HL Deb 15 October 1976 vol 375 cc724-50

3.10 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

On Question, Bill read 3a.

Clause 45 [Codes of Practice]:

Lord JACQUESM moved Amendment No. 2. Page 26, line 22, at end insert— ("( ) In the course of preparing any draft code of practice for eventual publication under subsection (2) the Commission shall consult with—

  1. (a) such organisations or associations of organisations representative of employers or of workers; and
  2. (b) such other organisations, or bodies, as appear to the Commission to be appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage Amendments dealing with the code of conduct were withdrawn on the promise that the Government would put forward Amendments which achieved the objectives which the movers had in mind. These are the Government Amendments which, I think, fulfill all the points which the movers had in mind.

While I am speaking, I should like to make a declaration of intent. At the Committee stage of the Bill, there were Amendments regarding the composition of tribunals and I undertook that if the Amendments were withdrawn I would have consultation with my colleagues to see whether we could in some way meet the points of view of the movers of the Amendments. As a result of that, I have to make the following declaration of intent.

Following the very full discussions I have had with my colleagues at the Department of Employment and the Home Office, they have authorised me to say that further steps will be taken to appoint to the panel of lay members, after consultation with the two sides of industry, members who, besides having a general knowledge or experience of employment in industry or commerce, have also special knowledge or experience of relations between persons of different racial groups in the employment field. Once these people have been recruited—and, as your Lordships will appreciate, this may take some time to effect—the Presidents of the Central Offices of the Industrial Tribunals in England and Wales, and in Scotland, will be asked to make administrative arrangements so that wherever possible one such member will sit on tribunals hearing cases arising under the Act where racial discrimination is alleged by the applicant from the outset. That is the end of the declaration of intent.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, I had understood that we were debating Amendment No. 2 on the Marshalled List which had to do with codes of practice. I did not understand what the noble Lord's declaration referred to.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, I was taking the opportunity of slipping it in.

Baroness ELLES

I am sorry, my Lords, but would the noble Lord mind not slipping things in? I should be most grateful if he would follow the Marshalled List and the Order Paper, which we have learned to follow for our proceedings in this House.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, this is the only time that I am speaking on Amendments. I had this declaration of intent to make, and I thought it was as useful a time as any to make it.

Baroness ELLES

I am sorry, my Lords, but the question of who sits on these industrial tribunals is a rather important matter, and I should have thought it might have been debated more fully, or, at least, that the Opposition would have had the advantage of being notified. I know that it has been extremely difficult and that people are under pressure, but am certain that my noble and learned friends would have wanted notice of this fact before it was declared in the House.

Lord JACQUES

My Lords, the undertaking was given to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the Liberal Benches, who moved the Amendments. They were given a written communication some days ago, I undertook to make the declaration in this House and I have made it. I beg to move.

Baroness SEEAR

My Lords, I should like from these Benches to thank the noble Lord the Minister for producing this Amendment, which is in line with what we asked for both at Second Reading and in the Committee stage and also—even if slightly out of place—for the declaration of intent by the industrial tribunals.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 3: Page 27, line 18, at end insert— ("(10) Without prejudice to subsection (1) a code of practice issued under this section may include such practical guidance as the Commission think fit as to what steps it is reasonably practicable for employers to take for the purpose of preventing their employees from doing in the course of their employment acts made unlawful by this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is part of the same story. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47 [Terms of reference]:

3.16 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 4: Page 28, line 3, at end insert— (3A) Where the terms of reference of the investigation confine it to activities of persons named in them and the Commission in the course of it propose to investigate any act made unlawful by this Act which they believe that a person so named may have done, the Commission shall—

  1. (a) inform that person of their belief and of their proposal to investigate the act in question; and
  2. (b) offer him an opportunity of making oral or written representations with regard to it (or both oral and written representations if he thinks fit);
and a person so named who avails himself of an opportunity under this subsection of making oral representations may be represented—
  1. (i) by counsel or a solicitor; or
  2. (ii) by some other person of his choice, not being a person to whom the Commission object on the ground that he is unsuitable."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment and, if I may, will speak at the same time to the Amendment to Schedule 4 which deals with the Sex Discrimination Act. As the House will recall I promised at Report stage that the Government would be moving Amendments on Third Reading to meet some of the criticisms which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had made of the provisions relating to formal investigations into suspected unlawful conduct. The main difference between the noble and learned Lord and myself in our earlier debates was not on the question of whether persons whose activities were being inquired into should have the right to know the case against them, and to have an opportunity to reply to it, but on whether these rights needed to be spelled out in the Bill. We took the view that they did not, but, as I said on Report, we have accepted the strongly held views expressed on this matter in your Lordships' House. This Amendment, which stands in my name, has been put down in order to meet the anxiety expressed by the noble and learned Lord and others. My Lords, I beg to move.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, we on this side of the House are most grateful for this Amendment. Of course, the noble Lord will be more aware than we are that it does not meet 100 per cent. what we asked for. There is no mention of the time in which the notice should be given and appearances made. But I hope that if the Commission are reasonable, as I am sure they will be, that point might be met under Clause 48(1), which states that a notice has to be issued in the prescribed manner, and I imagine that some kind of regulations would lay down the length of notice to be given.

