HL Deb 03 February 1975 vol 356 cc671-8

3.36 p.m.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill to deal with one aspect of racial discrimination not covered by the 1968 Act, which I maintain could quite readily be treated separately from any other provisions which may be found necessary in the light of the review which was announced recently by the Home Secretary. The need to make discrimination by clubs unlawful has been highlighted by the decisions of the courts in the Charter and Preston Dockers' Labour Club cases which successfully limited the interpretation of the words "section of the public" in Section 2(1) of the 1968 Act, thus contravening the spirit, if not the letter, of that Act.

Parliament is certainly to blame for using words in the parent Act which can be construed in several different ways, and it may well be that as part of this review which is being conducted by the Home Secretary an unambiguous definition of the words "section of the public" should be framed. In the meanwhile, however, the earliest opportunity has to be taken to reverse the damage which has been caused by these particular rulings of the court. Immense damage to community relations has already been caused, and it is calculated to ensure that racism is strongly entrenched in a large and important sector of the social life of the country if matters are left untouched for any longer.

If I may briefly summarise these cases, in the Charter case Mr. A. S. Shah, who was of Indian origin, applied for membership of the East Ham Conservative Club. Mr. Shah was a paid-up member of the East Ham Conservative Association and he had been properly proposed and seconded as a prospective member of the club. Although normally in these circumstances his election would have been a mere formality, the rules of the club provided that the committee had the last word, and Mr. Shah's application was rejected upon the casting vote of the chairman, who admitted quite frankly that at the meeeting his vote had been determined purely on racial grounds. The court held that because a club is essentially a private association of individuals and that the word "public" in Section 2(1) was used in the sense opposed to "private", the subsection does not apply to bona fide clubs where approval of membership applications is discretionary.

Then the scope for discrimination was even further widened in the Dockers' Labour Club case. In that case Mr. Anthony Sherrington was a member of the Meadow Street Labour Club in Preston. That club is affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union. Altogether there are some 4,000 clubs which belong to this Union, with a combined total membership of 3½ million people. Any member of one club has the right of access to any of the other clubs belonging to the Union, so long as his subscription is paid up and he has obtained an associate card issued by the Union. Strictly speaking, this right is subject to the approval of the committee of the club which the member is visiting, but in practice it is never denied so long as the visitor behaves himself and so long as he is white.

Mr. Sherrington, who is not while, went to the Dockers' Labour Club as an associate with his friend, Mr. Moulding, who is a member of that club. He ordered a round of drinks, but before they could be served the secretary took Mr. Sherrington aside and asked him to leave, making it absolutely clear that he was the wrong colour. "We do not serve anyone who is coloured here", the secretary, Mr. Chamley, said to Mr. Sherrington. My Lords, the motto of the working men's club is: "Honour all men! love one another; use hospitality to one another; be not forgetful of strangers". Mr. Chamley and the other committee members who exclude black people from their club while professing to uphold these principles are nauseating hypocrites. As Lord Diplock said in his judgment: If everyone were rational and humane—or for that matter, Christian—no legal sanction would be needed to prevent one man being treated less favourably than another simply on the ground of his colour, race or ethnic or national origins". Since Mr. Chamley is evidently neither Christian nor humane, and since there are known to be many other clubs whose committees follow the same racist policies, there is a need for legal sanctions, just as there is in the field of housing, employment and in that part of the social life which is already treated by the courts as being in the public domain.

I have no hesitation in saying that an overwhelming majority of your Lordships and of the Members of another place would agree that the behaviour of the East Ham Conservative and the Preston Dockers' Clubs was loathsome and deplorable. The question is simply whether Parliament should put an end to racism in clubs or whether, by reference to the principle of individual liberty, we should allow that racism to continue and to over-ride our hatred of discrimination.

