation could arise in this country one day if s something is not done.
I should like to ask about three clauses in the Bill. First, Clause 2, which refers to facilities and services. I wander whether this includes clubs. Many clubs do not practice discrimination, but some do. Reference has been made in this debate to people of the Jewish faith. I believe that certain golf clubs practice discrimination against Jews, which I think is absolutely disgraceful. I should like to know from the Government whether that kind of attitude will be covered by the Bill. Then there is Clause 6, the definition of advertisements. I am not sure whether this is wide enough. It is very less wide than the definition of advertisements contained in, say, the Trade Descriptions Act or the Gaming

99
Bill at present in Committee. I should like to know whether the Government are quite sure that this clause will catch circulars and other forms of advertising.
I welcome Clause 24 which deals with research. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Walston said about this. Much more research into this question is urgently needed, and I hope that the Government will arrange for this to be encouraged. I agree with Lord Walston that it is probably better for it to be undertaken not by the Home Office but by the universities or official bodies. I am very concerned with what my noble friend told us about the lack of funds and how this important research has had to come to an end. I am glad that the Government are now undertaking responsibility for this matter because we know far too little about the reasons and the irrational fears behind so much of this prejudice.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, says we are now in deep and mysterious waters, but what we do know is that racial prejudice is almost non-existent in children if they are left alone. I was interested in what the most reverend Primate said about the establishment in certain areas of pre-school playgrounds, so that white and coloured children could play together. Prejudice is much less frequent among young people. I think young people are much more sensible about these things as they are about so much else. It is rarely found among artists and creative people. Artists generally are more interested in a person's talent than in his origin. It is not so frequently found in the professions or in sport, or, indeed, wherever there is a common interest or purpose. I should like, therefore, to ask the Government what they intend by this research, so that this very important field can be extended. In conclusion, I welcome this Bill which I regard as an important support for all those who are striving for racial tolerance.
7.34 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, as often happens, this debate has shown that there is a great deal of thinking on both sides of the House which is not at all hostile. My purpose in speaking is to declare my support for the views expressed in another place by Mr. Hogg and for those expressed to-day
100
by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who, if I may say so, made what I thought was a first-class speech. Lord Brooke and Mr. Hogg have given a lead to my Party which I strongly support. I hope very much that their words will be heard well above the clamour of the less desirable speeches that have been made from time to time by members of my Party. I am quite sure that they represent what the Conservative Party stands for in this matter. I agreed with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said. He asked, "What does the Conservative Party stand for?" My answer is: We stand for what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said to-day and for what Mr. Hogg said in the winding-up speech he made in another place. That, I think, is the real answer to the noble Lord; and I hope it is an answer which he will feel is a satisfactory one.
My Lords, we are faced with a desperately difficult problem and one which is becoming more acute. That is why, in spite of the difficulties of legislation, it is right that there should be a Bill. I am not a lawyer. I could not follow all that my noble friend Lord Conesford said about the different clauses in the Bill, and therefore I cannot judge the merits of this Bill from the legal point of view; but until it is tried out in practice it will be difficult to see whether it does all that we hope it will do—which is to stop any form of discrimination against immigrants into this country.
This is not, of course, a new problem. Anyone who has had anything to do with Parliamentary responsibility in another place for any of the great ports of this country, or for any of the great Midlands cities, will know that we have always had strangers in our midst. Up to now—I think as a result of tactful handling of the situation—we have managed to avoid any of the worst manifestations of prejudice. That is not to say that these might not appear to-day. I think that we are wise in taking steps to prevent them, and I hope that the Bill will have the desired results.
There is one thing which we have avoided in the past and which I hope we shall continue to avoid in the future. It is the stirring up of prejudice on many subjects which have lain dormant. My mind goes back to my own experiences

101
when associated for 35 years with a constituency in Glasgow where there was always prejudice which one was most anxious not to stir up. These were not race prejudices; they were religious prejudices. One did not go to an Orange Lodge and talk about the Roman Catholics; neither did one go to the Roman Catholics and talk about what was going on in the Orange Lodges. One avoided this; and by avoiding those stirring-up speeches of that kind one avoided arousing those prejudices. For many generations there were serious religious prejudices. To-day there is tolerance, largely because, very wisely, everybody carefully avoids raising these problems in public. I think the same could be said to some extent with regard to race relations.
I should like to say one or two things about my personal experiences with this particular problem. They have been happier experiences than one would sometimes think from reading newspaper articles. About two years ago, or a little longer, I went on a tour in the Midlands. I was taken over one of the large Yorkshire wool-spinning mills. It was an enormous place. There I saw a great number of coloured workers at the looms. I asked the management whether they had difficulties in regard to the immigrants. They said that they did not; that the immigrants there worked happily with the ordinary inhabitants and were quite satisfactory. Then I inquired about social welfare arrangements and about education; and discovered, as I thought I should, that the education authority was providing good schools and that the social welfare arrangements of the local city council were excellent.
I also had an agreeable experience when setting up the office which I have recently left. We had to find, from all over London, people who would come to work in it. We took people irrespective of whether they were inhabitants of London or immigrants, and we built up a small but exceedingly happy staff in which there were quite a few coloured and immigrant young people. The only test we imposed was whether they were able to do the job that we wanted them to do. I know that these are only two small experiences but I believe that they could be multiplied in the same way as could
102
the bad experiences about which one hears.
It seems, therefore—and this has come out in Press articles—that one of the great obstacles to integration and doing sway with race prejudice is simply material things; the fact that there are not enough schools or school teachers or the housing is bad or that local authorities are not on top of the problem. Knowing how terribly dangerous is this problem, I should have thought it was worth everything to provide the necessary material things for schooling and for housing as urgently as possible.
I remember how we used to improvise during the war years in respect of matters like the evacuation of people. That experience is very vivid in my mind. We put as much material help behind our efforts as we could, because we realised that if it was to succeed, the material conditions under which people were to live had to be as good as possible. I should like to suggest that Government and local authorities put behind the provision of material things the same drive that we put behind our effort during the war years. I am sure that this would prove an enormous help. It would not, of course, do away with prejudice, which is a horrible thing and difficult to remove; but if we can provide conditions in which prejudice cannot flourish then we shall be moving in the right direction.
Of course, my Lords, the immigrants can help enormously. I have told of two experiences of successful integration, and I can tell your Lordships of an unsuccessful attempt of which I have knowledge. We had a request to the Carnegie Trustees for a grant to provide a community centre in a Midland town particularly for immigrants. We gave a grant for three years. The committee running the centre was composed mainly of immigrants, with a few local people who went to help. The difficulty was not between the residents and the immigrants but between the immigrants themselves. The venture collapsed because there were too many different races and too many different religions among the immigrants who came to the centre. This was very unfortunate, but it had nothing to do with the fact that the local inhabitants were trying to help or that the money had been given for the centre. The different sets of people could not get on with each other.

103
That might happen anywhere in any part of the country, but it certainly added to the difficulties in an area where people were trying to do their best, with good will, to bring about integration.
I believe that, as politicians and citizens, our job is to try to smooth over the difficulties and not to cry them from the house-tops or the political platforms. That is madness and only adds to the difficulties. As has been said by other speakers, people coming to this country should be given the same treatment and opportunities as are afforded to our own people. They have difficulties which we in this country do not have. They are faced with the difficulties of language and custom, and they have to become accustomed to the kind of food which they find in this country but which they do not find anywhere else. These difficulties add to their complications. Then they have to compete against our own people.
It would be a tragic day for Britain, who has set an example of tolerance throughout the ages, if we found ourselves locked in a vice of prejudice and facing problems such as our friends across the Atlantic are trying so hard to overcome. No doubt the Bill has faults and no doubt it may be improved by lawyers once they can get at it, but I think that, if it does nothing else, it will encourage people to behave with tolerance and kindness. I hope that it will be a spur to local authorities to deal with the material shortages, because then it will have done something to help to stop troubles while they are still in their infancy, and we may have an opportunity to get the integrated society which we all await.
7.46 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, went into an interesting discursion on the possible sources of colour prejudice in various classes of persons and said, I think, that at any rate children, and possibly only children, were completely immune. I am not sure that I would not go further than that, because I think, although this may seem paradoxical to your Lordships, that the great majority of the British people are largely immune from colour prejudice when it is a question only of a relationship with an individual coloured person. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of
104
Cumnor, said in his magnificent speech, it is numbers and not colour which is the problem.
I cannot help repeating to your Lordships an illustration of this from my personal experience which I think I mentioned in your Lordships' House, probably seven or eight years ago. On several occasions my wife and I have entertained black immigrants from the Caribbean in our home. Wherever we took then in our village they were received with open arms. It was perfectly obvious that their colour was a recommendation. But more or less the same was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, if 500 of them had descended on the village and totally transformed its character within a couple of years, of course there would be tensions of course there would be prejudice. But from my experience in the Army and among the immigrants and in my own village, I do not believe that the British people are prejudiced against colour as such, unless through the ineptitude of successive Governments they get too much of it.
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, sat down, I thought that I would not speak because he had said practically everything I wanted to say and he said it very much better than I could. In my eyes the great merit, or one of the great merits, of his speech was that, unlike some speakers, he looked at the problem in the round. He emphasised the consequences of the Bill not only to the immigrants but to our native population. After all, my Lords, this is a Bill of twofold operation. It will have consequences for the native population and for the immigrants, and those two consequences must interlock. Neither will be successful unless the other is successful. I think that too many speeches have assumed that if we can pass the right legislation for immigrants it will not really matter what is the consequence to, or the reaction of, the native population. I think that reaction and those consequences will, in the long run, be just as important for the immigrants as the direct action of the Bill itself.
I do not think that I should have got up to speak if I had not been especially interested in this problem of immigration, probably for longer than some of your Lordships. It was in 1956 that I moved

105
a Motion drawing attention to the intractable social problems likely to arise if we admitted too many immigrants too quickly; and I said then, as I have said many times since, that the problem was not the colour of the immigrants but their numbers; and that when admitted here, they must be treated like any other British citizens. I think that that twofold view now commends itself to more than 90 per cent. of the population, though it did not receive so much support in 1956.
What I ask myself with regard to this Bill is: Is it going to make it easier for the immigrant and his descendants, and the native population and its descendants, to live together in equality and harmony? And do not let us forget all that the ever-tolerant British public has already done to promote the ends we are anxious to see. It is all very well for a newspaper to quote a great many selected passages of the nasty things said in a Midland town; but the British people as a whole are tolerant. Where there are tensions, they have been born primarily of the inevitable and undeniable social evils which have been produced by unplanned mass immigration; and perhaps even more by the fears of ordinary people—in Wolverhampton and Bradford, not in the Cotswolds and on the Yorkshire moors—and by their sense of having become mere flotsam and jetsam on a roaring river of change, as to which they have never been consulted and of which they have never approved.
We cannot get away from the fact that it is numbers that bedevil the whole problem. If there were a quarter of a million immigrants they would have been welcomed with open arms, and nobody would have needed or thought of this Bill.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, how does the noble Lord explain then the reaction of the dockers to the Kenya High Commissioner? That was not numbers; that was colour prejudice.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, the dockers are living in contact with mass immigration and they have their grievances. It was not right of them, but I know nothing about this incident or about the High Commissioner—
LORD BYERS: My Lords, does it matter whether he was the High Commissioner or not? The point is that he was coloured.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, of course excited men will do rude things. Many insults and unjust words and horrible behaviour have been recorded. I should think that this particular one was not worse than others that have happened. But it is all primarily due to numbers. I am sure that if the dockers had one coloured person in their street, and that was all, they would invite him to tea and take him out in their cars.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, when the noble Lord is talking about the numbers of immigrants, does he include the Irish immigrants, too?
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I am talking at the moment about those with whom this Bill is concerned.
When I look at the Bill, the first thing that strikes me—and I do not thins: that this point has been mentioned much, if at all, this evening—is the closeness with which it seems to be modelled on American legislation. I cannot he p recalling a conversation I had last week with an American friend, who is now president of one of the most distinguished places of education in America but during the War was a naval lieutenant in charge of promoting good relations between 5,000 Negroes and their fellow Servicemen in the Deep South. He told me that in the early days of his assignment, before the passage of any civil rights legislation, he would some times have a talk with leading local citizens. They would say that they were in sympathy with what he was trying to do but that he must realise that they dare not come out into the open. When the first civil rights legislation was passed, the same men did come out in the open and supported what he was trying to do.
It was the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, who said that probably one of the results of this Bill would be that, having passed it, we should find it was not really necessary, because its mere existence would produce the necessary results. If and in so far as that is the result of this Bill, I can only wish it well. But we have to remember that at the time and in the place of which

107
my American friend was speaking the Negroes were still virtually deprived of all political and legal rights, whereas immigrants here enjoy full political and legal rights as soon as they arrive. We have to remember, too, that we differ from America in our history, traditions and psychology.
I think that it is owing to the closeness of its following the American model that this Bill is too comprehensive and too unimaginative. It is so comprehensive that it goes further than the recommendations of the P.E.P. and similar inquiries, and it is so unimaginative that it often seems to ignore the possible reactions of our own people, many of whom are very conscious that they have suffered as much as, or more than, the immigrants themselves from the results of immigration. The danger of the Bill seems to me to be lest it should, in the name of promoting social equality, create a permanently privileged minority.
To put it at its crudest and simplest, when the Bill is passed, will not almost any employer who has to make an appointment, or any seller who sells a house within the restricted categories, know that if he prefers a native to an immigrant he may feel the lash of the law, whereas if he prefers an immigrant to a native he certainly will not? In other words, are we not, with the laudable intention of preventing the balance tilting one way, proceeding to tilt it the other? Are we not, in order to promote social equality, setting up legal inequality?
The danger of this is that it may create a lingering resentment among our own people in which racial prejudice may flourish instead of diminish, and (what I think is even more dangerous) it might perpetuate among the immigrants the sense of being an alien minority, necessarily protected by law because imperfectly absorbed into a semi-hostile environment. Which is precisely the mentality we do not want to produce. The danger of the Bill is that it may become a perpetual reminder that there are elements in our society for whom the normal laws and institutions of the country do not suffice, and thereby may prolong a sort of hyper-consciousness about race which would indefinitely delay the growth of that easier, more natural and
108
open attitude to it which is the prerequisite of any satisfactory racial assimilation.
There are several things in the Bill that puzzle me, and I will mention two, quite briefly. The first is that it seems to me that, however lawyers or drafters define "discrimination", it is going to be extremely difficult for the man in the street to know when he is breaking the law. Your Lordships may have noticed that about a week ago there was a report that a tenants' association in a place called Warley, in Worcestershire, claimed (with what accuracy, I do not know), after two or three years of inquiry, that there must be something like 500 polygamous immigrants in their neighbourhood. They went on to ask, "Where does this take us in relation to the Race Relations Bill?" If somebody discriminates against a possible neighbour on the ground that he is polygamous, is he discriminating against him on the ground of ethnic origin or only on an ethnic characteristic? I do not know the answer, but I can imagine a number of situations in which it would test the wisdom of a Solomon to distinguish between ethnic characteristics and ethnic origins, perhaps particularly when it comes to Indians discriminating against West Indians, or West Indians discriminating against Pakistanis, as they certainly will. I presume that this also will be covered by the Bill.
I am a little puzzled by the provision for prosecution under the civil law by the Race Relations Board. I noticed that not only the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, but also the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, welcomed this, and treated it as something which would be much less formidable a deterrent than criminal procedure. But here again I come back to the point I made before: that the Bill is closely modelled on the American example. Those of your Lordships who have followed American writings on this subject will have noticed that the American authorities and experts are very explicit: first, that coercion is an essential part of conciliations; and secondly, that the civil law must be preferred to procedure under the criminal law because it is so much more formidable a deterrent. They point out that damages are likely to be much heavier than a fine would be, and may even encourage complainants.