Secondly, having read through the Amendment, it is with some sorrow, to put it at its least, that we see the small spirit of vindictiveness which, I am afraid, arises from time to time in this Bill, since a person of the choice of the respondent is not entirely a free choice, because paragraph (b)(ii) states: by some other person of his choice, not being a person to whom the Commission object on the ground that he is unsuitable. We consider that this is unnecessary, and it is unfair that a person should not be represented by somebody of his own choice, because he is subject to the criticism or action of the Commission. However, since, on the whole, the loaf is slightly more than half, we are willing to accept the Amendment and we thank the noble Lord for it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.19 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 5: Page 28, line 8, leave out ("and (3) ") and insert ("(3) and (3A) ".").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 63 [Assistance by Commission]:

3.20 p.m.

Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 6: Page 38, line 30, leave out ("or claimant") and insert (", claimant or respondent,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 at the same time. All of these Amendments have a common purpose. The first is to give the public confidence that the Bill is not biased against them. By "the public" I mean specifically the native British population, but I mean also those immigrants who happen to be employers or landlords, and there are many of them. It appears to the man in the street—and this cannot be denied—that there is a definite tilting in favour of the alleged victim that runs like a thread throughout the Bill. It may he an unfair impression, but this is the impression that is given.

The second purpose of the Amendments is to prevent injustice being done to innocent people. The third purpose—I am referring specifically to Amendment No. 6 and to Amendment No. 7 which is consequential upon Amendment No. 6—is to assist the Commission by giving them powers which they may, solely at their discretion, feel like using in order to clarify and establish the law. Amendment No. 6 and the consequential Amendment No. 7 are identical to the Amendments which I moved in the very small hours of the morning on 1st October during the Committee stage. That was just before 2 a.m. I withdrew the Amendments then because of the lateness of the hour, and I had doubts about moving them again. However, I was persuaded to do so by an honourable and learned Member in another place who believes that they have very considerable merit.

There is a difference in scope between Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 and Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 8 is both narrower and wider. It is narrower in that it restricts to advice only the help which the Commission can give to a person who is seeking information about his obligations under the Bill No expenditure of money is involved, apart from the cost of a stamp or a telephone call. On the other hand, the Amendment makes it obligatory and not mandatory.

I put the issue raised in my Amendment No. 8 privately to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, the other day and I am sorry that he is not here now. He said that while he saw the point of the Amendment he would prefer that the obligation upon the Commission with regard to giving advice should not be written into the Bill for fear that ill-disposed people might pester the Commission with unnecessary telephone calls and clog up the smooth functioning of the Commission.

If the Minister can give an assurance at this point that the Commission will at all reasonable times give advice to inquirers about their obligations and not merely refer them to the nearest solicitor—after all, they may not have a solicitor or may not be able to afford one—I will gladly not move Amendment No. 8. While this point is fresh in the Minister's mind it might be opportune for him to give that assurance now, if he can do so, rather than at the end of my speech.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am anxious to assist the noble Lord but I should prefer to deal with the matter at rather greater length than I can by an intervention at this stage.

Lord MONSON

My Lords, reverting in that case to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, when I raised the matter in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, replied at col. 1039 of the Official Report: I do not believe it would further the public interest in fulfilment of the Commission's objectives of working towards the elimination of discrimination for the Commission to have power to assist the respondent "— which was the purpose of my Amendment. I believe—in fact, I grant entirely—that the noble Lord's reply would have been valid, even irrefutable, if the obligation that I was seeking to impose upon the Commission were mandatory, but it is not; it is purely discretionary. It could well be that in. 99 cases out of a hundred the Commission would say, "No, we cannot assist you; there are no grounds for doing so." But there must be occasions, now and again, when it would be in the public interest to clarify matters.

I was more impressed by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, speaking from the Liberal Benches about the confusion of duties; that is, that the Commission has to act as law enforcer and also reviser and counsellor at the same time. She said that you cannot at the same time be enforcing the law and be perceived as the organisation with which you can frankly and freely discuss the problems you need to discuss. That seems to me to be the really important point. People should be able to feel that the Commission is a useful body to which they can put hypothetical or actual cases and obtain advice, without the fear of the heavy hand of the law descending upon their shoulders.

