THIS D O C U M E N T IS T H E P R O P E R T Y OF H E R B R I T A N N I C M A J E S T Y ' S
GOVERNMENT)
65
C(68) 12
COPY NO.
8th January, 1968
CABINET
R A C E R E L A T I O N S LE'.GISLATION
M e m o r a n d u m by the F i r s t S e c r e t a r y of State
T h e Cabinet invited m e on 21st D e c e m b e r
( C C ( 6 7 ) 74th C o n c l u s i o n s , Minute 2) t o a r r a n g e f o r the H o m e A f f a i r s
C o m m i t t e e to g i v e further c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the H o m e S e c r e t a r y ' s
p r o p o s a l s f o r l e g i s l a t i o n on r a c e r e l a t i o n s , with p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e
to the application of the proposed B i l l t o the sale of o w n e r - o c c u p i e d
houses.
2.
T h e H o m e A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e have c o n s i d e r e d the p r o p o s a l s in
their p r e s e n t f o r m .
They r e a f f i r m e d t h e i r p r e v i o u s a g r e e m e n t that
l e g i s l a t i o n was n e c e s s a r y to extend the scope of the R a c e R e l a t i o n s A c t
with the object not only of p r o t e c t i n g i m m i g r a n t s against d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,
but of educating public opinion and giving the support of the law t o the
m a j o r i t y of law abiding c i t i z e n s who would be p r e p a r e d t o f o l l o w a f i r m
lead f r o m the G o v e r n m e n t in p r o m o t i n g t o l e r a t i o n .
The C o m m i t t e e
c o n s i d e r e d , in p a r t i c u l a r , the sale of o w n e r - o c c u p i e d h o u s e s , the
application of the B i l l t o the C r o w n , the A r m e d F o r c e s and the p o l i c e ,
and the l e g a l m a c h i n e r y for applying sanctions.
Sale of o w n e r - o c c u p i e d houses
3.
The C o m m i t t e e r e c o g n i s e d that the application of the B i l l to the
sale of o w n e r - o c c u p i e d houses r a i s e s a number of d i f f i c u l t i e s .
This is
a highly s e n s i t i v e a r e a ; but it w i l l r e m a i n so whether the B i l l is applied
to it or not.
F r o m the point of v i e w of the i m m i g r a n t community
housing is w h e r e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n hurts m o s t .
N e a r l y 5 0 per cent of
houses in England and "Wales a r e in the hands of o w n e r - o c c u p i e r s ,
and what we do h e r e w i l l be r e g a r d e d as a touchstone of the G o v e r n m e n t ^
sincerity.
The whole philosophy of the B i l l and its educative effect
would be g r e a t l y weakened if the o w n e r - o c c u p i e r w e r e excluded.
4.
The C o m m i t t e e c o n s i d e r , t h e r e f o r e , that the B i l l should apply
to the sale of o w n e r - o c c u p i e d houses., but that the H o m e S e c r e t a r y
should g i v e i n f o r m a l guidance t o the R a c e R e l a t i o n s B o a r d ( R R B ) to
ensure that in the conciliation w o r k of the l o c a l c o m m i t t e e s and of the
B o a r d itself r e a s o n a b l e latitude is g i v e n to the e x e r c i s e of l e g i t i m a t e
d i s c r e t i o n by the vendor and that l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s a r e not taken unless
there is such strong evidence of open and f l a g r a n t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on
grounds of r a c i a l prejudice that a court would have little difficulty in
finding in the B o a r d ' s favour.
It would a l s o be n e c e s s a r y that in the
Second R e a d i n g debate on the B i l l the H o m e S e c r e t a r y should be able t o
explain in d e t a i l how the m a c h i n e r y would w o r k in r e l a t i o n t o owner ­
occupied houses in o r d e r to p r e v e n t the exploitation by the Opposition
of f e a r s that any o w n e r - o c c u p i e r who s e l l s his house to a white m a n in
p r e f e r e n c e t o a c o l o u r e d w i l l be in danger of being publicly p i l l o r i e d
and mulcted in d a m a g e s .
5.
W e think that, subject t o these s a f e g u a r d s , the a p p l i c a t i o n of the
B i l l t o o w n e r - o c c u p i e d houses w i l l not p r e v e n t an o w n e r - o c c u p i e r f r o m
s e l l i n g t o a white m a n notwithstanding that he has r e c e i v e d an equal or
b e t t e r offer f r o m a c o l o u r e d m a n , p r o v i d e d that he has plainly not been
actuated by r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e .