The freedom of individuals to get together and form clubs or associations with others, selected on whatever arbitrary criteria they may choose, is not at issue. What I claim is offensive in the extreme is to pretend that all Conservatives or working men, as the case may be, are eligible to join or to take advantage of the facilities provided by the club and then to exercise a further and unwritten restriction purely on the grounds of race or ethnic or national origin. On the other hand, the freedom of all black Conservatives or of all black working men has been severely restricted by the courts. They know that they are not going to be welcome in the particular notorious clubs which I have mentioned, but they may also be fearful of risking insult by visiting other similar premises. According to the Observer the Race Relations Board had to drop another 18 similar cases that were on its books at the time of the ruling on the Preston Dockers' Labour Club case. Probably that was only the tip of the iceberg and there is in fact a great deal more racism in clubs which has not come to the notice of the Race Relations Board. Thus black people will have been warned off several thousands of clubs which are enjoyed by millions of their white fellow citizens, and that is a most devastating encroachment on civil liberties.

Nor is it only black people who are likely to be the victims of prejudice. Jews may also find themselves excluded now that anti-Semitic committees will know that they will be upheld by the courts. The undermining of the freedom of minorities is incalculably more serious both in its direct effects and in the way in which it creates second-class citizens whose rights may be arbitrarily withheld, than any supposed erosion of the freedom to discriminate of the Alf Garnetts of Preston or East Ham. It is an ordinary right of association which has been removed by the courts while it is the right to commit a very great moral offence which has been upheld.

In this respect I think Professor John Griffith does not put the case strongly enough when he argues, as he did in the New Statesman of 22nd November last, that racial discrimination should be viewed not as an individual right but as a social wrong. It is a social wrong, of course, but it is also a most grave individual wrong; and it requires but little insight to appreciate what must have been the feelings of Mr. Sherrington when he was unceremoniously bundled out of the Preston Dockers' Labour Club in front of his friends.

However, those feelings are as nothing compared with the great wave of apprehension that has swept the minority communities since any redress was denied to Mr. Sherrington by the courts. Mr. A. A. Khan of Bradford, writing to the BBC programme Any Answers, expressed it extremely well. He said: The decision confirms some of the worst fears that we, the coloured people, feel about our future here.… How can it ever be imagined that in the face of such an inhuman practice these coloured people who have made England their home, and who are sincerely keen and anxious to play their part, however small, in making Britain truly great, will give their trust and loyalty to this country? The only reply that can be given to Mr. Khan so far is that a great many individuals and organisations are just as horrified as he was and are already doing what they can to minimise the damage. The TUC are planning a meeting with the Club and Institute Union to discuss the ways in which clubs can be persuaded not to practise discrimination. Equity is strengthening an instruction which has already been issued to its members not to appear in clubs which practise the colour bar. The Blackpool Trades Club is running a campaign against the decision in the Preston Dockers' Club case and an opinion poll conducted by ORC shows an 8 to 1 majority by clubs against discrimination and also a clear majority for making it illegal, as proposed in this Bill.

The Home Secretary has said that he shares the concern expressed about the effect on race relations of the courts' decisions on the clubs and that he is considering what is needed to correct the situation. But he prefers not to deal with this problem in isolation from the wider review of the Race Relations Acts, and because that involves a great deal of consultation he cannot promise any early legislation. This means that nothing can be expected to happen during this Session of Parliament, and indeed there is no guarantee that space will be found in the 1975–76 timetable.

I am not going to say that the solution proposed in this Bill is the ideal one, or that it may not require modification in the light of the consultations now being undertaken, but at least it would prevent the canker of racism spreading any further among the clubs while more comprehensive legislation is being prepared. It is a simple, one-clause Bill that would take up very little Parliamentary time—hardly any more than the five consolidation measures that your Lordships have passed earlier this afternoon. It says plainly that it shall be unlawful for a club to discriminate against a person either by refusing him membership on like terms as other persons applying for membership, or by treating him, when a member, differently from other members, except when the essential nature of the club is to provide facilities for persons of a particular descent or a particular national or ethnic origin.

Obviously, the raison d'être of the London Welsh Rugby Club and the Caledonian Club is to provide facilities for Welsh and Scots respectively, and it is quite reasonable for them to deny membership to Englishmen. But the clubs for Conservatives, working men, anglers, cricketers, travellers or university graduates would not, and should not, be permitted to discriminate. Of course having made provision for bona fide associations of Scots, Welsh or any other nationality it was at the same time impossible to avoid allowing overtly racist clubs to operate. For instance, a Burnham-on-Crouch patrials' sailing club would be legal under the provisions of this Bill, but I believe that the pressure of public opinion would be quite strong enough to prevent this from happening extensively, if at all.