In Committee. I cited the hypothetical case of an Asian shopkeeper being pestered by English youths and wondering whether he could evict them from his shop without getting into trouble from the Community Relations Commission—or whatever we finally decide to call it. There was a case at the time of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus following the Nikos Sampson coup where it was reported that in North London Greek Cypriot workers had gone on strike in protest against the appointment of a Turkish Cypriot foreman and demanded his dismissal. This would be an extremely useful thing for immigrants themselves to know exactly how they stand. After all, many of the alleged discriminators are likely to be quite poor people who may not know how to deal with a solicitor and they may not have the money to do so.

Then there may be a case of general public interest such as is mentioned in Clause 63(1)(a) on the ground of whether it is a question of principle, or possibly subsection (1)(c), "by reason of any other special consideration". If we take the case of a landlady, it does not really matter what her nationality or race is. Let us say that she has three double rooms in her house apart from accommodation for herself and her family, but she also has a box room in which an occasional camp bed is put up. This is an interesting point of law in respect of this Bill: is she exempt under Clause 22, which deals with small dwellings, or is she not? That is the sort of thing that my Amendment would enable to be discussed. It is a reasonable Amendment: it does not impose any obligations upon the Commission if it does not want them; no expense is being incurred and it will give the possibility of help to a great many people and, above all, reassurance. I beg to move.

3.28 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, perhaps I may first deal with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 and then with Amendment No. 8. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has pointed out, we have gone over this ground before. We discussed it in Committee, albeit in the early hours of the morning, and on that occasion I explained why it was that the Bill, like the Sex Discrimination Act, gives the Commission specific discretionary power to help individual victims of discrimination in addition to its principal strategic role. As I have said on more than one occasion, discrimination is a difficult matter for those who are subjected to it to establish. It is also a widespread social evil which the Bill is intended to counter more effectively than has been done up to now.

The onus is inevitably on the victim to show that he has suffered discrimination. Under the present legislation, as the House is well aware, he places the matter in the hands of the Race Relations Board and in the future it will be for the individual to pursue his own case. It seems to the Government manifestly right that in a matter of such public importance the Commission should have the powers contained in this clause to assist him in appropriate cases, but only of course in appropriate cases.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, then came to the question of Amendment No. 8, the new clause. So far as this is concerned, I certainly accept that allegations of discrimination are not made solely against powerful organisations with ample resources. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, gave an example when we discussed this matter on Committee—and indeed he has given it again this afternoon—of a respondent who cannot be expected to know his position under this legislation and who may have some difficulty in clarifying it.

My Lords, the position here is this; as I understand it, the argument runs, to whom should such a person look other than to the Commission who would have a certain amount of expertise at their disposal? We entirely accept that the Commission will be the body best placed to give advice on the interpretation of this piece of legislation. I have no doubt that it will do so, especially to small-scale organisations and to individuals who need it most. The powers of assistance of Clause 63 are neither necessary nor appropriate for this, however, and neither is the requirement which the noble Lord sets out in his new clause. The new Commission will do all it can to explain the implications of this legislation. Its advice will be based on the experience it gains in carrying out the duties under it, but it cannot provide final and authorative interpretations of the law. Only the courts can do that. Therefore, I do not believe that the new Commission should be required in all circumstances to interpret the legislation.

There could clearly be circumstances when it would be quite wrong for the Commission to give advice of the sort which this new clause would oblige it to give, for example where cases were in fact before the courts. It is our view that the Commission must have discretion in exercising the role which the noble Lord envisages. The Government are confident that the new Commission can be trusted to do so without an explicit discretionary provision in the Bill which, as I have already indicated, is too widely drawn, and would place upon the Commission an obligation which we do not think would be in any way justified. But certainly on the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it is our view that the Commission should assist people in the way in which he wishes them to do.

Lord MONSON

My Lords, in view of the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about my Amendment No. 8, of course I never thought that they could give the final interpretation. In a difficult case naturally I accepted that it would have to go before the courts. I wanted to avoid a situation where any requirement would be met by, "We cannot deal with this, go straight to your solicitors". I take it that it is not the intention of the Government that that should happen.

My Lords, I am not happy about the reply of the noble Lord regarding Amendment No. 6 and the consequential Amendment No. 7. It really does not impose any obligation on the Commission that the Commission has to actually act upon. It may be that the cases in which the Commission can help the respondent will be extremely rare. The chances that the Commission will give legal aid—a point which worried the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in Committee—would probably never occur so far as a prospective respondent is concerned, but the powers to give advice, although the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has said this would happen anyway, or to put people in touch with a solicitor or a lawyer seem to me to be valid. There may be interesting points of interpretation of the law where it would be useful to the Commission to have such powers. I am determined to test the feeling of the House on this.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

3.35 p.m.

Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 9: Page 42, line 40, after ("or") insert ("grossly").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 9 is to modify the word "insulting", which, as I pointed out in Committee, is a totally subjective word. Clause 67 is a clause which brings the criminal law into the Bill. We must therefore surely lean over backwards to knock out any danger of a miscarriage of justice to individuals who may inadvertently find themselves liable to two years' imprisonment for something they did not mean to do, in a situation where there was no criminal intent. Of course, as a result of an Amendment carried in Committee, the obligation to prove intent has been restored, but I have read in at least three or four newspapers that it is the Government's intention to try to restore the Bill to its original state, so far as that clause is concerned, in another place. If that is so, it is all the more important that we insert the word "grossly" to qualify the word "insulting".

Take a situation where a young reporter, addicted to purple prose as young re-porters tend to be, who was sent by an evening newspaper to cover the Notting Hill Carnival this year in the early hours, when everything was peaceful. He might have knocked out a piece along these lines: Eyes glazed and half-closed, fingers snapping, feet tapping, the Caribbean crowd swayed rhythmically to the insistent pulsating beat of reggae. This could possibly have been insulting to one or two—not many, but one or two—West Indians involved. It might have implied that they were more likely to be carried away by the jungle beat, if you like, than the European population. Had that report been published in the early editions of the evening newspaper, before the muggings, the rioting and the injuries to the police which followed, and had it got into the hands of ill-natured people who were in any case biased already against the West Indian population, this could be said, quite without any intention whatsoever, to stir up latent antagonism or hostility towards them. This is precisely the sort of thing I am trying to avoid. By inserting the word "grossly" I think one avoids any possibility of that.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said in Committee that to a lawyer the word "grossly" did not mean all that much. Another eminent Queen's Counsel to whom I spoke took the opposite view; he said that "grossly" must necessarily restrict the meaning of "insulting" and provide an additional safeguard. I think this is a highly important Amendment, and I beg to move.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I feel that it is necessary to include the word "grossly" because of the mere vagueness of the word "insulting". What is "insulting"? How can a court of law define it? It was said yesterday during the debate on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill that it was very difficult to define "industrial democracy". How much more difficult it is to define what is "insulting".

What is insulting, my Lords, depends very much on the person to whom it is said. They may take it as being insulting or they may not. I therefore feel that my noble friend has been quite right in pressing to include this word, because I certainly do not want grossly insulting words said on either side, either from whites to coloured races or from coloured races to whites. I hope, incidentally, that the words in the Bill, "A person commits an offence "mean a person whatever his nationality or race. Therefore, I sincerely hope that this particular section of the Act works both ways.

Baroness ELLES

If I may say a few words on this Amendment, I feel that Lord Somers has really, if I may say so, argued his own case away, because he has shown that an insulting term is entirely in the mind of the person who is insulted, and it is really impossible for a judge to say whether words are grossly insulting or not. It entirely depends on how the individual who is insulted receives the insult. If I may give an example, given to me many years ago by a Dutch lawyer friend of mine—and this is relevant to sex discrimination: in this country if someone was called a "cow" it would be considered grossly insulting. Dutch farmers apparently invariably call their wives "dear little cow". I think this is a classic example of how it would be impossible to decide whether an expression was grossly insulting or a term of endearment. The meaning is in fact a subjective one.

3.42 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

If I may say so, I do not think I will try that description this evening on my own wife; I think she might conceivably take a rather more unfavourable view. We are once again having a discussion, perfectly reasonably, on an Amendment we have discussed before. I think the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was mistaken when he implied that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, took the view that there was at least some possible distinction between "grossly insulting" and "insulting". As he may recall, what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said was that, on the analogy of what judges have said about "negligence and" gross negligence", "grossly insulting" is the same as "insulting" with the addition of a vituperative epithet.

Lord MONSON

May I correct the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I did actually say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, did not think there was much in the word "grossly", but another eminent Queen's Counsel thought that there was.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

Well, I rejoice to hear that, but if I may seek to add a second authority to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, Lord Chief Justice Earle said of the term: I advisedly abstained from using a word to which I can attach no definite meaning; and no one so far as I know ever was able to do so. I do not want to go over the ground again. I will, therefore, if the noble Lord will forgive me, content myself with making one or two points which arise fairly directly from the discussion this afternoon. First, I think it right to say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that they do, I think, underestimate the strength of the word "insulting It was held in the case of Cozens v. Brutus that it should be given its ordinary meaning, which is, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: to assail with scornful abuse or offensive disregard; to offer indignity; to affront ". I think that that is by no means particularly weak.