F o r e x a m p l e , he should be f r e e to s e l l
t o a white m a n on grounds of f r i e n d s h i p or p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e and to
take into account his obligation t o his neighbours to p r e v e n t the house
being used in a manner d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e m , f o r e x a m p l e f o r m u l t i ­
occupation.
We w e r e i n f o r m e d that it is not uncommon in Scotland t o
m a k e a condition of sale that the house shall be occupied only by the
purchaser and his f a m i l y .
R e s t r i c t i v e covenants with a s i m i l a r
p u r p o s e , though r a r e in England and W a l e s , a r e not i m p o s s i b l e ^ and
we do not think that the i m p o s i t i o n of such a condition should in i t s e l f
be r e g a r d e d as r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .
6.
The C o m m i t t e e w e r e i n f o r m e d that while the p r o c e d u r e had not
b e e n w o r k e d out in d e t a i l the intention wculd be that if a c o m p l a i n t w e r e
made of r e f u s a l to s e l l on grounds of r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e the l o c a l c o n c i l i a ­
tion c o m m i t t e e would invite the c o m m e n t s ot the v e n d o r e i t h e r in
w r i t i n g or by i n t e r v i e w , and if s a t i s f i e d that he had l e g i t i m a t e r e a s o n s
f o r his choice of p u r c h a s e r and wa*? not actuated by p r e j u d i c e they
would explain to the complainant that no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was i n v o l v e d .
If the complainant w e r e not s a t i s f i e d , the R R B would s i m i l a r l y
investigate and would not take l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s unless s a t i s f i e d that
the case was one of f l a g r a n t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .
U n l e s s and until l e g a l
action w e r e taken t h e r e would be no p r o c e e d i n g s in public.
7.
The C o m m i t t e e a l s o c o n s i d e r e d whether in a f l a g r a n t c a s e in
which a court found d i s c r i m i n a t i o n p r o v e d the sanctions a v a i l a b l e to it
would be adeq\:ate.
The court w i l l have power t o o r d e r the defendant
t o pay d a m a g e s to the complainant on whose behalf p r o c e e d i n g s a r e
taken in r e s p e c t not m e r e l y of actual o u t - o f - p o c k e t e x p e n s e s (as
o r i g i n a l l y p r o p o s e d ) , but of any p r o v a b l e l o s s r e s u l t i n g f r o m the act of
discrimination.
T h i s could, f o r e x a m p l e , enable d a m a g e s to be
a w a r d e d in r e s p e c t of a job which the i m m i g r a n t had been uiiaMe. t o
take b e c a u s e he could not get a c c o m m o d a t i o n l o c a l l y .
In addition the
court could o r d e r the defendant to pay the costs of the action.
The
C o m m i t t e e r e c o g n i s e d that these w e r e unlikely to be l a r g e s u m s , and
that the complainant who could p r o v e no identifiable loss would not
r e c e i v e any tangible r e c o m p e n s e .
But the purpose of the B i l l is not
p r i m a r i l y either to inflict penalties or t o p r o v i d e m o n e t a r y c o m p e n s a ­
tion f o r s u f f e r e r s f r o m acts of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ! its m a i n purpose is t o
f o s t e r a c l i m a t e of opinion and, on b a l a n c e , we think that, p r o v i d e d in
f l a g r a n t c a s e s the l a w can be v i n d i c a t e d , it is b e t t e r that the courts
should not have p o w e r to inflict what could b e r e g a r d e d as D r a c o n i a n
penaKiec,
W h e r e a c o u r s e of d i s c r i m i n a t o r y conduct has b e e n p r o v e d
S EC RET the court w i l l have p o w e r to issue an injunction to r e s t r a i n the
defendant f r o m such conduct in the future, and d i s r e g a r d of such an
injunction would b e subject to the penalties of contempt of c o u r t .
But while this could apply to a p e r s o n dealing r e g u l a r l y in p r o p e r t y
it would not apply t o a single sale by an o w n e r - o c c u p i e r .
f
8.
The C o m m i t t e e a c c o r d i n g l y r e c o m m e n d by a m a j o r i t y that the
B i l l should apply t o the sale of a house by an o w n e r - o c c u p i e r .