109
And, of course, quite apart from the expense of defending a civil case, there is the possibility not only of heavy damages, but of heavy costs, whereas the complainant's case has been handed over lock, stock and barrel to the Race Relations Board, which can draw upon the unlimited financial resources of the State. I cannot think that many defendants will be likely to face a civil trial with those possibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the Home Secretary, when moving the Second Reading, both said (I ought to have mentioned this) that this is only a last-resort procedure, intended for most blatant and prolonged offenders. I can only hope that they are right, and that it will be used very seldom: because if it were used much. I can see it producing an atmosphere of resentment in which again race relations may deteriorate instead of improve.
Finally, my Lords, my main complaint of the Bill is that it is modelled too closely on the situation and the legislation of another country, neither of which answers to our conditions; and that it does not think enough of our own people, their manifold distresses, their long record of tolerance, and all the minorities whom they have absorbed in the past, all the more readily, perhaps, because there was no legislation. However, like everybody else, I want this Bill to succeed. When it goes through, I shall wish it well. I have listened as optimistically as I could to the various prophecies of success, but I could not help remembering that a good many of those who made them so confidently had equally confidently denounced the Act of 1962, which I do not suppose one in a thousand of the electorate would wish to see repealed now. Nevertheless, the object of the Bill is racial harmony and equality, which we all want to see, and when it is passed I can only hope that my forbodings may prove to have been unjustified.
8.6 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, as the sixteenth speaker in this long debate it is difficult for me to find some original arguments, but following the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if I cannot produce any original arguments, I can certainly produce some diverse ones. I may say (and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will allow me to make a joke on
110
this serious subject) that whenever the noble Lord speaks on immigration or race I regard him as (shall I say?) my bête-noire or my bête-blanche. I really find that I could not disagree with the noble Lord more.
Let me take just a few of the points. The noble Lord talks about the fact that it is the number which is the difficulty and the problem about immigrants. What he means—and he should "come clean" about this—is the number of coloured immigrants. He does not include the Irish, as I have asked him, or the Hungarians, or the Italians, or the Maltese, or the Cypriots.
LORD ELTON: I should certainly have included them if a similar number had arrived in so short a space of time and they were the subject that we are discussing this evening.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I must say that 2 per cent. of the population is not a figure that we need dread; and neither is it a figure that has any grave consequences for the native population of this country. In fact, when one speaks about all the disabilities of the British in this country—the disabilities that they suffer on account of these coloured immigrants —I think it is most unfair not to take into account the fact that we require them here; that they are needed here f or the jobs that British people do not want. I think that the meanest myth that is being propagated to-day is the myth that these immigrants, by this Bill, are to become a privileged section of the community, when we know that they have the worst housing, they suffer the worst education, and they have disabilities of all kinds. It is this Bill which is going to try to put some of these things right.
This debate to-day is on one of the greatest moral issues in the world—race prejudice—and it has really been going on in this country for the last three years. But it has come to a head in the last few months. It is not a problem that need be approached on Party lines. As I see from the Tory Election Manifesto of 1966:
"We must ensure that all immigrants living in Britain are treated in all respects as equal citizens and without discrimination".
That is from the Tory Party Manifesto of 1966. I take that in complete good faith.

111
What we are arguing about is whether racial discrimination can be eradicated by legislation or what legislation can do to help to alleviate it. Many Conservatives maintain that racial discrimination can be eradicated only by education with the help of voluntary community organisations. In fact, they go on to say that legislation in this field infringes the cherished right of freedom of speech. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said in his most admirable, moderate speech which he made this afternoon, which I greatly admired because I know that he disagrees with the legislation in this Bill. I cannot think, though, that the noble Lord would really stretch this argument so far as to include freedom to discriminate strongly. Freedom to make an insulting remark—we all know about that; but I doubt whether he would really include freedom to discriminate strongly in freedom of speech. There was only one point which I greatly disagreed with in the noble Lord's speech, and that was when he said that he would put a stop to allowing immigrants' children between the ages of 13 and 16 to come and join their parents here. I think he might think again about this.
Personally, I would agree that good race relations are achieved by education, but I contend that legislation is an integral part of social education in this sphere and an essential starting point in this educational process. I do not believe that in tackling racial discrimination it can be left to good intentions, to the good intentions of the individual, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said, to good manners. Of course, one does not legislate for morals, but one can legislate for good behaviour, and in this wicked world I would gladly settle for decent behaviour and bypass the human heart. It is true that racial prejudice is universal and may be intractable, but there is one saving grace about it. Opinions on race are flexible and can change. Legislation has an important role to play in setting decent standards of behaviour which, in their turn, can change social attitudes. Most people accept and adjust to new laws and the fact that the law is applied to everyone, as hos been said by several noble Lords
112
to-day, is a help in overcoming individual irrational prejudice.
So, my Lords, I welcome and warmly support this Race Relations Bill and regard it as an act of political courage by the Government at this particular time. This Bill has many good features and some weaknesses, as other noble Lords have pointed out. It is widely drawn and retains the conciliatory measures of the 1965 Bill. It provides for an independent Race Relations Board. The Attorney General has no part in it, which means that it has no criminal measures. It is, however, criticised on several counts by those whose support it, as several speakers have already pointed out. The racial balance clause is really rather objectionable, and would make it possible for the prejudiced to discriminate against coloured citizens. This makes an inroad into the objectives of the Bill, and this clause is unnecessary since the true test of application for employment in this Bill is merit. Why bring in colour? Those who criticise this clause suggest that it would have been better if the employment procedures were regulated by the Race Relations Board.
There is much criticism also of the new definition of "discrimination". This is, of course, something for lawyers to worry about, and I should have thought that, with our rich and beautiful English language, a simple and precise definition could be worked out which was not open to misinterpretation by the courts or to suspicion by laymen. It seems to me that the 1965 definition was a better one than the one in this Bill, and I do not know why we did not leave it alone. Of course, the achievement of legislation is not an end in itself; only the beginning of an end.
At this time there is a great deal of loose talk denigrating the activities of Parliament, and a great responsibility falls on politicians for the laws they enact and the speeches they make. We have all heard speeches, and though I did not want to mention Mr. Enoch Powell's name, as his name has been mentioned I will do so, too. I should like to make one or two comments on his speech on the problems of race and immigration. Several noble Lords have said how courageous he was in making this speech; how we have always swept

113
these problems under the carpet. I have never been aware that we have swept these problems under the carpet and I regard his speech as a cowardly speech, and I will explain why. His speech exploited the fears both of the privileged and of the underprivileged, of the people who were underprivileged and who were insecure about all sorts of things which had nothing to do with race. I regard that sort of speech as cowardly in this respect. It provided people with a ready-made scapegoat for their emotions. None of them, not his speech nor other speeches of this kind, have ever put forward any solution to the problems in our society. They speak of this country, not as if it were an island surrounded by the sea, but as if it were a castle surrounded by a moat; and all they seek is to haul up the drawbridge continuously and stop people from coming into it. It is the unthinking response to such attitudes that makes legislation absolutely imperative.
I would refer to the arguments of those who argue against the value of the Race Relations Bill. They say it is a bad Bill, comparatively few people will be caught by it and widespread opposition to it will be aroused; they maintain that it is a weak Bill. But if these arguments are so, if it is a weak Bill, why should it engender widespread opposition? Also, some of those who criticise its mildness are the last people in the world who would want a stronger Bill or who would seek to strengthen it. But, my Lords, what moral case can anyone make out for refusing legal equality? We are witnessing the social and economic consequences of generations of racial discrimination in America. Can anyone deny that if there had been legislation against race discrimination years ago much prejudice would by now have been overcome and dealt with? We should learn from the mistakes of our American friends, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, the situation or the problems are not the same. This Bill enlarges individual freedoms by extending equal rights to the coloured citizens of this country. This is not to make them a privileged part of this community, but to give them equal rights. Immigration policy must go hand in hand with this Bill, but not a selective one, one on racial
114
grounds, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggests.
Here I should like to make a comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, whom I may say I regard as a friend. It was as if a liberal (with a small "1") were struggling to come out of the image of an English conservative gentleman (with a small "c") and a very conservative English lawyer. I found none of his arguments particularly convincing. The noble Lord asked whether it was a crime for the people of this country to wish to retain their customs, and that sort of thing, and suggested that this was not being racial. Of course it is not. But I wonder whether he has read —and I am prepared to show him—letters such as I have received on occasions when people like the noble Lord make remarks of this kind about immigrants? Perhaps he would be a little surprised to find Colin Jordan grasping at some of the mild statements he has made to-day.
Legislation of the kind contained in this Race Relations Bill are great social measures, and when we tackle one social injustice it is usually a stimulus for tackling others. Here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amber-ley, that this is really giving the women of this country ideas. I think that as a result of the Race Relations Bill women will try to go forward to get equality of status in this country. It makes people conscious and concerned, and we continue to legislate for different kinds of injustice according to the problems of the day as they arise.
Incidentally, the expansion of tribunals such as the Race Relations Board is an imaginative kind of legislation and a great help in working out a flexible, administrative law. This Bill is farsighted. The Government are aware of the damaging effects of racial discrimination and are taking practical steps to deal with some of the problems by means of social legislation. The Government deserve congratulations for their political courage and for providing the framework within which good will can operate, for there has to be a framework—it cannot just be left to the human heart. The Bill is not opposed by any of the three political Parties.
Finally, my Lords, as a delegate to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, I shall be able to hold my head

115
high, to point to this Bill with satisfaction and to counter such taunts as, "Yes, you have human rights for white citizens in your country but not equal rights for coloured citizens". By this Bill we make clear to the world that we are really against racial discrimination.
8.24 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I want to offer a welcome to this Bill and to hope that it will receive an unopposed Second Reading. I should like immediately to continue, as it were, from where the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell finished her admirable speech. I promise not to talk about immigration, for although it is an ancillary problem it is not particularly germane to this Bill and at this time of night ought to be excluded from any comments which speakers make, purely because of the lack of time and the patience with which this House has already attended to so many speeches.
I shall not go into the morphology of racial intemperance, although I believe that to compute it mathematically is too simplified an answer. I should like to remind the House of the winding up speech of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who confined his case in another place to four simple questions which are positively answered in this Bill. Those questions were as follows: first, is it necessary?; second, will it do more harm than good or more good than harm?; third, is it practicable?; fourth, is it enough?
To begin with, is it necessary? On two grounds I believe it to be amply justified. It is necessary in the first place, because there is a great evil to be righted; and in the second place it is necessary because if that evil is to be righted then legislation must play its part in the process. Moreover, evidence has been presented of the facts of racial discrimination. I would add that as a social worker in housing and employment I am regularly confronted with problems which at the moment are almost insoluble and yet reflect a large degree of racial intemperance and of racial injustice—the very things which at the moment cannot be treated as they should be treated and which demand moral and practical action.
There is another aspect of this subject which has not been mentioned in
116
your Lordships' House to-day, and that is the amount of racial intemperance and racial prejudice that now exists in those ghettoes and among the dark and black people themselves. When we are thinking of housing it would be quite improper to think that the only kind of discrimination which takes place is discrimination against those who are coloured. In many places in Notting Hill to which I could take your Lordships the very opposite is the case: there is real, permanent and growing discrimination.
Secondly, the argument that this can be dealt with without some kind of procedure at law seems to me to be altogether too facile an assumption. I am all for education, and I shall revert to that in a moment or two, but there can be no doubt, surely that some kind of legislation must play its part, not in changing human nature but in making large changes in the pattern of human behaviour, which is as much as social education can ever hope to do.
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, were here because he, rather incautiously, I thought, ventured into the field of theology when he insisted that from a Christian standpoint loving one's neighbour could not be expressed in legislative terms. If I may refer him to the Sermon on the Mount, which perhaps can be regarded as the ecclesiastical Hansard, he will find in chapter 5 of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, verse 22:
"whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca! shall be in danger of the council".
Now "Raca", as perhaps your Lordships know, is not only a word of insult but of discrimination. It involves, in fact, the very principle that we are talking about to-day, of discrimination, because it assumes that the other man, whom you call "Raca", is an inferior being and can be called as such. Further, in verse 25,
"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."
Then, in verse 26:
"Verily I say unto thee. Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."
It would be most intemperate, in my opinion, for any theologian to insist that

