Race Relations In Britain

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31660, 22 April 1968, Page 10

Race Relations In Britain

The aims of the new Race Relations Bill announced by Britain’s Home Secretary, Mr Callaghan, have been well received, although doubts about the effectiveness of the bill have been expressed. The bill is generally regarded as representing a considerable advance on the legislation of 1965. It outlaws discrimination in almost every field, including certain places of public resort, housing, employment, and even the provision of credit services and facilities. Comment on the bill has properly emphasised the need for prompt and firm action to prevent the emergence in Britain of a pattern of discrimination and exploitation even remotely resembling that created in the United States by more than a century’s denial of full citizenship rights to Negroes. The difficulty of drafting a satisfactory bill is recognised, since any new law in the field of social relations must be educative as well as deterrent. The 1965 Act made discrimination a criminal offence. This was soon recognised to be impracticable; and the emphasis was transferred to conciliation. The new bill places heavy reliance on conciliation, especially in employment matters. The Government’s hope is that employment problems can be resolved by employers and unions getting together voluntarily. It is regarded as a weakness of the bill that, if conciliation fails, a complaint may not be referred direct to the Race Relations Board but must first be examined, to establish its validity, by the Department of Employment and Productivity. It is argued that the entry of a government department into the procedure for investigating complaints is undesirable, and that a case not settled should pass automatically to the board, which should have adequate enforcement powers. In the draft bill the board’s powers of investigation are limited, since it is denied the right to subpoena witnesses and documents, or to order decision in a specific case to be suspended while it investigates. Newspaper comment on the bill has pointed to the possibilities of conciliation being stifled and prosecutions evaded by employers or propertyowners simply refusing to discuss charges brought against them, or refusing to produce evidence. Parliament will no doubt look very closely at the enforcement clauses of the bill, which may need strengthening. If the bill were to pass in its present form the Government, in the view of “ The Times ”, will have left itself open to the charge of providing “ comprehensive coverage with a sieve ”.