We are not dealing here merely with a "grubby little incident", as the Daily Telegraph described Mr. Sherrington's case. The unanimous opinion of all those who are concerned with race relations in this country, including Six Geoffrey Wilson, Mr. Mark Bonham-Carter, the National Association of Community Relations Officers, and so on, is that a serious loophole in the law has been disclosed by these cases; that great damage might be caused so long as it is allowed to continue, and that legislation to stop up that loophole should be introduced in the present Session. The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary has said in so many words that he will do so when he is ready with his more comprehensive provisions. If there has to be a delay, the success of the rest of the package will be jeopardised because with every minute that passes, racism will become more strongly entrenched in the social life of clubs used by millions. Let us act now before the disaster spreads too far to be healed. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Avebury.)

3.51 p.m.

Baroness GAITSKELL

My Lords, I am in complete sympathy with the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I think, also, that his request to the Government for urgency is extremely important, but it needs more than an Amendment to the Race Relations Act 1968 to clarify and rationalise our legislation on race discrimination. As was said by the noble Lord, the recent case of Mr. Sherrington, which finished up in the House of Lords, exposed the weaknesses of the Act. Personally, long ago I gave up any hope of penetrating the language in which Bills are drafted and presented to Parliament. But when the lawyers begin to shred these Bills and to dissect out the meaning from the words, the layman finds these legal documents puzzling and often inscrutable. Ordinary mortals are caught up in a legal maze from which there appears to be no exit to Parliament's intention.

My Lords, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the last few years several cases have exposed such weaknesses in the wording of the Race Relations Act 1968. The most recent example has been the case of Mr. Sherrington that was referred to in this debate. This was a clear case of colour discrimination. Mr. Sherrington was born in this country; he is a coloured Englishman. Incidentally, his British citizenship was never referred to. He became a member of a working men's club in Preston, I believe it was. This club had no colour bar. Members of this type of club qualify to become associates of clubs in other districts, and are entitled to enjoy the facilities offered by these other clubs. However, as has been said, when Mr. Sherrington visited the Dockers' Labour Club, he was asked to leave, because this club exercises a colour bar. The matter was reported to the Race Relations Board, who brought an action against the Dockers' Labour Club in Manchester County Court, and judgment was given in favour of the Race Relations Board. The Dockers' Labour Club proceeded to appeal to the House of Lords, where five noble and learned Lords reversed the judgment and allowed the appeal. Briefly, as I understand it, and as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, the question on which this final judgment turned was on the definition of the meaning of the words "private or public" as applied to the Dockers' Labour Club. Obviously there was doubt and ambiguity about the interpretation of these words or this case would not have reached the House of Lords—nor, I may add, would it have had such a barren result.

Further, I find it hard to believe that these noble and learned judges were unaware of the intention of Parliament in the Race Relations Act. So I will risk the accusation of gross ignorance of the law, and a charge of bias—I plead guilty on both counts—and ask the question, "Why was it not possible to give Mr. Sherrington the benefit of the doubt?". Anyone reading the statements made by these distinguished noble and learned Lords—anyone trying to understand the verbal contortions and legal acrobatics—might be excused for thinking that this judgment was unfair. They might even wonder whether the appeal allowed to the Dockers' Labour Club was a forensic misinterpretation of the intention of Parliament which ran counter to what Parliament meant to say. I mean no disrespect to these noble and learned Lords, but I venture to say that if similar judgments follow in cases of racial discrimination such as this—and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury pointed this out, too —it might be that the House of Lords, the highest court of appeal in the land, will acquire the reputation of being the last bastion of injustice.

My Lords, colour discrimination is per-haps the meanest discrimination of all, because it is the most primitive and irrational. It is most important and urgent that the Government should examine and review all aspects of discrimination in our national life so that our laws may properly reflect the intentions of Parliament as understood by the public at large, and not only by lawyers. The ball is now in the Government's court.