117
in the Christian faith we think so lightly of any legislative procedures as to regard them as the "poor relation" of other forms of social action. I believe it is our Christian, as well as our social, duty to seek where we can to provide those social means to assist people to be decent, although we cannot command them to be.
The second question asked by the Home Secretary was whether this particular piece of legislation, if it went through, was likely to do more harm than good, or more good than harm. I should like to draw the only illustration I will take time on to-night, by describing my own experience on a place called Tower Hill, where free speech has been enjoyed (and sometimes mistreated) for a long time now. I was very much concerned in 1965, and indeed before that, at what was happening at Speaker's Corner and on Tower Hill, where free speech was being largely inhibited by a great deal of racialism, and I have found that the passing of the first part of this piece of legislation, the 1965 Act, has materially improved the situation and has increased the facility for free speech, because it is now known that the Government are committed—in principle, at least—to that free speech which cannot be exercised under conditions of racial discrimination. Therefore I would feel it is necessary to complete the process, in the same hope and confidence that what has been achieved in that field can be achieved in the field of housing and employment generally.
Is it practicable? I join with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in a good deal of apprehension at the prospective change from like treatment to less advantageous treatment, for I am sure that unless we have a more or less neutral definition of what we mean by discrimination—and I heartily agree with the suggestion he made—we are likely to find ourselves involved in subjective inquiries as to what is less favourable, as well as in the very greatly increased danger that in getting rid of discrimination we may create apartheid; that we in fact provide like and equal opporlunities but not desegregated opportunities, in fact segregated opportunities. Therefore, I believe that, unless we are prepared to find a definition at the beginning of our legislation, we shall be in considerable trouble
118
in implementing it later. As the hour is late, I will not speak of other matters in this particular field.
I cannot see how anybody can regard this as impracticable in principle. It seems to me to proceed on the right lines. It begins with the kind of conciliatory offices now being exercised and gives them freer play. It provides in the Race Relations Board a conciliatory principle—and here I disagree with some who have criticised their lack of power. I think the less power in itself the Board enjoys, the more likely to attract the confidence of those who are asked, but not required, to appear before it. The third tier is the tier of legislative action, and this would commend itself to me as, I hope, a reasonable person. Were I not already involved in thinking about it, I should regard it as a piece of sensible procedure.
Let me refer to the last question. The Home Secretary asked whether it was enough. Of course it is not. It is not enough because a great many of the problems are problems not only of numbers of black people but numbers of black people in congested places where there are equally large numbers of other coloured people. Of course it is not enough, because we have a social system in which we still regard housing, in some respects at least, as a matter of private enterprise and calculated in terms of profit, whereas it seems to me that it is possible to have an equable society only when housing is regarded in exactly the same light as we now regard teaching, education and the provision of the., welfare services. It is not enough, because we cannot isolate our own islands; we have to see this in a larger context. It is not enough because education is not enough.
The word "education" has been much used to-day. I am well aware, as I am sure your Lordships are, that it does not come from the Latin "educere"—to draw out, but from the Latin "educare" —to nourish. I owe that to the great Dr. Temple. I heard him say it many years ago; it came as a flash of light, and it has remained an illumination ever since. What is the nourishment unless it not only contains the acquisition of facts about the material world, and some expertise in finding one's way around in

119
that material world, but the final objectives of life are equally well presented to the one to be educated?
I should not be fair to the collar I wear unless, before finishing, I said this. This particular Bill is an attempt to achieve a measure of social righteousness of which I believe we are all dimly conscious, and of which many people are keenly conscious; and unless it can stimulate us to a more general apprehension of what is our business here on earth, and what is a multiracial society as the family of God, and what is man's relationship to himself and his neighbour and his enemy and his friend; unless it can help in this direction, it will be not merely insufficient but impotent. I venture to hope that if such a measure as this is passed here and becomes law, it will play some part in the juster society to which I am sure all of us, on both sides of this House, desire to move.
8.35 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, when this debate began this afternoon, after I had listened with admiration to the very lucid and fair account of the position by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and then I listened to the brilliant speech from the other side of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, it seemed to me that it would have been a good time to close this debate, because almost everything worth saying had then been said. But I have been sitting here all the afternoon, for some hours, and I have been infected with the idea that there are one or two points which I would still like to emphasise.
To begin with, I do not think it can be too often emphasised that no one questions that all citizens within our boundaries must have the same freedoms and responsibilities; in fact they must enjoy the same general rights of citizenship and the same opportunities. But that applies to all who are here now, without this Bill, and it does not connote a free-for-all attitude towards would-be immigrants from other lands in the future. It must be emphasised, I think, that stringent restrictions, stringent conditions on immigration, should be based on our capacity to absorb; and, not only that, but on the capacity of the immigrants and their willingness to be
120
absorbed. We do not want contending and possibly unacceptable customs, habits, ways of life and outlook on life to be intruded extensively on our own people, nor for them to be forced to accept distasteful differences on anything like a permanent basis.
But it is when we give legal sanction to the policy that discrimination on grounds of race, colour, ethnic group or nationality merits penal discouragement that it seems to me we run into difficult and dangerous ground. Personal liberty of choice in all aspects of life is surely a precious possession. I am not a racialist. I have intimate friends, coloured friends, all over the world, and I know them well, both in my own house and elsewhere. But I am a determined believer in personal liberty, qualified only by the rule that my own exercise of it does not unfairly limit the basic rights of other citizens. Nor have I any right to organise mass objection to groups of other citizens who are law-abiding.
I think it is wrong to legislate to make discrimination unlawful, for the simple reason that such a law is unworkable in practice without becoming a tyrannical imposition of the State's will upon reluctant citizens. This Bill will not work in practice unless it represents the wish and the will of the vast majority of the citizens of this country; and if that were the case, the Bill would be quite unnecessary. I do not think that it has that backing; nor do I believe that it can be operated without the practice of the very discrimination which it condemns. There is a further consideration: is this law necessary? Well, we have heard from one or two speakers to-day that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which this country signed, contains all the rights which any accepted citizen of this country need bother about.
My Lords, the reason for my dislike of the Bill is that it is subject to these fundamental defects which do not admit of being improved or extensively altered in Committee. One admits that there are problems, but they are not problems that can be solved by legislation, which is apt only to intensify the resentment that one wishes to avoid. It surely requires lengthy education, not the intrusive encroachment by law on the sphere of personal decision.

121
One is bound to ask: would this law really help to diminish discrimination? My reply to that would be, No: I think that it is likely to magnify by centralising resentment to such interference. There are many forms of discrimination. Why select racial discrimination? Life is full of discrimination. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, mentioned one in the shape of the discrimination of the sexes in this country; and of course there are religious discriminations and social discriminations. Are we to look forward to an extension of this system, a kind of system of escalating deterrents applied to any exercises of personal preference? It is a horrible prospect.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said at the beginning of his speech, you cannot legislate to alter the hearts of human beings; but you can of course educate and lead them. The process is slow, but it is better surely than reaching for the totalitarian handbook and using force. In my opinion, the answer lies in quite restrictive selection on entry and, after entry and acceptance, help in housing, education and health. Much can be done by voluntary effort of all kinds, but whatever you do, or however you legislate, you cannot enforce tolerance by decree or create good will by force. It all takes time, as we have all learned during our lives. That is why I dislike this present Bill, which I know will pass into law. I regret it, but it is now certain to happen. I do not for a moment question that it is inspired by good intentions, but we all know what famous road is supposed to have a similar pavement.
8.45 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I welcome and support this Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I do not think we must expect too much from it. It is, of its very nature. a rather negative piece of legislation. But the whole of the criminal law is negative legislation, and it plays an essential part in our legislative system. I agree with him that we shall have to look to education, the constructive side of the shield, so to speak, even more than to this Bill.
I must say that I found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who has just resumed his seat, extremely unconvincing. I seem to remember hearing them almost verbatim on the occasion of the previous Bill. Yet this afternoon we
122
have heard from the most reverend Primate, who knows more than anybody about the work that has been done under that Act, how successful it has been. I have little doubt that substantial s recess will also be achieved under this Bill when it becomes an Act.
Of course, at this stage in a debate of this kind there are few arguments left which have not been used; indeed, many of them have been deployed more than once. I shall do my best not to keep on dotting i's and crossing t's, an exercise in which I ought to be becoming rather expert by now because I find myself so often in this position. However, I believe that on an occasion of this kind, when an attempt is being made to grapple with a problem which is among the most difficult, complex and dangerous that Parliament has ever had to handle (again I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke on this), it is one's duty to testify. I use that word on this occasion almost in a religious sense. Equality of citizenship is indeed, I think, a matter of political faith. I am not, of course, talking about politics in the sense of Party politics, but of what one might call a general democratic and humanist faith, which indeed was enshrined by the Chinese many centuries ago in a famous maxim which I think appears in Confucius; that
"Within the four corners of the world all men are brothers".
Not that I would bring any charge of denying the Brotherhood of Man against those who have been opposing this Bill in Parliament—in this House this afternoon in rather sotto voce terms, but in another place a great deal more strenuously, and even bitterly. Certainly, I should not like to bring a charge of racism against them, but I must say that I regard the sizeable vote which was cast against the Third Reading in the Commons as one of the most regrettable events which has ever occurred during the whole of my political lifetime, a really regrettable business altogether.
It is a black, disastrous truth which has come out repeatedly this after-loon, that there are quite a lot of racists in our community. It is to these unfortunate people, who I believe are more neurotic than anything else, that "Powellism", as it has come to be called, can easily make an appeal; and provide a fig-leaf of decency for what is really shameful.

123
For it is in "Powellism" that they will find, so to speak, authority for their unfortunate and dangerous outlook. It has lent the prestige of a powerful political figure in the community to a doctrine which I think all of us in this House would regard as a pernicious one. Per contra, of course, it persuades our coloured fellow citizens—and I want to underline the fact that they are fellow citizens, as indeed many other speakers have done to-day, I am glad to say, and who are certainly not in such an emotional state that they can judge these matters in a calm and impartial manner —that an important section of one of our great historical political Parties, led by men who have held high office in the State, are ready to deny them justice; and that is a most unfortunate state of affairs. How can we successfully pursue a policy of racial integration against a background in which such deep feelings have been stirred up, and have been made as bitter as we know them to be?
It was this feeling that the advent of "Powellism" in recent months has basically affected the political climate, I think, that caused Mr. Hogg and the majority of the Conservatives to alter the position that they had taken up on the Second Reading in the Commons—that is, the decision to oppose the passage of the Bill and to agree to the Bill's going through without voting against it. I must say I should like to congratulate them very much on that wise and statesmanlike policy. I admired their good sense, and particularly the eloquent and very well argued speech of Mr. Hogg on that occasion. Although it was no doubt not possible for him, as a matter of practical politics, I think that in logic Mr. Hogg should have gone further and advised his followers to cast an affirmative vote for the Bill.
I myself see no possibility of solving this intractable problem except on the basis of an inter-Party agreement about the proper solution of it. I bitterly regretted that the Conservative Party had taken up a position of opposition to the Bill at the beginning, but I regret just as much that little, if any, really genuine effort was made by my own Party to provide a basis on which an agreed solution of an inter-Party character could be reached. Nor, so far as I could make out, were any very serious steps taken to
124
initiate inter-Party discussion on this problem before the Bill was worked out in a fairly finalised sort of form.
I quite agree—and indeed I go further than the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—about the seriousness of the present position. In my view, the situation is one of a seriousness corresponding to that which brought the Parties together in May, 1940, and led to the formation of a National Government, if we look at the matter from the point of view of the need for a happy and harmonius future for the British people. And I suggest that that is the way this matter ought to be looked at, because unless we can solve this problem there will be no happy and harmonious future for the British people as such. Of course I am not proposing that we should set up a National Government to deal with this matter, but surely we could hammer out a policy which men of good will in all the Parties could accept and determine to make operative.
The Times, in its famous, or shall I describe it as its "infamous" leader of July 6 said this:
"This Bill is concerned with how we should treat our fellow citizens."
That sentence has been re-echoed throughout the debate to-day, and I am very glad that that is so, because surely this is exactly right; and surely it is a sentence which can be accepted not only by us in this place but by all men of good will throughout the community. I do not want to say more about this Times leader, which has aroused so much Conservative anger, except that in a pretty long experience I have always found that the criticisms to which those who were criticised were most sensitive were the criticisms which were in fact the most valid.
The only other point that I wish to make is concerned with this question of liberty, which has been raised by more than one speaker, and which was very much discussed in the debate in another place. It is contended, and has been contended—it was contended a minute or two ago by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton—that the proposed law will be a serious interference with a man's liberty to deal in all sorts of ways, to employ whomsoever he likes, to let his property to whomsover he likes, and in many other ways. There is, of course, an interference of a sort, but "liberty" is a word

125
which everyone likes to conjure with and to conjure within his own particular way, and we are all susceptible to this temptation. But at the heart of the matter it seems to me that particularly in politics liberty is a question of balance. Almost every Act of Parliament involves some interference with liberty, greater or less. We restrict a man's freedom, or the freedom of a particular group of people, in the interest of the community as a whole. That is the acid test by which we judge whether the interference is a legitimate one.
I have mentioned the criminal code of the country already in this speech. The criminal code is one long interference with the liberty of the subject, but it is an interference which is absolutely essential if you are to have a civilised community functioning at all. Sometimes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, pointed out, as in the case of the "Breathalyser" Act, our interference is so obvious that it takes Parliament quite a long time to pull itself together and determine to take the plunge for an interference of this kind; yet now that we have done it after all these years we are satisfied that it was a very important and valuable interference with the liberties of the subject.
It is noteworthy that the Bill before us does not add any new offence. It is not a criminal Statute at all. It is not relying upon the sanctions of the criminal law in order to enforce the principles on which it is based. It may be that that is a weakness in it. I am not at all sure that we might not, in some respects at any rate, have followed the American plan where they enforce the civil side of this matter in sore important respects by bringing in the crimial law. Indeed, in this respect, this Bill is quite a long way behind our old Common Law. At an early stage it was an indictable crime—it still is, although it is never enforced in practice—for an innkeeper to turn away without good cause a traveller who had come to seek lodgings in his inn, or for a common carrier to refuse transport to a merchant and his goods: that also was an indictable offence at Common Law. These matters are covered by this Bill, but it does not go anywhere like as far as the Common Law went, and used to be enforced, until the beginning of the last century. At Common Law if you carried
126
on a public occupation, the law placed a responsibility upon you to carry it out properly. If you provided a service to the public you were to perform that service; you were not to pick and choose the people for whom you would perform it.
The proposals in this Bill seem to me to be based on the same sort of principle as that of the Common Law, and the alleged infractions of the principles of freedom seem to me to be largely illusory. The landlord who makes his income from letting houses to tenants has from early in the present century more and more been controlled both in Iegard to the rents he is allowed to charge and the provision of certain minimum standards of houseworthiness in regard to the premises which he lets. This control has been accepted by all Parties; it has been accepted as much by the Conservative Party and by Conservative Governments over recent years as it has been accepted by the Labour Party. With these considerations in mind, I do not think one can say that such interferences with liberty as there are in the present Bill are not counter-balanced by the social justice which this Bill should help to secure. Therefore, it seems to me that this cry of "Liberty in danger", which is so often raised on this sort of occasion, is altogether a "red herring" and that we ought not to pay any attention to it. For these reasons I support the Bill, and wish it a safe passage to the Statute Book in the near future.
9.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, nobody could quarrel with the aims of this Bill, which are to achieve a noble purpose, and that is to try to do away with racial discrimination in this country, but at the outset I should like to say that it is a pity that Party considerations need enter into matters such as discrimination, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, et cetera. These issues ought to be looked at as a matter of conscience; that is my personal opinion.
A few noble Lords have tried to simplify this question of racial discrimination. They have made it out to be entirely a question of colour. It is my opinion that the average man it this country, from whatever class, does not care what colour a man is, whether he

