§ 2.36 p.m.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follow s:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the absurdities now arising under Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1968, which renders it unlawful to advertise for an Indian cook for an Indian restaurant though not for a Chinese cook for a Chinese restaurant, spring directly from their refusal to accept an Opposition Amendment moved on October 15, 1968, to exempt advertisements where, in relation to the particular employment concerned, the ethnic or national origin of a person is a bona fide occupational qualification: and whether they will now introduce amending legislation to bring this section of the Act into accord with public opinion and common sense.]
2§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the purpose of Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1968 is to prevent discriminatory advertisements. These can be a particularly blatant and objectionable form of discrimination and can give offence even if they relate to acts of discrimination which are not themselves unlawful under the Act. Twelve months' experience has confirmed the need for a provision and the effectiveness of the section for this purpose. Parliament appreciated the desirability of making some provision for advertisements which are clearly unobjectionable, and Section 6(2) provides an exception for advertisements in respect of employment abroad and of aliens required for employment in this country. Parliament decided that it was not practicable to take these exceptions further without opening the door to advertisements which would be offensive or related to a real intention to discriminate. The Government are keeping the operation of this Act under review. Any amendment of the advertisement provisions would have to take account of the basic difficulty I have mentioned.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was not questioning the main purpose or the desirability of the main purpose of Section 6 of the 1968 Act? Is he aware that the Opposition Amendment was opposed by the Government on the ground that discriminatory advertisement of any kind is a particularly offensive form of discrimination? Will he explain, then, how it is offensive for somebody to advertise for a Scottish cook for a Scottish household?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Lord was not asking about the main purpose, but I am setting the main purpose out. I think the main purpose is more important than particular incidents of this kind. As for the particular Scotch porridge advertisement to which he refers, personally I do not think it was offensive, and it was a pity that the individual who sought to make mischief out of it raised the matter in the way that he did.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not regard it as a little ironical that the Opposition, which in principle opposed all legislation about race relations for ten years, should seek credit on this incidental Amendment? On this particular issue, may I ask whether it would not be possible to leave discretion on these matters in the hands of the Board.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I will not comment on the first part of the noble Lord's question, but as to the second part, the Board, like anyone else, has to work within the terms of the law. I should have thought that with common sense and good will this section could operate successfully. It is not necessary for individuals to register complaints, and I should have thought that the Board could treat a complaint, which obviously set out to create mischief, in the way in which it was put forward, and handle it on the merits of the particular complaint.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, is it not a fact that the drafting of this Amendment when it was put forward was found to be completely defective and that if it had been accepted it would have led to a completely open door for all sorts of abuses? Is this not a small price to pay for an Act which is working extremely well, which was extremely difficult to devise, and which deals with a very serious problem in this country?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am advised that even if Lord Brooke's Amendment had been accepted, the Scotch porridge case could still have been raised.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply to my noble friend Lord Brooke, which appears to deal not only with colour but with discrimination, could he give guidance as 4 to what would be the position were an advertisement to be placed for some specific talent and the obvious talented person should be red-headed and there were to be a clear statement that only red-headed people would be considered?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, if I can help the noble Lord, I would refer him to the provisions of Section 8(11). I think that would help him if he wished to employ a red-headed person.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, can the Minister say whether the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Grimond, has given notice that he is introducing a Bill to amend this section, and can he confirm or deny the statement that has appeared in the Press that the Government are helping him with the drafting of the Amendment?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I am surprised at the laughter of noble Lords. We are here dealing with an area of human affairs in which it must be more difficult to legislate than in any other area I know. As to Lord Conesford's question, I am aware that Mr. Grimond has indicated that he is proposing to bring forward an amendment. It is not true to say that the Government are helping him to draft the amendment.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I have now consulted subsection (11) of Section 8 which the noble Lord quoted. Under its wording, have I not the right to claim that he has not answered my question?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, one of my dearest intentions is to help the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, if I possibly can. I think he will find that if he wished to employ a person of a particular nationality or descent, with attributes possessed particularly by persons of that nationality or descent—and conceivably red-headedness might be such an attribute—he could quite properly employ such a person; but it would be improper and unlawful to advertise his intention if the advertisement was offensive.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, could that not be described as discrimination?
§ LORD GIFFORDMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that certain individuals and sections of 5 the Press are clearly using the Scottish cook case to ridicule the whole of the Race Relations Act, and would they not be serving the cause of race relations better by emphasing the positive work done by the Race Relations Board?
§ LORD BESWICKI am much obliged to the noble Lord. I say this again. The Act has now been on the Statute Book for 12 months. The Board have 12 months' useful, constructive and effective work to report. There have, in fact, been 168 cases of complaint under this particular section. In almost all of them—in all but six—they have been complaints which quite properly have been investigated. The six were cases where some persons set out to create mischief.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, will the Government consider the possibility of a sensible Amendment, in view of the fact that it is not the Press but the ordinary, common sense public who cannot help laughing at these ridiculous cases which have excited so much comment?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Earl does this House less than justice. Of course, if there were a sensible Amendment which was watertight it would be considered and, I have no doubt, accepted. The only reason why the Amendment which was put forward on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was not accepted was because it would have led to other difficulties.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, while I appreciate what my noble friend has said, that it is difficult to legislate for these subtle discriminations, may I ask him whether the time will come when he will introduce legislation of a quite simple order in regard to which no difficulty at all will be found—that is, to stop discrimination against sex?