Widespread Race Prejudice Found In U.K.

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31348, 19 April 1967, Page 15

Widespread Race Prejudice Found In U.K.

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter—Copyright) LONDON, April 18. A social survey disclosing widespread racial prejudice in Britain brought demands today that the Government extend its legal powers to deal with colour bar trouble.

The report told of wholesale snubs by landlords, employers and workmates for the coloured migrants who had flooded in since the Second World War. One of many instances cited was an employer who announced: “No black bastards wanted?’

Another was the employment agency official who explained: “There’s this sex thing . . . most employers are men and have the idea that coloured men are more virile —so they’re hostile.” Then there were white office girls who refused to use the same toilets as coloured girl clerks. Eight firms were found to have installed separate toilets for coloured workers to placate white staff. The findings were delivered in a report issued by an independent research organisation known as Political and Economic Planning. Its inquiries were financed by the Rowntree Memorial Trust. P.E.P. researchers interviewed 976 migrants from the West Indies, India, Pakistan and Cyprus and surveyed 500 people in a position to discriminate.

They also conducted tests in Which a white Briton, a white foreigner and a coloured person applied for a job,

house or other requirements. Over the week-end, similar findings were reported in a survey by the Campaign Against Racial Discriminlnation.

The P.E.P. report reported, that of the immigrants, West Indians fared worst, the Cypriots best. The report challenged the assumption that discrimination would fade away as second generation migrants became more acclimatised. It said there was a trend for migrants to face even more discrimination as their qualifications—and ambitions —increased. Situation tests were carried out on 40 firms. Of these, 27 discriminated against the coloured tester and 13 turned down the white foreign tester. The Englishman found jobs available in 30 of these firms. The report said that employers gave a variety of reasons for rejecting coloured workers. These included hostility from white staff, oppo-

sition from customers and lack of coloured skill. Of 60 retailers canvassed, three admitted they would not hire coloured workers at all and 14 said they would not place them on counters purveying things as fresh food or corsetry. Many employers seemed chary of admitting an actual colour bar.

The survey said employers were often afraid to promote coloured staff for fear of antagonising white staff. In housing, testers investigated 60 properties advertised for rent. Of these, 45 either rejected the coloured tester or demanded a higher rent. One landlord admitted: “My wife doesn’t go for them much and anyway, it would look bad with the neighbours.” When it came to buying a house, estate agents sometimes seemed reluctant to sell to coloured applicants. Other fields In which discrimination appeared were the provision of house mortgages and such services as motor insurance

and car renting. In 17 out of 20 tests, insurance companies either refused to insure a coloured man’s car or else quoted a higher premium. The report found at least one instance of discrimination

working in reverse. Pakistanis were given 95 per cent of the jobs in one firm and then began keeping out white workers.

“The Times” said in an editorial the survey showed “massive” evidence of discrimination. “There can no longer be any doubt about the seriousness of Britain’s colour problem.”

It said: “the general case for extending the law is overwhelming. This is where liberal opinion should concentrate its efforts—not on seekig to break down the restrictions on immigration.

“The first challenge for Britain must be to give a fair deal to the coloured people already in the country."