127
is black, brown, yellow or blue—if you can get a blue man. I believe one finds blue people down in the South of Morocco—they call them "blue", but it is only because they wear blue clothes. The real trouble is a question of habit and customs. Every race has its own habits; you cannot blame it for that. I believe that in this country a great deal of the problem of racial dislike is because of over-crowding, although the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, did not agree with that.
We have been told that coloured immigrants in this country amount to only 2 per cent. of total population. I did not think that it was quite as much as that. If they were spread throughout the whole country there would be no trouble at all, but when they are concentrated in two or three cities one is bound to get friction. If you are an ordinary working man who has never travelled out of England and has never mixed with other races, then if you get two families of different races on either side of you, it is natural that there will be friction. We have to take these matters into account. It is all right for those of us who have travelled abroad. I used to have plantations in Jamaica and for 12 years I went out there a great deal. I have had a lot to do with coloured people. I am Chairman of the Victoria League of my area of England; I have a great many Commonwealth people down and I show them round and entertain them. They are people of all races and all colours. It is easy for us not to have any feeling of discrimination, but we have to remember the ordinary person.
There is one thing which I do not quite understand about the Bill. Why has not religion been included? One gets a good deal of discrimination in religion. One remembers the row over the Sikhs in Wolverhampton—I think it was Wolverhampton—because they were not allowed to drive buses wearing their turbans. This was complete and utter nonsense, because turbans are a very attractive form of headgear. I should rather like to be able to wear one myself. It would certainly suit me far better than a hat with one of those horrible brims. That was all to do with religion, which is a matter that is not included in the Bill.
128
While I completely support the principles of the Bill, I am rather frightened —and I have said this before in all the other debates on racial questions—that if you legislate against the natural likes and dislikes of men you may accentuate the problems. But that is a danger that we must risk. I have a dog which always chases cats. I beat the hell out of this dog, but it is just his nature to chase cats. It is the same with this question of racial prejudice—and, of course, it is complete prejudice. Its roots go very deep and we have to treat this matter very carefully.
I am not complaining about what we are doing in this Bill, because I think we are right to do it, but we are infringing on the personal liberties of a majority in order to protect the personal liberties of a minority. It is no good saying that we are not infringing, because we are, but it is probably right to do it. This country has a wonderful record of tolerance, but what we are doing is dangerous. Yet we do not want to have a class of second-rate citizens in this country.
We do not want to talk about the rate of immigration, because this Bill has nothing to do with that. But the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made some remarks about Powellism. So far as I am aware, Mr. Powell did not criticise at all any methods of helping immigrants in this country. He was talking only about the flow of immigrants into this country.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I was not accusing Mr Powell of racism at all. What I was saying was that his attitude was adopted by the racists, and it had a bad result from that point of view.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for thinking that he was criticising Mr. Powell for being hard on the coloured immigrants already in this country. Perhaps I did not understand him aright. What has been brought out in this debate is that it is the children who are going to be the great problem. Even if we had no more coloured immigrants coming into this country, their natural rate of reproduction is fairly considerable and the problem is going to grow. They are naturally going to increase very greatly through their birthrate. So I am particularly in support of this Bill in

129
regard to the children born in this country, who do not know any other home. But with regard to the adult immigrants who come here, I should like to say that if I emigrated to a country I should not expect the law to be altered to suit me. I am not objecting; I am only stating a fact.
The particular clause about which I am rather worried is Clause 3. Clauses 3, 4 and 8 relate to employment, and I fully support Clauses 4 and 8 because I have had a factory and it has been very difficult for employers if shop stewards said, "We are not having any coloureds here, as otherwise we shall strike" So Clause 4 will protect employers from that form of blackmail. But I am a bit worried about Clause 3 and the word "qualifications". A white man and a black man with the same qualifications could apply for a job. I know that to-day we live in a world of qualifications, where character, record and integrity are not taken very much into consideration. We are becoming a nation of robots. Provided you are qualified, you are all right. But the thing I am frightened of, as an employer, is this. In the past, if several white men came to apply for a job and you did not like the look of the face of one of them, you need not employ him. If they all had the same qualifications, you could pick the one you liked best because you liked his personality, his character, or whatever you call it. Perhaps I am wrong here but, as I read this employment clause, if a white man and a black man come for a job and they both have the same qualifications, if you do not employ the black man you will be hauled up before the Board, and so, in order to avoid that embarrassment, you will obviously choose the black man. I am not quite happy about that. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be able to say something about it.
Before I leave the question of jobs I should also like to point out—and this applies to all races—that some people have an exaggerated idea of their suitability for a job. I am an employer, unfortunately—J wish to heaven I was not! I wish to heaven we could have a Bill for non-discrimination against employers!I think we really deserve it, because you will soon have no employers
130
in this country—at least, no prival e employers. I should just like to make the point that some West Indians and some Africans—and it applies to whites, too —may think they are perfectly suitable for a job whereas they may not be; and, of course, they may get resentful and it will be all very difficult.
May I just draw attention to the insurance clause here?—I think it comes under Clause 2, subsection (2). I have a lot of friends in insurance. Insurance companies keep very good records, and they have certain classes of people who they find, through experience, are worse risks than others. For instance, undergraduates are thought by insurance companies to be a poor risk regarding the driving of cars. It may be very unfair on the sober undergraduates and the careful indergraduates who drive well, but, none the less, insurance companies have these categories. Now in the West Indies I have been a big employer of Jamaicans. I have got on very well with them and I am very fond of them; but they can be very dangerous sometimes when C riving trucks. They are very volatile people, and if they have a tot of rum they may very easily smash the truck up. The insurance companies may find, through their records, that West Indians, Africans, Pakistanis, or whatever the race is, have a bad record; but under this Bill here they cannot do anything about it. I am rather worried about that.
When we come to the housing clause, I am pleased to hear that a private person, if he does not put his house in the hands of an agent and does not advertise—I am not sure about advertising, but certainly if he does not put his house in the hands of an agent—can sell it to whomever he wants. But if you want to sell your house you really must put it in the hands of agents; and this clause appears to be favouring coloured people in the buying of houses. I am not complaining about that: I am merely saying that, to me, this clause appears to be favouring them. Perhaps am wrong, but that is how it appears to me.
The other point—I think two or three noble Lords brought this subject up—concerns the question of the civil courts; that if the matter goes beyond the conciliatory stage and goes to the civil courts, very big damages can be given against you there. I am afraid that

131
there may be some complainants who may complain on a trumped up charge in the hope that they will get damages. That could happen, but it would be rather unfair on the defendant, because the Race Relations Board pay all the complainant's costs while the poor defendant has to pay his own costs, and he might get heavy damages against him. You will then find that no landlord or anyone likely to be involved as a defendant in one of these actions will ever go to court. He will think the dice are loaded too much against him.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 24, which is the research clause. I hope that the Government do great research on this matter, because in this question of race relations the more research we do on it the better. I should like to say that I hope this Bill works when it becomes law. Perhaps in this House we may alter it slightly; but it appears to me to be rather uneven in application according to the law. I am not a lawyer. I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is glaring at me; but I should have thought that as drawn it was not very good law. But I am an absolute novice in matters of law.
I would end by saying that I hope the Bill stops racial discrimination, because racial discrimination is a very nasty thing and an extremely unfair thing. I should also like just to say that I hope that the B.B.C. take this Bill to heart; because in my opinion they have been rather inclined sometimes to put on plays that show racial discrimination. I hope that this Bill, when it becomes law, will really stop all that; because racial discrimination is a horrible trait. I do not like it at all.
9.23 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I found the speech of the noble Viscount who has just spoken an enchanting cliffhanger; I still do not know whether he is for the Bill or against it; but I do wish that he would stop beating hell out of his dog!Two things seem to mark this debate to-day. First there seems to have been a great deal of soft-pedalling on the part of the Opposition. We have heard little of the words that we heard in the Commonwealth Immigra-
132
tion debate, and also the numbers are neither as present nor as vocal as they were on the Rhodesian Sanctions debate. Another thing that struck me was that people who have been talking round or about or against the Bill have carefully used the word "immigrants" and have kept off the word "coloured"; whereas what I think we all know and should accept and face frankly is that this Bill is about coloured people. It is not about immigrants as immigrants; it is about people who are coloured, people who are dark—dark in different shades perhaps, but who are not the same colour as white people.
One of the comments which I am afraid shocked me most was that made in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he said that the root of the problem is not prejudice, is not colour, but is numbers. I am shocked, because I accept his sincerity and believe that he means what he says. I do not believe that comment; and I do not think that the evidence we have, the research that has been done and the knowledge that we have of the subject, supports it at all. It is true that a concentration of numbers increases a problem; but the fact is—and it is an unpleasant fact to have to accept—that there are numbers of people in this country who are blindly, automatically, unpleasantly, prejudiced against dark skins. Unless we are prepared to face that, not say it in the way of Enoch Powell, in order to get them "off the hook" and make it respectable, but say it in the way which makes it distasteful, absurd and unrespectable, I do not think we can start talking honestly about the problem at all.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness to say that so far as I was concerned I was talking of immigrants in general, no matter what their colour?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I was not referring to the speech of the noble Baroness; I was referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. Also in his speech the noble Lord said that if he were to leave England to go to another country he would not expect to be treated in the same way as the people of that country were treated. I hope the noble Lords will forgive me if that is not an accurate transcript of what the noble

133
Lord said, but I think it was the intention of his words. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said that when you seek to emigrate to another country you do not normally seek to change the laws of that country. For the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, with his background and education and his status to compare himself with some poor immigrant, uneducated and poverty-stricken, who comes to this country seems to me extremely unfair and an irrelevant analogy. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is concerned, one may not seek to change the laws of the country to which one emigrates but surely one does not expect the lack of hospitality amounting to brutal humiliation and deprivation that many coloured people are experiencing in this country.
My Lords, only a few days ago the National Youth. Employment Council published its most recent report on the Youth Employment Service. I will not go over the pouts made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, about the difficulty of immigrants, particularly young coloured immigrants, in getting jobs in service industries, especially where they come into contact with people. But in this report reference is made to the P.E.P. Report which found that the more highly qualified met with the greatest discrimination —which again seems to me to be an answer to the theory about numbers. The report goes on to say:
"If this pattern were to be repeated when more qualified young people are leaving school, a serious situation could arise."
In other words as my noble friend Lord Stonham pointed out, young people who were not themselves immigrants, and were born in this country would experience the same sort of discrimination as their parents had experienced or as those who have come to this country are experiencing now.
If one accepts these facts—and they are facts—then it seems to me there can be no argument against the necessity for legislation. I think that this was conclusively indicated, and the best answer to the need for legislation provided by the statement on Race and Racial Prejudice published by UNESCO in September of last year—namely;
"The law is among the most important means of ensuring equality between individuals
134
and one of the most effective means of fighting racism."
Of course we know that legislation is not an end or a cure in itself, but it does give a framework in which actions can he controlled and attitudes gradually altered. After all, in the 19th century, when the Factory Acts were first passed, nobody thought that the Industrial Revolution would continue at the same pace if women and children were kept out of the factories. When women finally won the vote it was thought that that would be almost the end of civilisation, but your Lordships have now to endure the presence of a certain number in your own House.
One of the awful results of the present discrimination which we have, and must recognise, is that it creates a vicious circle. We hear complaints: I hear them as a magistrate, sitting in an area where there are a great many coloured immigrants living in crowded conditions. We hear of coloured people exploiting one another; of overcrowding; of none and trouble which they cause and which affects and annoys the people living near them. The exploiters are able to exploit, and the victims are ready to be victimised because they are discriminated against; because the housing available to them is strictly limited. And when one has a situation in which a group of people are treated by a certain number of other people with contempt, ridicule and abuse, it would be most unusual if in some cases contempt did not product contemptible behaviour.
For these reasons, my Lords, I feel that legislation, even with its imperfections, is essential. One of the interesting things about both this debate and all the debates in another place has been that even those who are opposed to this Bill, but who have said that legislation was necessary, have so far not put up any viable alternative. I feel that we should try to make this Bill work, and I should like to mention briefly one or two ways in which I think we could improve the present Bill.
I agree with those noble Lords who do not like the present definition of discrimination, and I also prefer that laid down by the United Nations. I do not like the clause about the labour force because, although my noble friend Lord Stonham pointed out that people born here were no longer immigrants but

135
citizens of this country, they will still be regarded as part of a racial group and therefore part of a balancing labour force.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on this point my noble friend is wrong. The Bill lays down that those who are mainly or wholly educated in this country would be of the same racial group.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I thought that they were going to be in a racial group according to the colour of their skins. I am still a little confused about this, and perhaps when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor replies he will put me right on this.
I think it is a pity that the disputes with regard to employment go to the Ministry of Productivity and Employment, rather than to the Race Relations Board. I should like to see the Board given power to subpoena witnesses and the right to demand the disclosure of documents. Even more important, I find the time limit of two months far too short. People who come here have difficulty in finding their way around, and I think they need more than two months.
I hope that we shall be able to improve the Bill in Committee. This legislation gives time and opportunity for many matters to be considered again. Those of us who belong to other minority groups realise that people need to meet the reality rather than to indulge in legislation gives time and opportunity referred to an article in yesterday's Observer. One of the most striking things about that article was the number of remarks that were made which were second and third hand, made by people who did not know any coloured people at all. This Bill will encourage people who are fairly neutral in this matter but who do not want to fall out with their neighbours or workpeople to go ahead and not feel at any personal disadvantage. It will also give an opportunity to trigger off Government action in planning housing and education in a much more long-term way.
Finally, this Bill, even with its imperfections, will take this question out of the largely emotive area in which it is at
136
the moment and give it some legal substance and some dignity, so that we can fight against prejudice and recognise the contribution that coloured people can make to our society, that they add to our ethos and our culture. If we do not let people in we become a static, sterile society. I think we should remember some of the positive contributions they can make, as well as some the difficulties that arise.
9.35 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, as I think your Lordships know, I have been a colonial civil servant for the greater part of my life, and I have listened tonight with the greatest interest to all the speeches that have been made. One discards most of what one intended to say at this late hour, but endeavouring as I am to collect my thoughts on what has been said, one would expect that I should be defending up to the hilt the coloured people in this country. When one has associated with them for the length of time that I have, that would be the most natural reaction. And in what I have to say, I am still defending them. But I think there are two sides to this question. This is a British Parliament, this is the House of Lords, and what we are considering is the welfare of our coloured people and the welfare of our own British people. We have to think of this problem in that context.
My Lords, there are many things which have disillusioned me over the years since I have returned to this country. One is the attacks that have been made on our institutions, and everything that we stood for the beliefs which we carried with us abroad, and by which I am still sustained. I was gaoled for four years in the last war for my British beliefs. During that time I was sustained by coloured peoples, who had a great faith and belief in everything that Britain stood for. In the ensuing years since that time, as I have said, there has been much disillusionment.
I think that in part this is due to the attacks that have been made on this country by the coloured peoples themselves. It may well be that this is only a form of reaching adulthood and attacking those with whom one was formerly connected. Nevertheless, there has been a tendency for us to remain silent against