Secondly, I think it is clear from the examples which the noble Lord gave in Committee that his fears about the possible application of the clause are unjustified. He cited, as an example of what might fall foul of Clause 67, language criticising and ridiculing the leader of a particular nation. With respect to him, even if the language in question came within the word "insulting", it seems to us to be considerably far fetched to suggest that it would be also likely to stir up racial hatred. Similarly far-fetched, and for the same reason, was his example of an intemperate criticism of a politician for giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants. The fact of the matter is that the test of whether language is threatening, abusive or insulting, whichever adjective is chosen, and is likely to stir up racial hatred is a difficult one to satisfy even if, as we propose, there were no requirement to prove an intention to stir up racial hatred.

Thirdly, the words "threatening, abusive or insulting" have stood the test of time without, so far as I am aware, giving rise to criticism, except perhaps that they are too strong. It is in fact the language to be found in Section 6 of the 1965 Act and also in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 which deals with conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. For the reasons I have given I very much hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. It is one of the occasions on which the noble and learned Lord and the Government were in almost full agreement and I think we should celebrate that fact. I hope that the noble Lord will join us in celebrating it by withdrawing his Amendment.

Lord MONSON

I really cannot say I am satisfied with the noble Lord's reply. Despite the amusing example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, it must be the case that "grossly" is more restrictive and more of a safeguard than "insulting" on its own. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, pointed out, from the Liberal Benches in Committee, if, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, then said, by definition any insult that was bad enough to start racial hatred would automatically be gross anyway, why not include the word grossly" in the Bill in the appropriate places?

I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris, say that my reference to the Kenya newspaper's description of General Amin could not start racial hatred against black people in this country. I hope he is right in that interpretation but, of course, what Parliament has decided one day, the courts have often interpreted differently a few months or years later. Similarly with my other example, I think that we must guard against a possible miscarriage of justice regarding innocent people. I therefore must press this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 69 [Power to amend certain provisions of Act.]:

3.46 p.m.

Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 11. Page 45, line 14, leave out ("or member ").

The noble Baroness said: This is a consequential Amendment and I must apologise for the misprint on the Marshalled List; it should read: "or members". I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 12: Page 45, line 18, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Amendments of Sex Discrimination Act 1975.]:

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 62, line 18, at end insert— (" .—(1) After section 58(3) (terms of reference of an investigation) insert as subsection (3A) a subsection in terms identical with those of section 47(3A) of this Act. (2) In section 58(4) for "and (3)" substitute "(3) and (3A) ".")

The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the earlier Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

3.48 p.m.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, I should just like to say a few words of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, Lord Jacques and Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the very considered way in which they have answered my Amendments, although I naturally cannot say that I am entirely happy about those I lost. I should particularly like to point out that I hope the Commission will keep in mind the question of religion, because I understood from what was said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that although he agreed with much of what I said about this it could not be put into the Bill because it would mean too much redrafting. I think that was his major reason for not wishing to have it.

I am grateful that consideration was given to the question of the name of the Commission. I was only trying to carry out what had been suggested in paragraph 27 of the Report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration of 1st July, 1975, which stated that: After considering several alternatives, we believe that the new agency should be so named to emphasise that the Commission will be a new institution and also because we feel that it will now be appropriate and helpful to discontinue the reference to race relations. I think this is a very important statement in the report.

I hope that the Bill will now be really beneficial to all concerned and will produce good community relations in the future. I sincerely hope that this will be the last Bill we shall have to pass dealing with this matter, that it will not be necessary to enact any more legislation and that this will therefore prove the worth of the Bill to all concerned. It is a very complicated Bill, and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether, when it is finally printed and agreed, that there may be some pamphlet, particularly in the languages of the different races, that can explain this Bill so that there will not be any misunderstanding as to people's rights or otherwise under this new legislation. It is extremely important that they shall not think that it is going to produce Heaven on earth for all of them. On the other hand, I also think that it will be necessary for them to understand how to work it so that they can get the best benefit from it.

3.51 p.m.

Lord O'HAGAN

My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for insulting it, whether grossly or otherwise, for missing my Amendment. The only way to be on time now is to sleep in this Assembly. As my Amendment arose from an Amendment that I withdrew at Committee stage, and it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who suggested to me that it was acceptable after further thought by the Government, I was sad that he did not move it, if the rules of procedure would have allowed that. But perhaps he will say that it will be dealt with in another place.

