LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 15 November 1976)

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 23. With the leave of your Lordships, I will speak to Amendment No. 24 and Reason numbered 25, Amendment No. 37 and Reason numbered 38, Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 and Reason numbered 41; Commons Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45 to Lords Amendment No. 42; Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 and Reason numbered 48, and Amendments Nos. 49 to 55 inclusive and Reason numbered 56.
These are all consequential Amendments. As your Lordships know, the name of the new Commission has been the subject of a good deal of debate in both Houses and I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that have taken place. However, I would draw your Lordships' attention to two points which have not emerged clearly in our debates. First, the title, "Commission for Racial Equality" was a compromise accepted on all sides in another place. The original title proposed by the Government was Race Relations Commission. It was objected to partly because of the word "race" and partly because it failed to emphasise the positive role of the new Commission. On the use of "Race" the Government have stood firm. However, we came forward with Commission 1087 for Racial Equality to meet the criticisms that Race Relations Commission was too negative.
The second point—and it is one to which importance was attached in another place—is that the new name is needed for a new body whose fuctions will encompass and go wider than those of the present Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Committee. In our view, it would he a mistake to give the new body the name of one of its predecessors. We would risk confusing the public about the role of the new body, and for the reason that the existing Community Relations Commission functions are so much narrower than those of the new body, we would risk underplaying the contribution which we all hope and expect that the new Commission will make.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers—who I know from the discussions we have had feels very strongly about this—will accept that there is some force in the argument. I wrote to the noble Baroness a short time ago setting out the reasons why these Amendments could not be accepted. I hope she will understand the situation, and I trust your Lordships will also understand the position and not insist on these Amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness VICKERS
My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the kind letter he wrote to me. However, I feel that I have been deceived on two occasions. The first time we got the name of the Bill changed on the nod. The Bill was reprinted and then, of course, changed in this House. I got the other Amendment on the Commission through by eight votes, and it was changed in the other House. I do not think that the Reason given by the House of Commons is very sensible. Clause 43(a) reads, "to work towards the elimination of discrimination." We already have the Sex Discrimination Act, the Equal Opportunities and Employment Protection Act which, surely should eliminate discrimination. In regard to 1088 the "equal opportunity", I should have thought that would be taken into consideration in those Bills too.
In regard to the final words, "and good relations between persons in different racial groups", one cannot make good relations satisfactory by law. Good relations are achieving a good understanding of people, and I suggest start in the schools, in movements like the Boy Scouts, in activities undertaken in the community and in various organisations like the British Council, the Commonwealth Countries League, the Women's Corona Society and others working towards getting the community to mix together. Therefore, I do not accept—though I presume I cannot do anything about it tonight—what the House of Commons has said; that is, that this will establish better relations.
As to the words, "racial equality", when I think of the years it took women to achieve equality—they did not even get a vote until 1919—how are you going to get equality by legislation of this kind? I think it is very damaging indeed. I do not like the word "racial". We want to be considered one community, particularly in view of the fact that a large percentage of the people who are of different race from ourselves have been born and brought up in this country. We want them to be citizens of this country and to get away from the word "race". I think it is very detrimental to name a body "Commission for Racial Equality".
I do not know whether the noble Lord can give me an answer tonight, but I should like to ask whether the Commission has managed to get its full number of persons to serve. As I understood it, there has been a great deal of, shall we say, racial difficulty in getting members of the Commission together. That is one of the reasons why I dislike this term. If we cannot have "community relations", I should have been happier if we had left out the word "race" and left "Commission for Equality". I feel it is very unfortunate to have the Bill going forward with the title, "Race Relations Bill". It is not going to help in the future. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that since the Bill has been printed, and since we have had discussions, race relations have certainly not improved, and I know from the number of letters I have 1089 received that many people are very sad that we are again going to incorporate into legislation the word "race".

§ Lord WELLS-PESTELL
My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness any information with regard to the Commission. It is rather outside the purpose of our being here tonight. I would call her attention to the fact that this Amendment was passed without a Division in another place.