137
those attacks, and this is what our British people see outside. This causes fear in our community, and it is something that I think must be taken into account in the situation in this country.
If one is to accept this Bill—and I accept that it is necessary—one must calm the atmosphere and create a climate in which it will work. I cannot say that I am enamoured with the processions which one sees in this country in connection with racialism, and which are followed by counter-processions. This is not a contribution to the furtherance of good race relations. I would suggest to the organisers of processions of this kind that if they want good relations in this country they should abandon these processions altogether. Those are just some of the fears.
There are one or two other things which I should like to say. I feel that there has been an excessive tendency to underline an exaggerated form of liberalism. I do not mean by this that one must not have a liberal outlook, but in connection with the first part of what I have had to say, we have seen our institutions under attack, and if there has been any sort of discrimination, some of the worst discrimination which takes place in the Commonwealth still exists in India, where they have the caste system and where discrimination is practised against the sweepers and people who do menial jobs, who are not allowed to cook food for their masters. I think that many of our people in this country see all this and are greatly worried by what they see.
I want this Bill to succeed. I want the atmosphere to be created in which it can succeed. I shot Id like to see the coloured leaders of the community in this country and British leaders get together; and I should like to see a happy country in which we can preserve the ideals and the greatness of our Commonwealth.
9.41 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, this has been a very remarkable discussion and debate, if I may say so, and the level of the contributions has been quite remarkable. Above all, there has been a very temperate attitude towards this Bill, a Bill which I want vigorously to support. It has its defects; they have been pointed out, and therefore one does not repeat them, but I hope that
138
in the wisdom of your Lordships' House we can strengthen the real purpose and meaning of the Bill. However, as it stands it is a contribution which I think is of tremendous importance, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, not only to what can he done in this country but to creating a positive effect throughout the world. We shall be seen to be doing justice to tae race problem.
My noble friend Lord Soper quoted my right honourable friend the Home Secretary as saying it is not enough. I think we all agree that it is not enough. It is a very important step forward; it is a meaningful step forward. It is actually putting the brakes on a very slippery slope of degeneration in our relationships with our fellow men and our fellow citizens who are people who happen to be distinguished by colour. As he said, we are not here really talking about discrimination in terms of immigrants or anything else; we are literally, definitely and conspicuously talking about our attitude to people who are a different colour from ourselves, who recognise they are different and who regard themselves in the situation at the present time as victims of circumstances which are not dictated by the numbers in which they are here or any such factor.
I want to illustrate this point. In the 1920's I was a crime reporter in Glasgow. We had there a most terrific problem. We hear a lot about Glasgow today, but the real trouble in Glasgow in the 1920's was a very violent racial problem. We did not have colour, except green and orange—not blue, not led. The troubles there were very much the troubles we have here to-day. In Western Scotland at that time, around 1924, when the first depression was hitting us, the people who were picked on were the Irish. The reason why they were there was the fact that they had been brought in quite deliberately by the farmers and landlords to pick the potatoes; and they stayed on to be the scavengers of Glasgow, doing jobs that no decent Scotsman or Glaswegian would take at that time. But the depression came, and these were the jobs the workless people in Scotland wanted to have, bit they were occupied by the Irish. We had troubles there just as we have them here to-day.

139
Here we have a situation which is now accentuated by the fact that we have, not religious differences which one happens to find out by accident or by going to church; we now have something which is entirely a question of pigment of the skin. We are looking at people and saying, "These are different", and we are looking at them and saying "They are different not only in terms of appearance but they are accepting the jobs which presently we shall want". If any of your Lordships saw the B.B.C. programme last night entitled "Your Witness" you will have seen exactly what will happen. The docker in that programme was defending this attitude on the ground that the coloured people would eventually do him out of a job, and he was talking about it in the same terms as he referred to automation.
We are talking about economic circumstances in a period of change in which, again, there is a very small minority—and we must keep on hammering this; it is a very tiny minority, less than 2 per cent., as has been repeatedly pointed out to-day—which are recognisable and distinguishable. They are taking the jobs that you never knew you wanted and yet one day you might want. It is economic: it is not a question of genetics, anthropology or ethnology; it is a distinguishable and recognisable colour picture of the threat of an economic replacement. You cannot hit out at a machine but you can spit in the face of the coloured fellow in the bus. This is the reality, and by this Bill—which will become an Act, I hope, with the help of your Lordships—we are giving to decent people courage, which they do not possess at the moment, to say, "I will not turn that man out of my pub", or "I will not refuse that man a job: the law says I must not". At the moment, he has not even the courage to say it because he has to face his customers in the saloon bar or talk to his workers. We are giving him the courage to say, "I will not discriminate". My Lords, I hope we are going to make a reality of this Bill.
9.47 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, as the twenty-fourth speaker at a quarter-to-ten at night there is a tremendous temptation
140
to "scratch", but as my noble friend Lord Hunt said in the Rhodesian debate, there are occasions when one wants to stand up and be counted, and to-night I claim that right without further apology. Three quite separate problems have been running through the debate to-day, somewhat tangled, and I think it might help to disentangle them. First, there is the question of who shall be allowed into the country and at what rate. That is a problem with which we are not concerned to-day, but it is worth noting, in passing, that it is possible to hold the most impeccable egalitarian views about equal rights of citizens of any colour or race and yet hold very decided views about the rate of immigration, which is in fact the position of the Labour Party to-day.
Secondly, there is the problem of help for new arrivals and how to work them into the community. Thirdly, there is the much more fundamental problem: do we accept those who are here, and their children, and their children's children, as equal partners with ourselves in a multiracial society? That is the question on which all the rest hinges. If the answer to that is "Yes", then any question of discrimination is reprehensible; if the answer is "No", then we want to do as little as we can get away with while at the same time keeping order. Leaving out that with which we are not concerned, we are very much concerned with what happens when they come into the country. Here I think we have done far too little and we need a policy, not of equal rights but of positive discrimination.
I have the honour to be associated with an organisation called "Family Service Units" and I have here some figures from part of their work in London. These figures are interesting. This organisation deals with what are known as "problem families"; that is to say, families who, for one reason or another, fail to stand up to life. In Haringey they dealt with 33 such families, of which there was only one coloured family. Yet what is curious is that the proportion of coloured to white children is 22 per cent. Again, in North Kensington and Chelsea, of 60 families only six were coloured or mixed, but it is thought that the percentage of coloured in the actual area is much higher than that, although the breakdown by districts is not available. These two examples

141
suggest to me that the families who come and settle in this country, with all the problems of unfamiliarity which face them, may nevertheless be getting less help than our own failures. I think perhaps the immigrant families who get into trouble stick together and help one another as best they can, but make far too little use of existing services.
Why is this? Why is there not a widespread organisation to seek out people and help them before they come unstuck? When the influx of Hungarian refugees came into this country they were received and helped and found houses and jobs, and the whole affair worked smoothly. Yet there is no planned reception for these people used to conditions so widely different from our own. Here I think that we could learn a good deal from the performance of the Dutch in accepting and settling 300,000 people from Indonesia since the war. Admittedly their problems were different from ours, but the figures are staggering, and would amount to 1¼ million in relation to our population. The Dutch have spent £6million—not £200,000 but £6 million—.a year for the last ten years on this work. This has covered health checks, clothes for a year's need, grants for furniture and equipment, subsidies for rent, insurance and pensions, maintenance in special transit camps, properly staffed old people's homes, and, most important of all, contract boarding houses, of which there were 600 in 1950. Arrivals were thus dispersed in an orderly way.
I do not want to press the analogy too far: there were many quite important differences. Even so, it shows that problems of this kind can be handled better than by leaving the newcomers to shift for themselves. At the least, it seems to me, there should be reception committees to help new arrivals, with someone meeting the aeroplanes and boats, and an office to which families or individuals without proper arrangements could be referred for help. I do not think we in this country should want to adopt quite such a dirigiste attitude as the Dutch, but I have no doubt at all that many people arriving for the first time in a strange, cold and almost certainly rainy country might be very glad indeed to be met by someone who could provide comfort and advice.
142
The most reverend Primate's Committee has begun something along these lines, and so has the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants; but I think he would agree they have not yet succeeded in covering the whole of the human problems involved. Clause 23 gives him wide powers. I hope that his Committee (and I am sorry to hear that he is not to continue to be chairman) will give some priority to the second-stage welfare work designed to deal with problems of the transition from one society to another. Sir Roy Wilson's Report recommended that there should be something of this kind, some hind of reception committee at the various points of entry, and at official expense. But it fell to the axe of false economy and has never been implemented. Any policy of equal rights which is to succeed must begin by special discrimination in favour of new arrivals; and this, in my opinion, has been our greatest failure.
May I turn now to the larger moral problem of equal rights in the multiracial society? This subject has already been fairly well mulled over, so I shall not be long. The children and grandchildren of immigrants will have been brought up with the benefits and disadvantages of our educational system and our Welfare State and should be able to take their place by level pegging with their English contemporaries. It is the ideal of all of us in all parts of the House who believe in a multiracial society that this should happen, and to doubt its possibility or desirability seems to us to adopt a frankly racialist attitude, using the word "racialist" in its proper sense —namely, as believing that one ethnic group is fundamentally incapable of reaching the standards set by another, which is what, in my opinion, "racialist" means.
People who hold this view seem, for some reason, to dislike being called racialist—so much so that it is almost impossible to find one in any public place, though I think they thrive in pubs and drawing rooms. It is like the Nazis after the war: suddenly they hid all disappeared. It reminds me of the corporal who was had up by his commanding officer accused of being inimical to the fellaheen, but he said "Sir, it is not true. I am not inimical io the fellaheen, I just can't stand the sight of

143
them". I feel that this is the kind of answer that after a good dinner you might get from some of our prominent speakers on this subject, who are so quick to deny that they are racialists in any sense at all. In my sense of it they are.
I may be being unfair, and I do not want to claim that everybody who does not feel as I do is necessarily either a fool or a knave—only that he is wrong. I do not know how many people feel in their hearts consciously superior to coloured people of equivalent education, but I know quite a lot do. Here, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, still less with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that colour prejudice is not a big thing in this country but is merely a question of numbers. Numbers, of course, make it one, but I am afraid there is no doubt that there is a quite vicious streak of colour prejudice. I meet it again and again among my friends of all classes, I am sorry to say. I believe there is no getting around it.
The real differences are due not to colour of skin, but to background and upbringing. Two or three generations ago the rich, who were then co-terminous with the upper classes, looked upon what they called "the poor" as a class apart, of a different order from themselves. This did not preclude a relationship of real affection, even love, but it absolutely precluded equality. And in a sense this represented a sort of reality, in that the differences in wealth, comfort, ease, health and education were too wide for the true values of personality to bridge. Of course, if you have been brought up in comfort with an expensive and leisurely education, you will have some quite material advantages over others brought up perhaps in a slum and with little or no schooling. But as slums slowly disappear and public education raises its standards, and Marks and Spencer's dress the girls, the differences are increasingly seen to be differences of environment and not of basic potential.
This will be no surprise to those of your Lordships who breed cows, or employ other people to breed cows, because you will know that 80 per cent. of a cow's performance is the result of management and environment, and less
144
than 20 per cent. of heredity. People used to a much simpler way of life and quite different weather, and receiving little or no education, will of course be at a disadvantage in our very different but hideously imperfect society; but their children, brought up under our conditions, good and bad, will have no such drawbacks except those imposed upon them by discrimination, and it is this, in effect, at which this Bill is aimed. So the first thing we want to know is, who opposes the Bill on the grounds that the second generation of immigrants cannot, in general, be the equal of their English counterparts? Because that is the great divide. It seems to me really to be a racialist attitude. It seems to me to be a continuation of the bad biology and bogus philosophy of that renegade Englishman, Houston Chamberlain, which was taken to its disgusting logical conclusion by Rosenberg.
The Germans between the wars were racialist as a nation. They thought coloured people, Jews, Slays, Latins and all the rest, to be inferior races. I suppose we are all a little tainted by racialist feelings, though not necessarily in the same direction. I have certainly never had any doubt since the 'thirties that I much prefer the Jews to the Germans. The very idea that the great Slav culture, the great Chinese culture, the great Indian culture and the great Hebrew culture are in any way inferior to the German version of the European culture is ludicrous.
This is the great divide. I believe more people think they are superior to coloured people than are ready to admit it. I believe that they conceal their own views even from themselves, certainly from me, because when they express the feeling in words it is so arrogant and disagreeable that it shocks them. They confuse it with a cheerful jingoism, the sort of harmless national vanity that thinks foreigners funny, held, I suppose, most strongly by the Chinese but to some degree by every nation worth the name. It is a primitive point of view which will not stand up to examination for a moment; but it is clearly not evil, and it accounts for the readiness of decent people to hold views which to me are so abhorrent. When it is combined with the false and tendentious approach of pseudo-science, there it becomes really