I do not feel that dealing with these single and separate areas of discrimination by one bit of law after another is the right manner in which to approach the whole subject. When we have a new constitutional settlement, as suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in his remarkable lectures—and, if I may say so, they were made vividly clear on the Jimmy Young show in an even more popular form this morning, which I enjoyed very much; the Constitution is now becoming a really hot subject and suitable for pop shows—and when we have the rights and duties of citizens defined in a written Constitution, we can amalgamate all the hotchpotch of laws that have to do with discrimination and have one single law making quite plain what the individual citizen is not, and is, entitled to do. The way we are going at the moment, we are going to have a Bill to outlaw discrimination against people with wooden legs, or bent noses, or whose names begin with "P", and it reduces the whole Statute Book to absurdity to have one law after another for a single item against which people feel strongly and on which there may be discrimination.

The Committee, and the Report stage, which I missed through 'flu, have illustrated how absurd our present Parliamentary process is. We have not had a proper discussion of the Government's strategy. We have not had a proper discussion of the Commission's strategic functions. We have not had a proper discussion of the Government's views on the future of the inner city. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that readers of the Economist know infinitely more about the Government's strategy on inner cities than do Members of your Lordships' House who have attended or read the stages of this Bill. It is not treating Parliament in the right way to misuse the opportunities provided by this Bill for informing Members of this House about the underlying thinking behind the Government's policy.

I do not want to be argumentative at this time of day on Friday, but I hope that we will not have more Bills of this kind, and that when Members of your Lordships' House, including those now sitting on the Government Benches, are looking at the way in which we legislate about discrimination, they will give serious thought to making Parliament better equipped to deal with the complicated issues involved and to reforming the way we look at this type of legislation so that we do not reduce ourselves to absurdity by passing one discrimination Bill after another which inevitably conflict. Otherwise, I welcome, as I welcomed at Second Reading, the broad intentions to which this Bill is directed, and I very much hope it succeeds.

3.55 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I just endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said in appreciation of the service of the Members of the Front Bench. I am just amazed at the way in which they spend hours and are able to deal with nearly all the issues which are raised. As a Back-Bencher I almost have reverence for the way in which they are fulfilling their duties. May I extend that to other Members of the House who have shown such interest in this Bill; the Opposition Front Bench, although I have disagreed so often with them, the Liberals, the Cross-Benchers and all who have indicated their interest. I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, into his discussion about the Constitution, except that I would say that I am in favour of a broad measure of civil rights and I think that such a measure might make unnecessary these separate Bills about discrimination. We do not have such a Bill and therefore this one is necessary.

The recent Chancellor of the Exchequer once described me as the author of legislation on race discrimination. That is not true. The first Bill that was introduced on this subject was by the late Lord Sorensen. I attempted to follow that up nine years in succession, introducing a Bill on the subject in another place, until at last the Labour Government adopted it and, since then, two amending Bills in this House. I wish to say how very much I welcome the original draft of this Bill. We did not discuss its major contribution very much in Committee. Its major contribution is the fact that it now gives the Commission the positive power to investigate and prevent discrimination in place of the negative power which it had in the past of merely dealing with complaints.

I hope it is not true, as is suggested by a comment in The Times this morning, that Her Majesty's Government intend to accept many of the Amendments which have been tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. In my view those Amendments in some respects mutilate the Bill, particularly in relation to clubs, partnerships and so on, and I hope that when the Bill goes to another place those Amendments will be rejected. While saying that, I wish to add that I am in sympathy with some of the Amendments which have been tabled by the Opposition Front Bench and which have sought to safeguard personal rights; we must be very careful when passing legislation of this character not to deny ordinary personal rights and I shall be quite happy if the Government in another place accept some Amendments to that effect.

I had intended on this occasion to make a review of what has happened to the Bill and the whole situation in the country relating to racial harmony, but I refrain from doing that in view of the hour and my great desire to see the Bill passed. However, I must say that, while legislation can contribute, as past legislation has, to modifying racial animosity, the fundamental issue must be the education and conversion of people to a belief in racial equality, and because of this I welcome the campaign which the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress are to conduct on this subject this autumn.

I wish that the Churches, the liberals—with a small I—the Liberal and Conservative Parties, the academics and all the representatives of our tolerant society would unite in a campaign in this country in the belief that human beings are equal, whatever their race or colour. I wish that could happen. There are proposals for a great national conference to this effect. I hope that it will take place. It is only by that change in human attitudes that we shall solve this question, but the Acts which have already been passed, together with the present Bill, will contribute towards a solution. I commend the Government for having introduced it.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, it is difficult to follow those eloquent observations by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. This Bill has been one of particular interest to my noble friends on these Benches, especially to my noble friend Lord Avebury who, unhappily, cannot be here this afternoon. It was a Bill that was always bound to give rise to certain difficulties, for the entirely proper attempt to use the law fully as part of the fight against the evil of racial discrimination was bound, from time to time, to conflict with the views of those who cherish our more traditional civil liberties.

