§ LORD VIVIANMy 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 what action they have taken or are about to take under Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1968 with regard to the violent demonstrations arising out of the Springboks tour.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Louis, Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1968 makes it unlawful to discriminate on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins in the provision to the public of any goods, facilities or services. The section does not apply to those demonstrating against the provision of such goods, facilities or services.
§ LORD VIVIANMy Lords, that is a difficult Answer for me to reply to but, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for it, may I ask him whether he would not agree with me that Part I of the Race Relations Act 1968, in Sections 1 and 2, forbids any discrimination in the provision of—and I quote from the Act:
facilities and services for recreation on the grounds of national origin".This being so, surely the Minister will agree that it is unlawful under the Act to interfere in the use of a football ground by South Africans simply because they are South Africans?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, it would be wrong to interfere in the use of the football ground, but not under the Race Relations Act 1968. This would be wrong under the other provisions relating to law and order in this country; and of course it was under the other Statutes that the police endeavoured to make it feasible for this match to take place.
§ LORD STRANGEMy Lords, arising out of that reply, would not the noble Lord agree that in South Africa very few of the black races play Rugby football, and that it would therefore be impossible to make an international selection to play abroad without bringing in the question of race privilege? Is the noble Lord further aware that the 11 original population of South Africa was Portuguese?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I am not absolutely satisfied that I am aware of the second part of the noble Lord's question. The first part does not arise out of the noble Lord's Question on the Order Paper.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, as the noble Lord, in quoting the Act, quoted two sections out of context, which have made it read rather differently but more helpfully from his point of view, can he elucidate further and tell us whether, in Section 2, line 4, "discriminate", as a verb, eliminates "agitate", because it is a case of a minority against a majority?
§ LORD BESWICKNo, my Lords, I understand to some extent the difficulties which certain noble Lords have experienced in this matter. I understand the difficulty which was shared by Sir Alan Herbert in a letter to The Times recently, but the provisions of this Act are quite clear. If anyone seeks to provide facilities such as a football ground on a discriminatory basis that is unlawful under the provisions of this Act. But the demonstrators had absolutely nothing to do with the provision of the football ground.