145
nasty, and on this point there can be no compromise. Those of us who believe in equal rights, believe it as a direct appreciation of a moral fact which can be supported and strengthened but probably not proved by argument. Over issues of degree, of method, of speed, of effectiveness, we can argue; over the principle we can only fight, and it is that principle which this Bill is designed to support.
10.0 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, when I asked that my name might be included in the list of speakers to-day, I indicated that I should like to have an early place. I find myself as the last speaker from these Benches but perhaps after all there is something appropriate in that allocation. It was my noble friend Lord Sorensen, who spoke earlier, who was the pioneer of legislation against racial discrimination. I am not quite sure how many years ago it was that he first introduced a Pill in another place. I can only claim to have been persistent in this matter.
I cannot fully express the feeling of gratification which I have this evening, not only because of the introduction of this Bill but because of the way it has been received in this House. I say that because as recently as 1951, when I first introduced a Bill in the House of Commons against racial discrimination in public places, the only sponsors that I could find for my Bill were the little group of Left Socialists, Michael Foot, Sydney Silverman, Barbara Castle, and the others who have always seemed to me to be the soul of our Labour Party. And yet, my Lords, when I introduced my Bill nine years later I had the support of representatives from the Front Bench of the Lab our Party, I had the Leader of the Liberal Party, I had Conservative Members, indicating the quite extraordinary change that had taken place in those years. Before the Election our present Prime Minister announced that the Government would be introducing a Bill on those lines. My Lords, I was a happy person then, and am a far happier person to-night.
Last year I introduced a Bill to amend the Race Relations Act so that it would extend to employment, housing, and credits. I am happy to-night because
146
the Bill for which the Government have become responsible has so closely followed the Private Member's Bill which I introduced, but I am the more happy because in the debate which has taken place in the House to-day no speaker has said that he would vote against the Bill; and even those who have been critical have expressed the hope that this Bill might reduce racial tensions in our country. That that should happen within the period of 10 or 15 years is one of the most encouraging changes in public opinion that could possibly have occurred in this country.
I recognise at once that racial feeling in this country is not only due to the Enoch Powells. It has also been due to those of us who have opposed the Enoch Powells. Therefore, I want to be very careful to-night not to say one thing that is likely to intensify racial feeling in our country. I have appreciated tremendously the debate in this House, in contrast with the debate in another place, because I do not think that it is likely to intensify racial feeling among our people.
I want to begin by endorsing what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that we are to-night discussing an issue which is reflected in our own land but which is really a world-wide issue. Those of us who throughout the years have been engaged in trying to bring harmony between the races must be more depressed now than we have ever been because, as the world has grown smaller in technical content, the racial conflicts within it have grown. I recognise at once that this is not a matter of black and white. Unhappily, perhaps the most intense expression of it is in Africa, between Africans and Africans. This was reflected only to-day in this House by the Questions which were put about the terrible conflict in Nigeria and its results. Not one of us who has been working for racial harmony in the world can be other than depressed to-day as we look to Asia, Africa, the United States of America—in fact anywhere in the world—and as we look at the beginning of the problem here in Britain. Nobody who has that sense of what is happening in the world can take a crude or primitive view about racial relations.
To deny that among human beings there is racial prejudice is to deny what has existed through the generations. Of

147
course there is racial prejudice. It arises from strangeness in relation to these people with different customs, of a different colour. It has happened between tribe and tribe, between race and race, between nation and nation, between hemisphere and hemisphere, all through history and we shall not overcome it in a few years or by this legislation. When one sees that problem the world over, the problems in our own country become almost small in comparison.
Racial prejudice here, yes; but, stimulated and encouraged by social conditions and by the different standards of life of the coloured immigrants and our British people. But we should remember that for the lower standards of life in the West Indies, in India and in Pakistan, our own colonial administration in the past has a very considerable responsibility, Different habits, yes—sometimes good and sometimes bad—and different cultures. In addition to these distinctions there are problems of social conditions: the housing shortage, the coming of the immigrants to take the houses, their overcrowding, the feeling that they are ousting those who should have an opportunity for houses; problems in the schools, the immigrant children coming in and not knowing the English language, so preventing English children from getting on in their classes; problems in the hospitals, when English women want to go in for the birth of their children, and find immigrant women there.
Those problems are not really the problems of the coloured immigrants: they are the problems of the shortage of housing, of schools, of classes, of teachers, of hospitals, of beds—problems for which we as a nation and the Government, were responsible before the coloured immigrants came in large numbers to this country. The coloured immigrant has been made the scapegoat of our own failure, of our own shortage, of our own inability to build enough houses, schools and hospitals for the people of our own territories.
In addition, there is the fear by our working class of unemployment. It is a little peculiar that in our present situation the areas of unemployment in this country are in fact the areas where there is a very small coloured population. The
148
coloured population have naturally gone to their Birminghams, their Londons and their Sloughs, where there is easy employment. There is fear, again, that the coloured immigrants may undercut standards of life in our country. Once again, those are not really problems of coloured immigration, but problems of the failure to deal with our own economic conditions and situations.
Many of us take the view that in the conditions of to-day, with productivity and economic opportunity, fears about unemployment, and even the fear that wages may be cut, are absolutely inconsistent with all the possibilities for production and wealth which now exist. Therefore, my Lords, I am saying that in addition to instinctive, primitive, racial prejudice, racial harmony is being destroyed by social and economic conditions for which the immigrants are not responsible but for which we, over the years, have been responsible, and which is a part of our present economic and social system.
My Lords, if that analysis is in any way true, I think it follows that if we could remove the social and economic causes which stimulate and encourage racial discrimination we should go very far to secure conditions where the experience of different races living together would mean that harmony would develop. Why do I say that? It is because in those strata of society where coloured persons and white persons are living on the basis of equality there is very little racial prejudice or racial discrimination: the students at our universities, the doctors, the artists, the athletes, the cricketers. Cricket is one of my great relaxations—at least, watching it now is. Cricket, that great English sport! Here to-day, we have been debating, in the House of Lords, where the religion, almost, of I suppose nine out of ten of us is cricket, but not a single word has been said because West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis are now taking over first-class cricket in this country and our county clubs. In all these spheres there is no inequality, no discrimination. For "pop" singers there is praise, adoration. It is because of the social and economic differences which I have described, on the top of primitive, historical, racial prejudice, that we have the present situation in this country.

149
My Lords, it is for these reasons that I welcome this Bill. It deals with unemployment, with housing, with credits and so on. It will contribute towards removing the causes of dissension and tension which now exist between the races. But I would conclude, my Lords, by saying this: that while I welcome this legislation, I recognise that we are not going to conquer this problem merely
150
by legislation. It means education; it means the adjustment of social and economic standards to those in which there will be an opportunity for the races to live together; it means an experience; it means that we need a new ethic that all of us. whatever our colour, whatever our race, belong to the one human family.
10.19 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, this has been a long debate, many speeches have been made and I am full of notes of what everybody has said. It is unusual, perhaps, for so many to be present at the end of a debate. I do not know whether most of your Lordships are really here to hear the Unstarred Question about Australia; but, if not, may I say I think it particularly courteous of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the most reverend Primate to have stayed to the end of the debate.
May I start by taking the world setting in which my noble friend Lord Brockway left us? I imagine that if in twenty years' time, somebody looked back and asked: "What is the most important thing that happened during that Government's life?", we should find them referring to something which was reported in the Press; but not much was made of it because it was not a row. I noticed a couple of days ago in a most respectable newspaper that on one page alone there were half a dozen paragraph headings, no fewer than three of which included the word "row". I forget whether it was a row in the Conservative Party or a row in some other Party or an immigration row. But the event to which I was referring could not expect publicity of that kind; for it was not a row. It was only an agreement, the nonproliferation agreement, and what may be regarded as the start of a breakthrough in relation to nuclear armaments, an agreement on which my noble friend Lord Chalfont had done so much for so long—and, of course, my noble friend Lord Caradon. What Lord Caradon is doing here, for he has not spoken to us, I am not quite sure.
But this is all part of the racial problem; because so long as the big Powers go on spending as much of the world's resources as they do on nuclear armaments and on space travel there cannot be the money left for the relief of poverty that there ought to be. And with science as it is, it is only a question of time before the four out of five, the black, yellow or coloured, are not going to put up with their degree of poverty when they see the rate at which the one out of five, the white people, live, spending 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the
152
whole of the world's income. Therefore this is a general problem, although tonight we are considering it in relation only to this particular country. I hope that we may be in time—because the immigrants are only 2 per cent. of the population; unlike in Rhodesia where the coloured immigrants are 8 per cent. of the population; although, of course, when I say "coloured" in relation to Rhodesia I mean coloured white.
If the description of the state of affairs at Wolverhampton which was reported in the Observer was correct indeed it would be difficult to exaggerate the gravity of the problem. The noble Lord, Lork Brooke, said that it was the greatest social problem of the half century. I would respectfully agree with that view. Tackling it, and what is the right thing to do, is another matter. Some of us have said of this Bill that it goes too far; some that it goes not far enough. I wish that I had the complete confidence of some people that they know the answer to the racial problem.
One of the few things which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that I did not altogether agree with was that the problem was really one of numbers and not of colour. It is really both, is it not? Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was right in saying that if a village which had never seen a black man before sees two, then they are very interested in them and do not dislike them at all. That is probably because they know they are leaving the next day. But if you produce 1,000 black men and they are to stay permanently the villagers would feel rather different. It is really two things, numbers and colour. If the article on Wolverhampton was right—it said that the writer had never heard of any complaints at all about 1,000 Italians—is that not really because they cannot see them? Surely the difficulty of putting into a town like Huddersfield within a given period 10,000 fluent English-speaking Norwegians and, on the other band, in the same period, putting in 10,000 Pakistanis is not the same. To draw attention to the fact that it is not the same is not to be racialist; it is to be realistic. Therefore it is not just the problem of numbers; it is also a problem of colour.
I suspect that the only way to deal with this is to do three things. The first

153
thing, it seems to me, which one must do is to control the rate of immigration. Surely there must be a maximum rate at which immigrants can possibly be assimilated. If you were to put into Wolverhampton tomorrow, in addition to their present 14,000 coloured immigrants, or whatever it is, another 14,000, plainly there would be an explosion, would there not? Therefore, it seems to me that the first thing one must do is to control the rate of immigration. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that all Parties were to blame before 1962 because whether it was right to become a multi-racial country or not, no one ever decided. It was just allowed to happen by drift without any conscious decision, and it seems to me to have been wrong. And the situation in 1962 in which a quarter of the whole population of the entire world had the legal right to come here was one which could not possibly be continued.
My Lords, it was a matter of great distress to me recently when so many of my noble friends disagreed with the Government's view that even in relation to those who were the subject of the recent Commonwealth Immigrants Act, we could not allow hundreds of thousands to have the legal right to arrive here tomorrow; and when it was necessary for us to say, "We are not saying that you cannot come in, but you cannot all come tomorrow." Whether that was right or not, we have now at last got real control over the rate of immigration. What we should do may well be a matter of opinion.
The second essential, it seems to me, is education and conciliation, and much the most important part of the Bill. I think, is the provision of the Community Relations Commission. In the end this is not something which can be done by law. It can he done only by a mixture of education and conciliation, and what the conciliation committees do, what the various bodies who are working for race relations do, is I think very much more important than anything in the Bill.
Thirdly, my Lords, I think that we need a law, not because people can be made to behave properly or to think differently or to feel differenty by law, but because the law sets a standard, and because it helps those who are trying to do the
154
right thing. I believe that, broadly speaking, most of our people aye by nature tolerant people. This will enable the landlady who does not mind letting to coloured people, but who is afraid of what the neighbours may say, to say, "Well, I cannot help it, it is the law."
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, is one of those who are unhappy about the definition clause. Well, my Lords, no doubt we can consider that. We started with the one of 1965, and this was considered to be an improvement. But the general attitude of the Government throughout, as I have made plain my own is, has been that we are not confident that we have all the answers. Personally, I approach this in a spirit of humility, ready to consider anything. The Convention definition would, I think, create difficulty, partly because it is not a definition of "to discriminate"; it is a definition of "discrimination", and most of the wording of the Act would have to be changed. Of course, Clause l has to be read also with Clause 2, and I do not think that there is any real danger of it being given the construction which has been suggested.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Byers, wanted the Board to have power to make orders; and, of course, there is also the view that the Board should have power to issue subpoenas. Here again is a matter which we can consider. I think the majority of those who have spoken expressed the view that that would be a mistake, though I think the most reverend Primate was rather in favour of subpoenas. I think it difficult to have a body which in effect is going both to punish people and to conciliate at the same time—I think it must be one or the other. The power to subpoena is a power which no one in the country has except a court. Even the police cannot subpoena people, and once you allow somebody other than a court to do that, who is to send them to prison when they do not obey the subpoena? We should have the police and Government Departments making orders to send people to prison. If somebody says that he is not going, what do the Board do? It is not suggested that they have the power to send people to prison. The matter would have to go to the county court. It is not easy for a court to send anyone to prison for not obeying orders that some

155
other body has made. This, again, is quite a new principle. The court might not agree with the order. The judge might think that it is impossible to send somebody to prison for not obeying an order which the court thinks ought not to have been made. This is a difficult subject, but it is one we could discuss in Committee.
The most reverend Primate also stressed, as one would expect of him, the importance of conciliation, as do the Government. It is more important, I think, than anything else in the Bill. Ultimately, the relations between communities of different races in England will depend more on education and conciliation than on anything in the Bill, though I think it is important that there should be a law. My noble friend Lord Walston wanted to know what form financial help would take and when it would be available. I am afraid that this is still being worked out. We have not, after all, got the Bill yet.
The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, was one of the few speakers who seemed to be against the Bill, mainly on the ground, I think, that we were overcrowded already. But, of course, that is not so. At the present time we are losing more than we are gaining. It appears, if she will allow me to say so, that her real object in speaking was to deal with discrimination against women, on which subject she knows that I have considerable sympathy with her, and I quite agree that we should not lose a chance of speaking about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, is a strong supporter of the Bill. I appreciated the point of view from which my noble friend Lord Hirsh-field spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, wished to stop immigration. Obviously, honest men may differ on the question of to what extent we should continue immigration. Personally I agree with the Government's policy, that apart from what is now a limited number of vouchers, immigration should be limited to the wives and children of those already here. The noble Lord said that this required careful consideration. That is quite appropriate. He said that the legal provisions were novel—they are not necessarily the worse for that. I
156
agree that we can look at the question of damages. The noble Lord also referred to Clause 22, dealing with privileged communications. The sole object of this is that people may feel able to speak freely in the course of conciliation proceedings without feeling that what they say is going to be used against them.
My noble friend Lord Sorensen delivered a fine appeal to us that we should all do our part. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, hoped that the Board would be sensible. He raised a point on Clause 12(2), but I think he had not taken into account subsection (3), as my noble friend Lord Stonham pointed out at the time. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi raised several points, the first about research. That is still under examination. Then he raised the question of whether a circular would constitute an advertisement. I should think that it would do so. Then he asked about the clubs. Clubs, as such, assuming they are bona fide clubs, are not covered. Of course, there are many places which are masquerading as clubs and which clearly are not. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, urged the Government to provide the necessary housing, and so forth. Of course, this is very much part of the whole problem, as I should be the first to agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was, I thought, treated a little harshly by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. I have never before agreed with anything the noble Lord has said on this subject, but tonight he said something with which I agree. He said that it is both colour and numbers that we are concerned with. He said—and it is quite true; it is something which has been very much in the mind of the Government—that in considering the whole of this Part of the Bill the difficulty is that it is very easy to do something which will make coloured people feel less against white people, and by exactly the same means make white people feel very much more vicious about black people. This is not difficult to do. You can do things to reduce the ill-feeling which one race has to the other, but they only exacerbate the feeling of the other race. This is one of the difficulties. The noble Lord spoke, I think quite fairly, of tilting the balance and of the prospect of this causing resentment.