Those difficulties have been resolved in this Bill and we believe that, on the whole they have been resolved fairly and that a proper balance has been reached. I know that my noble friend Lord Avebury in particular would want me to express his gratitude and that of all of us to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the Government generally for the way in which they have listened and responded to various suggestions made in the course of the debates in an attempt to improve the Bill. We are grateful to them and we wish the Bill well.

4.3 p.m.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone expresses his deep regret that he is not able to be here. I say personally and on behalf of all my noble friends that we are very grateful for the contribution he has made to amending the Bill as it came before your Lordships' House. My noble and learned friend particularly asked me to say two things. The first was to express to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and his colleagues on the Front Bench our deep gratitude for the courtesy with which the proceedings in this Bill have been carried on in the House. It has been a difficult Bill; we have been at it throughout the day and sometimes throughout the night and we are grateful for the unfailing courtesy we have received from the Front Bench opposite. We should also like to thank the printers who have made our job very much easier by making the Bill available. This is no easy task and I say in all seriousness that the fact that the Bill was always ready the next day for us to deal with the next stage facilitated our work. I should therefore like to underline how very grateful we are to the printers and to all those who were involved in the work of preparing the Bill throughout its stages.

The second point which my noble and learned friend asked me to make was to thank all the Back-Benchers on our side of the House for the unfailing support that they have given throughout the Bill, again at all hours of the day and night. Perhaps I should say to my noble friend Lord O'Hagan that had he been on time to move his Amendment I regret that there would have been nobody there to receive it. As he arrived late, he did not know what had happened, but I think it fair to let him into what might otherwise be considered a secret of the proceedings of the House. He need not have been quite so apologetic as he was.

I should now like to say a few words about the Bill. In particular, I believe that it must be emphasised that everybody in this House, as has, I believe, been perfectly clear throughout our discussions, is united in rejecting discrimination on any grounds, be they race, colour, national origin or, indeed, religion, even if that is not included in the Bill. We all consider discrimination to be totally unacceptable and intolerable behaviour in our islands. Indeed, our history has shown that successive waves of people coming into the country for different reasons have always been made welcome and made to feel part of Britain and the British people. I feel that it would be difficult, even in this House, to find many people who are 100 per cent. English or 100 per cent. Scottish, or whatever it may be. I have always considered that it is one of the great elements of the British people that we do accept and we do make welcome people who come into this country.

Many of us on this side feel—and, again, I think this would be shared by many people throughout the country—that if the economy of this country was in a better state, if education was freely available in decent schools, if houses were freely available without restrictions and if employment was equally available to people in this country (not only equality of opportunity) we would never have the difficulties and tensions that we have today. If the emphasis was not made on the material benefits to so many people in this country there would be very much better community relations.

I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, that the Churches have a very great role to play in creating better community relations in local communities. I very much welcomed the remarks he made in that regard. However, I should say to him that if we had a Civil Rights Bill many of the clauses which were in the Bill and which we have managed to reject, would never have been able to get into the Bill in the first place. Undoubtedly some of the Amendments which my noble friends and others on this side of the House have managed to carry during the stages of the Bill have been directed towards preserving the principles of our legal system: that the innocent must first be proved guilty, otherwise he is innocent; that a criminal act must have intention, as well as there being the criminal act itself.

I should like to repeat—and I think it would be beneficial to remind ourselves of—the principles which guided us, particularly my noble and learned friend, when we introduced Amendments. These principles have guided us throughout the Bill, and they are contained in the Official Report of 27th September, on the Committee stage, at column 28. He sought to eliminate the unintelligible and the unenforceable, and to restore the legal principles which have served this country well for so many generations and which we hope will continue to serve this country and which indeed have been not only the admiration of many other legal systems, but have been imitated by them. We think that it would be tragic for this country to reject those principles which have served us well.

The fourth point which my noble and learned friend made, and which has come out very clearly in many of the Amendments, was to eliminate any element which might appear oppressive, either to the person accused or to the accuser. When so often we heard from the Government Front Bench that they were trying to create a fair balance, what we tried to do on this side of the House was to restore the balance in the scales of justice, the scales of justice which have served us and protected the freedom of the individual in this country for so many generations, and which we believe must be continued and protected in the future.

Finally, we must remember that race relations is not the objective in itself. If it is not applied fairly by the Commission, and the Commission is not seen to be a fair and respected body, we shall get extremists just as we had after both the 1965 and the 1968 Acts. We should remember that intolerable and oppressive legislation will not encourage the population of Britain either to be tolerant or to accept the immigrants whom we wish to live in this country as equals before the law and with equal rights as British subjects in our country.

4.9 p.m.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, I should like to say a few words before the Bill passes. First, my ideal civilisation would be one where there was absolutely no discrimination whatsoever between races. We may safely say that in the more civilised parts of our community it has, to all intents and purposes, disappeared. But, of course, there are other places, and the Government have decided that it is necessary to legislate about it. But my fear is that you will not destroy it by legislation. I think the only way to do it is by education.

I have another slight feeling of uneasiness, too. Are we, by introducing all this legislation, creating a privileged class? In other words, if I say to a white person, "What a silly old fool you are", it would remain there. If I said it to a coloured person, he could take me to court. I wonder whether that is not creating a privileged class. I should also like to draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that, for us who are English-born, bigamy is a penal offence. It is not, apparently, for those who come to us from countries where it has not been. Therefore, I wonder whether that, again, is not creating a privileged class.

I should like to see all races in this country completely equal, friendly and on co-operative terms, but I wonder whether those who are coming in from overseas, or at any rate a great number of them, realise that, in order to achieve that, there has to be a slight effort on their side as well. It cannot all be done by us; it must be done to a certain extent by them, in trying to live according to English standards and adopting English ways of life. My Lords, I am not in the least opposed to this Bill. Whether it will in fact have any effect, I am rather doubtful. But I sincerely hope that the time will come when all races are completely equal in fact, and not merely on legal paper.

4.13 p.m.

Lord MONSON

My Lords, I, too, like other noble Lords in all quarters of the House, should like to pay tribute to the patience and courtesy with which noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have dealt with the Amendments discussed during the very many hours of debate that we have had on this Bill. I wish I could say the same for their flexi bility, but I realise that the flexibility permitted to them is strictly limited. The national Press have produced some pretty forceful headlines recently when discussing your Lordships' activities; for example, Peers maul Race Relations Bill", and House of Lords savage Race Bill". Technically, this may have been true, but I think it creates entirely the wrong impression.

Noble Lords who have participated in these debates hold widely varying views about the Bill itself. As a libertarian and an advocate of individual freedom, I dislike all coercive Bills indulging in social engineering. I believe that the inevitable evolution of public opinion, plus a sense of humour, are far more likely to do the trick. I have the impression that the Opposition Front Bench is not vastly more keen on the Bill than I am. Other noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I suspect are not opposed to Bills of this nature provided they are neither draconian nor illiberal in the true sense of the word.

Other noble Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Brockway, Lord Pitt and Lord Avebury, I think would have liked the Bill to be stronger in certain respects; but whatever our widely varying philosophies, we have all achieved one thing. I think that every single one of the Amendments moved has been genuinely constructive. I do not think there was a single wrecking Amendment tabled, let alone moved. I believe that the House of Lords has fulfilled its functions as a responsible revising Chamber and a guardian of the people's liberty. I hope that the other place will take this into account when considering your Lordships' Amendments.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Baronesses Lady Elles and Lady Vickers, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, my noble friend Lord Brockway and the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat for the kind things they have said about my colleagues and myself.

Lord O'HAGAN

My Lords, the noble Lord can also include my name.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am grateful. It was very kind of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, to say that, particularly after his disagreeable experience this afternoon. I think a number of us were similarly surprised at the speed with which the last item of business was finalised. To all who thanked my noble friends for their contributions to this debate, I would respond by saying that I am grateful to a number of noble Lords from all parts of the House for the assistance they have given us during the debates on this Bill.

I will begin by saying something which is, I hope, only mildly controversial. I do not think that this Bill leaves this House better than it arrived. In a number of respects, I think it is less satisfactory. I will give only one example. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway that the clubs decision was a most unfortunate decision for this House to take. I would not in any way want to suggest that the Government would change their policy on what is a fundamental issue so far as race relations in this country are concerned.

Perhaps, my Lords, I may deal with one or two points which were made. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, asked whether there would be some form of guide to the Bill. I think that she asked the same question in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act. My answer is the same: that there will be a guide to this piece of legislation on the same basis as for that particular Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, made one particular point on which I would like to comment. He said—and the statement he made has been echoed by others—that he hoped that people who came here from abroad would make some effort to understand and, to some degree adopt, the lifestyle of people in this country. We have to face the fact that to a very substantial number of our coloured community in this country, Britain is their home. They have been born in this country. It is not a question of coming here from abroad; it is a question of being born in Lambeth or Bradford or Birmingham; and the intention of this piece of legislation is to attempt to assure that they are treated on terms of equality with their white fellow citizens.

My Lords, I think we have to recognise that this is a most important piece of legislation. Its central objective is to ensure that we have civilised, tolerant race relations in this country. It is a matter of absolutely fundamental importance to the cohesion of the country that we succeed in our objective. Once again I want to thank all who have contributed to our discussions and who have attempted to ensure that this is the type of society which will be developed in our midst.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.