157
My noble friend Lady Gaitskell was quite right in saying that nobody is seeking by this Bill to put coloured people into a privileged position. That is an idea that we must get out of everybody's mind. And I was glad to hear the reference my noble friend made, as no doubt was my noble friend Lord Caradon, to our being able, as a consequence of all this, to hold up our heads at the United Nations.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, I always agree with, of course; he always says, I think, everything that is right. He referred to the four points which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had made in concluding the debate in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, did not like the Bill at all. I never thought he would. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, stressed the importance of getting agreement, so far as one could.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, told us the effect which it was having on his dog—well, whether it was the effect his dog was having on the Bill, or the effect the Bill was having on his dog, I am not quite sure. He was a little worried about Clause 3, employment. I do not think he need be. If there is a mass of proceedings, of course, the Bill will have failed. It is essential to have a law here, but all the conciliation side and the Race Relations Board side will obviously have failed if there is a substantial number of proceedings. But if there are cases in the employment field, the onus of proof is on the applicant to satisfy the court that the reason why he was not employed was because of his colour, and not because of something else. So, assuming that the noble Viscount is not a racialist, he will have nothing to worry about.
Then the noble Viscount was worried about insurance. But there is nothing in the Bill which will not enable insurers to consider their insurance experience. I should be very surprised to hear that coloured people have worse driving records than most. I should expect to hear that some were good and some were bad. Certainly from everything that I saw of the Negro drivers in the American Army in the war in Western Europe they were all magnificent drivers. I see the noble Viscount shake his head.
LORD BYERS: They were handpicked.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Byers, says that they were hand-picked. But they were very fine truck drivers. I did not very much appreciate the reference to the tot of rum. I do not know whether it hat been the noble Viscount's experience that white people do not have tots of rum. I do not think the noble Viscount need be unhappy about it.
My noble friend Lady Birk brought us back to the fact that it is colour. She is also, I think, unhappy about the definition and as to whether the Board ought not to have more power, and as to whether two months was a sufficient period for a complaint. But she also brought us back, I think quite rightly, to the tremendous contribution which the coloured people have already made to this country. The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, made what I thought IN as a most reasonable speech. I agree with him in that I doubt whether these processions do much good. I was grateful for his cordial approach towards the Bill as a whole.
Then I always appreciate very much whatever my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder says with his great experience from Glasgow onwards. I think he was quite right in stressing the fact that if you are black then you are recognisable. My noble friend Lord Donaldson made what really was so good a winding up speech, I thought, that I felt, "Anything I say after this must be an awful anticlimax". He referred, as I remember I did the last time we were discussing this subject, to what the Dutch had done in this field. I hope that we shall again consider what they have done and whether we cannot usefully take a lesson from them.
As to the author of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Brockway, really I never have any sympathy with him because he has the great advantage, like me, of being pretty old and of having had many, many occasions on which everybody has said, "You are absolutely 'cracked'. You must be mad". Then one went and talked about the matter in the village hall, and one wrote letters to the local papers, and the years went on, and now, in our very old age, in case after case

159
we are seeing our dreams come true. One need have no sympathy with somebody who is in that position, because I think, and he knows that I think, that on practically everything he has always been right.
My Lords, if I may come back finally to the importance of the whole subject (I really cannot get Wolverhampton quite out of my mind to-night), I am sure that we must have control over immigration. Exactly how many immigrants we should allow in is a matter of opinion. The real job that must be done is in the field of education and conciliation, but I hope very much that the bodies—and I suspect that there are probably too many different ones—which are helping on race relations will bring in as many of our young people as they can, because I think there is much less racial feeling between young people than with an older generation. The young people are usually more tolerant; they are idealistic, and I am sure that this is what we ought to do. My Lords, I hope that meanwhile—and not expecting it to do more than its proper task—we can feel that this Bill is part of the way ahead, and vote for its Second Reading accordingly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMMIGRATION RIGHTS OF AUSTRALIAN AND NEWZEALAND CITIZENS
10.44 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will restore to the citizens of Australia and New Zealand the free access to, and right of residence in, this country which they have traditionally enjoyed. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper I have first of all an interest to declare. I was born an Australian, and though, rather like a latter-day little Lord Fauntleroy, I came to this country at the age of 12, I returned 23 years later. I have interests there. After coming back to this country, I still continue every three years, approximately, to visit that
160
country. I have many New Zealand relations, mainly descended from a younger son of an early generation who, inter alia, when he went out there became the first Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament. So in these triangular visits I combined the two countries, and since my return to this country in 1957 two-thirds of my visitors' book has consisted of visitors from those two countries. That, my Lords, is the reason why I mention those two countries by name, and I have no intention thereby of saying something nasty, by inference, in not mentioning Canada, because many of the arguments which I shall use apply to that country.
It is also because I know—or I think I know—what hard feelings have been caused by our immigration laws as applied to Australians and New Zealanders, that I have raised this subject, and it is because I have had all these visitors, because I have lived there, and because I have received the Press reports. I think the relations between our countries have been bedevilled by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and by the headlines in the Press of "grilling" by immigration officers. Many of these headlines, I agree, are exaggerated, but that does not alter the basic fact that these laws, as applied to these people, are looked on as downright insulting, humiliating and ungrateful, because in international conferences like those of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the United Nations, and so on, if there are any two countries which have consistently supported this country in the difficult arguments and debates it has been Australia and New Zealand.
Secondly, in the last three wars that this country has fought they have sent thousands of their volunteers—and incidentally, in case people want to turn this, I would like to mention that they were volunteers officered by their own people—to the assistance of this country, whether it was the South African War, the Great War or the Hitler War. En passant one might say that they sent to Europe to assist us when Europe was the danger point: and now that South-East Asia has taken its place, it is not a particularly honourable time to maintain our geographical positions or to indicate that we cannot help them.
On this particular subject, if you go to the little village of Cambridge, in New Zealand, and read the inscription on the war memorial there you will see this inscription:
"Tell England, ye that mark this monument, faithful to her we died, and rest content."
Classical scholars will know whence that inscription has sprung. But the young New Zealand journalist working on a paper in Brighton, whose paternal grandfather came from Oxford, whose mother came from Hastings—no; he cannot stay. Nor can Nigel Wilson, for example —despite his name—in regard to whom I had correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the other day. He is employed in a business in which his managing director says that if they cannot continue to employ him they will lose export orders. But no: he is not allowed to stay. It has been traditional, ever since these two countries started, for their young to come to this country on a visit, and most of them, except for the very rich, have to combine their visit with a job. If you come that far, and have to work, what is the use of a stamp on your passport for three or six months? As a result, few ever remain.
Why then do they come? Because they have grown up to look on this as the Mother Country. I know; I grew up there. But what a state we have got into when one of the Agents General now has to warn the young from his State "Do not look on this as the Mother Country. If you want to keep out of trouble think of her as a rather mean stepmother."
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord say which Agent General made this statement and when.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I will give the noble Lord the name but I am not going to say it in public.
LORD STONHAM: Why not?
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: Because he said it to me in confidence.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have myself seen all these Agents General. I have discussed it with them. Is it right
162
to say here something that they are ashamed to say in public?
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, if you think I have said anything wrong, may I withdraw it?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my only point about this is that the relationship between my Department and the High Commissioners' Departments are exceptionally good, and they are exceedingly pleased with the arrangements we make. It is therefore very damaging to have a statement made and then to find either that the noble Lord cannot substantiate it or prefers to withdraw it.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord wants me to do, but I will withdraw it and supply him with the name afterwards.
The other attitude, looking at it from the Australian point of view, is the question: who do our rulers think they are, bringing in these rules which put these people in the position in which they find themselves? And it has the effect of causing them to regard it as retrospective legislation; and it is looked on as something fairly arrogant. Perhaps I may illustrate this by a story, which I admit I inflicted on your Lordships about four years ago. It concerns a typist from Melbourne who from the age of 17 to 21 saved up her money for a trip to this country. Eventually she had saved enough. She went to see her parents in the suburbs, and said, "Marge and I are going over to England". Her mother said, "Before you go, dear, do go up to Wogga Wogga and say goodbye to Granny because she is getting on in years". Off the girl went, by plane and train, and other means, and eventually arrived at Wogga Wogga. She said, "Granny I have come to say goodbye". Granny said, "That is very nice of you. And where are you going?" She said, "I am going to England with my friend Marge", and Granny said, "What. You can't go there". "Why not Granny?", asked the girl. And Granny said, "Don't you realise that is where the convicts come from".
My Lords, as applied to these two countries the laws are, I think (though of course I do not expect everyone to agree

163
with me), looked on as being rather stupid. However, the administration of the laws has not caused so much trouble, though there were, to begin with, one or two silly cases. I will refer to them in a minute. However—and perhaps I may say this without having to mention the name of the man concerned—one Agent General said to me that since the meeting they had had with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, the administration had improved considerably. But again perhaps I may quote from someone who said, "It still means that too much depends on the liver of the immigration officer at the time when he is dealing with the subject".
I think that the question of these arguments depends on how you are going to approach the subject. For example, in the Question I asked the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in November I quoted a letter from a Mr. Everson, who wrote to me:
"As a New Zealander I fought hard for Britain in the last war and lost my brothers who willingly sacrificed themselves for their Mother Country. I find it most embarrassing that, now I am in England visiting a sister who is dying of cancer, I have to beg the Home Office to allow an extention of time."
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, very rightly said that in cases like that an extension is automatically given. That is not my point. My point is that people like these should never have to wonder whether they will be permitted to stay.
If you go to Australia, as I did in 1950, and an Election comes along, you vote in it. If your passport runs out, you straight away go and get another one. There is nothing to worry about. Why? Because you are from this country. When thousands upon thousands from this country (it is going to be 72,000 in this year) are accepted over there why, in Heaven's name, cannot we be reciprocal? Why must we be so niggardly over the few people who would like to stay here longer? The people who want to do that are few and far between, and those who do come do so to the advantage of this country. I myself know of a couple of Generals and a couple of Harley Street specialists, for instance. There is another point. Why treat these people like this when
164
you do not control the Southern Irish, who have not always been particularly pro-British? I think the law is not right on this subject. We seem to be going out of our way to penalise our kith and kin—now perhaps a dirty phrase.
Since the publicity at the end of last year, one has learned of a number of cases of irritation caused by the administration. They are small cases. They number only a few, and I should like to mention them. The first and famous one was of the boy, John Brownlie, who was detained for 36 days. I am not interested so much in the details of that case as in the letter that his mother wrote to me afterwards. Instead of being "nasty", and all the rest of it, she was full of gratitude for the kindness of people in this country, for what they had offered to her son, particularly to an officer serving in Germany who had offered him accommodation for as long as he wanted it. In another case, Wayne Watkins was put back on the ship. If the story I heard is true, that is one type of trick which should not be allowed to be played. He was asked whether he liked the country and whether he would work if he was offered a job. He said perhaps he would take it. He was then asked "Where is your work permit?"—and back on the ship he went. That sort of action is silly, if it is true.
There were two sisters who arrived from Melbourne at the same time and in the same circumstances. One had her passport stamped for six months, the other for twelve months. Then, in another case, Mr. Ryan, the Manager of the State Savings Bank of Victoria (these appointments change every three years), filled up all the forms and did everything necessary in Australia. He arrived here, and his passport was stamped for twelve months. Yet his was a three-year appointment.
My Lords, to conclude I should like to make some reference to one or two points in The Times leader on the subject last November. It says:
"There was a degree of humbug in the Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962. The purpose of the measure was to restrict the influx of coloured people at a time when the number of incomers seemed to be threatening race relations in Britain. Subsequent events have entirely justified the policy."

165
It then goes on later to say—
"But in 1962 neither politicians nor public were ready to acknowledge openly that they were dealing with a colour problem."
My comment on that is that surely now we realise what the problem is.
The article goes on:
"So restrictions were applied to all Commonwealth countries—coloured and white alike.
"As an expression of principle this may have been admirable, but as a practical policy it was nonsense from the beginning. It did not fool the coloured members of the Commonwealth, who knew well enough why the Act was passed. And it angered people from the old white dominions. So much so that the six Australian Agents-General in London have protested to their State Governments about the treatment received by Australian visitors to Britain.
But sooner or later they"—
meaning the Government of Britain,
"will have to face the central question: does it make any sense to stop Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians coming freely to Britain because there is a colour problem?"
I think this article hits the nail on the head. It says further:
"But they"—
the Government—
"would he wiser to reflect that the cause of race relations would be best served at this stage by frank speaking.
Honesty demands that the Race Relations Act should be extended because at the moment it does not cover the most important areas of discrimination. It is little more than a token of good intention. Honesty also demands that members of the White Commonwealth should be restricted in their entry to Britain only if their presence here would he likely to cause difficulties."
My Lords, honesty also demands that we alter this legislation which is insulting to our heretofore best friends. I implore the noble Lord not to be scared of Tariq Ali or someone like that accusing him of being a "racialist". The Government has alienated New Zealand and Australia about the Common Market; it has let them down by scuttling from the Far East; but it has so insulted them in this matter that it has brought relations to the lowest pitch since bodyline bowling, and that is saying something.
11.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for having raised this question to-night, and person-
166
ally I should like to say at the outset that I give way to no-one in my regard for Australia and New Zealand. Both countries have fought with us in every war in which we have been involved in this century, and there is a special relationship between Britain and "Down-under". That is one of the most priceless assets of this country, and it would be folly indeed to throw it away. As your Lordships know, we on this side of the House criticise the Government for the precipitate withdrawal East of Suez and the abrupt change of policy which preceded that decision, which is now unfortunately highlighted in the latest Defence White Paper. We also believe that Britain should share in the development of Australia's mineral potential, and we much regret that the Government's mishandling of the economy has led to the voluntary curb on investments in Australia.
It cannot be denied that there is in some Australian and New Zealand circles doubt, to put it mildly, as to the future of their bilateral relationships with Britain. However, I am not so certain that the origin of these doubts lies so much in the restrictions on Australians and New Zealanders taking up residence in this country. I recognise that there is considerable resentment, and this I have on the very best authority. However there is no doubt that large numbers of people from Australia and New Zealand still come to Britain as students and on working holidays, and a number of vouchers are available for those who wish to come permanently in order to work in this country. As the noble Lord has said, the existing restrictions were imposed under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, which was, of course, a Conservative measure—incidentally opposed by the Labour Party at the time.
LORD STONHAM: And supported by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: That is perfectly true. I cannot possibly see how we can put Australians and New Zealanders into a special category exempt from the provisions of this Act, while leaving Canadians, Kenyans and Mauritians subject to it. I do not believe that any responsible Australians and New Zealanders, nor even the noble Lord in his heart of hearts, would expect us to do anything of the sort.

167
This is not to say that the existing regulations should not be administered in a humanitarian and sensible way, as I believe they generally are. Each case should be considered on its merits. I believe that my Australian and New Zealand friends accept the position in general. In fact, I believe that there is some good evidence to show that there is less feeling in Australia about the several over-publicised cases of ill-treatment by the British authorities; and I understand that at official level in Australia there has been fairly general agreement that in most cases the trouble would not have arisen if the individuals concerned has taken the trouble to find out the rules. That comes from Australian officials. This is not the only point. What these people resent is being treated as aliens and not being allowed to work. I think that some noble Lords in this House resent this, too. What is happening does not help to preserve our special kith-and-kin relationship with these countries.
I read with great interest the debate on the Adjournment in another place on June 11, and studied carefully the distressing cases which Mr. Wall listed there. I also read the reply by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, Mr. David Ennals, and I was glad to see that he said that his right honourable friend was always anxious to mitigate difficulties where they arose and to administer the legislation in as humane a manner as he could. But, of course, it is vital that we should keep a close eye on this matter and make certain that our friends from Australasia are treated with courtesy. Great harm can be done by mishandling even one case, and in my view the Government should maintain the utmost vigilance to ensure that Australians and New Zealanders have no cause for complaint.
I am glad to learn that the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference is to meet in January, and I hope that on that occasion the whole question of Commonwealth citizenship will be raised. The whole structure of the Commonwealth has now changed and in many respects present legislation can be said to be out of date. I hope very much that the Prime Minister will be successful in getting this subject put on
168
the agenda of the Conference, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will convey this hope to his right honourable friends.
Your Lordships will also have learned that my right honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition in another place, will soon be visiting Australia, and no doubt this is a subject which he, too, will wish to discuss while he is there. At all events, his visit is proof of the Conservative Party's interest in Australasia and the problems which are of mutual concern to us. Noble Lords will no doubt have read what my right honourable friend said only yesterday on the radio in The World This Weekend. He made his views very plain in that broadcast which is reported in to-day's Times. Since, curiously enough, I do not think it has been quoted during the whole of this afternoon and evening, I think I should quote it now:
"I said that I would not support any candidate in the Conservative Party at the last election who issued any policy or declaration which inclined towards racial discrimination. That is still my position. In this country everyone—whatever their race, creed or origin —must be treated in exactly the same way before the law."
That applies to both debates which we have had this evening.
For these reasons, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for having given me this opportunity of saying what I have said. I cannot personally see that exemption for Australians and New Zealanders is in the present climate of racial relations a practical possibility. But, as I say, I hope that individual cases will be treated as humanely as possible and that the Government will look at this problem again very seriously. It cannot be set aside on purely legalistic grounds, and in some ways it is almost as serious as that which we have been discussing throughout this afternoon and this evening. I therefore much look forward to the noble Lord's reply.
11.11 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has raised this matter not for the first time. Of course he feels very strongly about it, and I can understand that. I also have a great many friends among Australians and New Zealanders, and

169
I admire those two countries enormously. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, justly paid tribute to the great support that Australia and New Zealand gave us through both World Wars. I myself remember the wonderful work done by the Australian and New Zealand Divisions in the Middle East. I also remember the 5th Indian Division, and all the Africans who enlisted to fight in the Middle East Armies. I can understand the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, for this special relationship and, like the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I yield to no one in the affection that I have for the countries of Australia and New Zealand. But I think it is absolutely essential that all countries in the Commonwealth should be treated impartially, and the present Government are supporting what the Conservative Government did in this respect.
But I wonder whether the position is really quite so bad as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, made out and whether—I think the noble Earl alluded to this—there is really quite so much concern in Australia and New Zealand as he would have use believe. Australians and New Zealanders are able to come to this country in increasing numbers as visitors. Also, many of them come on working holidays. They can stay sometimes for three months, sometimes for six months, sometimes for a year. From what figures I have seen, these numbers seem to increase every year. I am very glad that they do and they are very welcome.
On the other hand, the numbers who seek to come and stay here permanently are very small compared with the numbers from the rest of the Commonwealth, and the numbers who are actually turned back seem to be about 100 a year. So one assumes that most of the people from these two countries wish to come here for short stays or on working holidays, and that there are not these tremendous numbers being held back by an unsympathetic Government and by rude, unsympathetic, difficult and perverse Customs officials, as was suggested by the noble Lord. I hope I am right in this, and, if I am, I shall be very glad if my noble friend the Minister will give us some supporting figures to show that, while the noble Lord, Lord Clifford,
170
has every right to feel strongly about this matter he is not really acting with very much justification.
11.15 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that due to the lateness of the hour—in fact, my last train goes in a few moments—I may not be able to stay for his winding-up speech; but I feel particularly strongly about certain aspects of this subject because my ancestry hails partly from New Zealand. Like my noble friend Lord Bessborough, however, I think that perhaps certain terms of the Question have been overstated. I have made inquiries from some of my friends from Australia and New Zealand who are over here, and they have given varying answers as to the stringency of the regulations concerning how long and under what conditions they can stay. One young lady who works as a secretary to one of the well-known London clubs has been fortunate in the fact that she and her husband can stay more or less permanently, but some of her friends suffer from a number of anomalies. As I understand I it, the immigration authorities have rather wide powers over the passports of those in this country when they go on holiday to, say, the Continent and return; and I think there are a number of people who are anxious to know what the regulations here are and what kind of powers the immigration authorities here have.
The other point of importance concerns those in the nursing profession. There are in this country a number of nurses from New Zealand—I know some of them personally. I have raised this question before, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, as I am doing him the discourtesy of leaving before he finishes speaking, could perhaps write to me setting out the situation here, particularly of those who want to stay on after finishing their training. Because no doubt many of them develop a love and respect for this country, and the) do not always want to be subjected to having their passports renewed, and so on. But, having said that, I think that if we are going to have a Commonwealth then broadly we must do all in our power to make sure that so far as those who come to this country are concerned, provided it is on a definite basis

171
and for a definite purpose, they receive as equal treatment as possible.
11.18 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think it is somewhat remarkable that, having debated for seven-and-a-half hours and unanimously agreed that we accept the principle that discrimination should be unlawful, I am immediately afterwards met by a request by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that we should start discrimination all over again.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Discrimination in reverse.
LORD STONHAM: Discrimination in reverse. I am very glad, therefore, that the other noble Lords who have spoken made it perfectly clear that, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, everyone must be the same before the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, may not be able to stay until the end because he has to catch a train—and I think this may be the case with others—I would assure him at once that one simple rule that could be followed by our Australian and New Zealand cousins with advantage when they come here is to be as frank and honest as they can possibly be, and then they will not run into any troubles. I shall proceed to demonstrate that the only cases of which I am aware—certainly the only cases cited by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford—are where people have sought by subterfuge to hoodwink and to dodge round the regulations, and where they have been a bit unlucky—and I think they should be unlucky.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for creating this opportunity for debating this important subject and for giving me the chance of stating in more detail what the facts are. So many really unfair and inaccurate statements are made that it is as well to get the facts right. The noble Lord puts his Question in terms of rights which have been traditionally enjoyed. I must begin by confirming that up to 1962 the right of entry into and residence in the United Kingdom was enjoyed by all British subjects from whatever part of the Empire or Commonwealth they came. Our tradition in this matter has always been and still is one of nondiscrimination. There has never been a time when the inhabitants of Australia and New Zealand enjoyed any preferen-
172
tial treatment over other citizens of the Commonwealth as regards entry to this country. That tradition the Government steadfastly maintain. So that in demanding preferential treatment for citizens of Australia and New Zealand, it is the noble Lord who is breaking with tradition and the Government who are defending it.
When the first Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was introduced the Government of the day (which as the noble Earl reminded us, was of his Party) drafted it in such a way as to apply immigration control to all Commonwealth citizens except those who had certain specified connections with this country. Again that principle has been preserved, although the Act was amended earlier this year so as to extend the scope of immigration control. The present Government are determined to adhere to the principle of applying the control impartially to citizens of all Commonwealth countries.
What does this mean in practice to Australians and New Zealanders? Many of them, I know, dislike having to apply for admission to what they regard as the "Mother Country" instead of being able to enter as of right. I fully understand and sympathise with this feeling; I can assure the House that we make every allowance for it in the administration of the control, and for the ordinary visitor we try to make the necessary formalities as easy as we can. Indeed, we do so. It is grossly untrue to suggest otherwise, and it is grossly unfair to the immigration officers who have to administer the Act. As my noble friend Lord Strabolgi pointed out, this is borne out by the fact that the existence of immigration control has not prevented our cousins from Australia and New Zealand from travelling to this country in increasing numbers.
My noble friend asked me to give the figures. During last year we admitted 81,915 Australians and 24,787 New Zealanders, apart from 121,914 Canadians. For those old Commonwealth countries the total was 228,616, which figure includes, for the three countries, 34,672 returning residents. Let us take New Zealand. Out of the total who came here last year, some 18,000 were New Zealanders. Only 12 persons were refused admission. Twelve out of 18,000! The noble Lord, Lord Clifford,

173
said that it depends on the immigration officers' livers. I think that those figures prove that they have very healthy livers and very good tempers, because they mean that virtually no one was excluded. The great majority of these people come as visitors; comparatively few are immigrants in the true sense of the word, and since the main purpose of the immigration control is to regulate the number of people coming to settle, its existence puts no real obstacle at all in the way of the genuine visitor to this country.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, seems to think that because he is an Australian he is somehow different from me. I have never been able to feel any different from any other Britisher, whether he is living in Australia, New Zealand or the Isle of Man, and I have constantly to tell them so. It is an inability of mine to feel that there is any difference. Sometimes they beat us at cricket and sometimes we beat them; but apart from that I cannot find any differences, and I do not want to make them. The noble Lord said that hard feelings are caused; that it is downright insulting, humiliating and ungrateful; that no countries have more constantly supported this country than Australia and New Zealand. That is very true, my Lords, but I could also say to the noble Lord that those two countries have been consistently supported by the Mother Country, and we do not say a word about their immigration laws; we do not say that they are downright insulting and humiliating, and all that sort of thing, and that they are ungrateful. We leave it to them to please themselves about these things.
Australians and New Zealnders continue to have virtually free access to this country as visitors, students and businessmen. It is true that they have a time limit imposed on their stay and must apply to the Home Office for an extension of their stay if they need it. But on entry the time limit is usually not less than six months, and may be anything up to a year, depending on the individual's intentions and resources. Normally visitors have no difficulty in obtaining an extension of stay for as long as they require. All we are concerned about is ensuring that visitors leave this country after a reasonable period and do not
174
seek to convert a temporary stay into permanent residence.
There has long been a tradition that young people from Commonwealth countries, particularly Australia and New Zealand, come to this country to broaden their experience, often travelling around Europe as well; and they seek to eke out their funds by taking temporary employment. Let me assure the noble Lord. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh—and Australian papers, please copy—that these young people are still free to come on their working holidays and to stay for two or three years, which is as long as they normally require.
Cases do arise from time to time where the application of the immigration control runs counter to the wishes and plans of an individual. We try to administer the controls sympathetically and with a reasonable degree of flexibility, but we cannot overlook deliberate attempts to disregard or evade the control. The law has to be enforced. The general principles governing the control must be maintained. In particular, we cannot allow people who have been admitted as visitors or for other temporary purposes to stay on indefinitely in employment. This is the kind of "wangle" that I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. If we allowed that, we should be depriving other would-be immigrants who have followed the proper procedure and are patiently waiting their turn for an employment voucher.
My Lords, our High Commissions in Australia and New Zealand do all they can to make the requirements of the immigration control known in advance to people in those countries who intend to come to Britain and at the same time to remove unnecessary fears. The British Travel Association, in consultation with the Home Office and our High Commission in Canberra, have recently prepared a leaflet for issue in Australia which should do much to remove misunderstanding, and we have been in touch with the Australian High Commission over some recent cases of difficulty. I gladly acknowledge the helpful and constructive approach of the High Commissioner and his officials to the problems in this field.

175
I mentioned a very tiny number of cases but the noble Lord specified some of them. He mentioned the case of Mr. Nigel Wilson and said how disgraceful it was that we should send home a young man who was helping our export effort. It seem not only wrong but daft. Mr. Wilson was admitted to this country in December, 1965, and again admitted on returning from a holiday in Europe in August, 1966. In March, 1967, he was granted an extension of stay until September last year, when he said his return passage to New Zealand was booked. In May, 1967, he asked to be allowed to remain for permanent employment with R.M.A. Limited, a firm of radio management advisers. In August the chairman asked for his stay to be extended, and on the strength of his assurance that he would then go back when his training was finished, his stay was extended. On March 20 of this year he was given a further extension to September 20, 1968, by which time he will have been here for three years and had his training. Now they say that this is a case of a man with special qualifications and he must stay here. I think that we have done him proud. He has been here for three years and had his training here.
The noble Lord quoted the case of Mr. Emerson. He came over as a visitor and his friends' parents were going to support him. He was admitted for three months and we extended that period three times. Eventually he left the country after being here about one year. He had no difficulty at all in obtaining extensions of stay. All he grumbled about was that he had to apply for them. We are very sorry, but we have the 1962 Act, which we still have to administer.
The noble Lord spoke about the case of poor John Brownlie, but the poor lad contributed to his own problems. He was admitted for six months in July, 1966, and more than 12 months later, in October, 1967, he was reported as
176
missing. Finally, the police found him in hospital. He admitted that he had knowingly and deliberately overstayed and had not approached the Home Office for fear that he might be required to leave. I am advised that he was told that he should get in touch with the High Commissioner or his relatives. Eventually it had to come out because he had to go before a magistrate.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, asked for an assurance that we treat our Australian cousins humanely. Somehow I resent the word "humanely". We treat them as relatives, as cousins. We treat them just as we should hope they would treat us when we go there—possibly better. But we have to administer the 1962 and 1968 Acts. We are not prepared to depart from the policy of applying the Commonwealth Immigrants Act to all citizens of all Commonwealth countries impartially. But this does not in practice inhibit the access of Australians and New Zealanders to this country as visitors or students, which is the principal way in which they exercise the right of free access which they enjoyed in common with other Commonwealth citizens up to 1962. It does not inhibit them from coming here on working holidays in the way I have described. Except in the few cases where they seek to evade the control or break the law, they are in practice as free to come as ever and certainly as welcome. In spite of what the noble Lord has said, we are maintaining the traditions which are the strongest part of the link between the Mother Country and the other countries of the Commonwealth—and long may that continue!

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.