A p p l i c a t i o n to the C r o w n
9.
T h e C o m m i t t e e found that the a r g u m e n t s in applying the
p r o v i s i o n s of the B i l l t o the C r o w n w e r e e v e n l y balanced.
The H o m e
S e c r e t a r y p r o p o s e s that the B i l l should bind the C r o w n as e m p l o y e r ,
landlord or p r o v i d e r of public s e r v i c e s , with the e x e m p t i o n s n e c e s s a r y
t o p r e s e r v e the r u l e s as t o nationality and length of r e s i d e n c e f o r entry
t o the C i v i l S e r v i c e and the D i p l o m a t i c S e r v i c e and to p r o t e c t the
C r o w n s d i s c r e t i o n w h e r e s e c u r i t y is i n v o l v e d .
Special arrangements
would have t o be m a d e f o i the R R B t o i n v e s t i g a t e a l l e g a t i o n s against
the C r o w n .
T h e C r o w n should not be subject to l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s
(the C r o w n cannot in any event be bound by an injunction); but it would
be open to the R R B t& d r a w c a s e s of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t o the attention of
the M i n i s t e r c o n c e r n e d and, if not s a t i s f i e d that a p p r o p r i a t e action had
been taken, to r e p o r t the c a s e in t h e i r annual r e p o r t to P a r l i a m e n t .
It
is a r g u e d that unless the B i l l binds the C r o w n at l e a s t to this extent it
w i l l not be p o l i t i c a l l y a c c e p t a b l e and w i l l not have the n e c e s s a r y impact
on public opinion.
T h o s e who take this v i e w attach o v e r r i d i n g i m p o r t a n c e
t o the a s s e r t i o n of a u n i v e r s a l p r i n c i p l e of l a w t o which the Government
a s w e l l as the public at l a r g e w i l l be subject,
[
10.
The a r g u m e n t against applying the B i l l to the C r o w n is that,
since it is a c c e p t e d that t h e r e must be s o m e e x c e p t i o n s , enactment of
them in the B i l l w i l l be seen t o weaken the g e n e r a l i t y of the p r i n c i p l e
and the exceptions w i l l in t h e m s e l v e s appear t o be d i s c r i m i n a t o r y .
It is suggested that the i m p a c t which the h o l d e r s of both points of v i e w
want t o produce would t h e r e f o r e be m o r e e f f e c t i v e if the Home S e c r e t a r y
announced on the Second R e a d i n g of the B i l l that while t h e r e w e r e
t e c h n i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s in applying the B i l l to the C r o w n , the Crown
n e v e r t h e l e s s a c c e p t e d and would be g o v e r n e d by the p r i n c i p l e s of the
B i l l and would submit its actions to the scrutiny of the R R B .
11.
A p a r t i c u l a r difficulty of making the B i l l binding on the C r o w n
l i e s in the p r o b l e m of its application to the A r m e d F o r c e s which a l r e a d y
have t h e i r own statutory m a c h i n e r y f o r d e a l i n g with g r i e v a n c e s with
r i g h t s of appeal t o the a p p r o p r i a t e S e r v i c e B o a r d , the M i n i s t e r , o r , in
some c a s e s , The Queen.
It is argued that it would be inappropriate to
p r o v i d e separate m a c h i n e r y through the R R B f o r dealing with g r i e v a n c e s
based on a l l e g e d r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and that the A r m e d F o r c e s should
t h e r e f o r e be excluded f r o m the scope of the B i l l , l e a v i n g the S e c r e t a r y of
State f o r Defence t o e s t a b l i s h an i n f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the R R B .
T o exclude this a r e a f r o m the scope of the B i l l , h o w e v e r , would add
substantially t o the n e c e s s a r y e x e m p t i o n s , and to that extent further
weaken its i m p a c t .
The H o m e A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e w e r e not convinced
SECRE1
144 that there was no r o o m f o r c o m p r o m i s e h e r e ; and they asked the H o m e
S e c r e t a r y t o consult with the M i n i s t e r of D e f e n c e f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
with a v i e w t o finding some m e a n s , while applying the B i l l in p r i n c i p l e
to the A r m e d F o r c e s , of ensuring that the e x i s t i n g statutory m a c h i n e r y
for dealing with g r i e v a n c e s continued t o o p e r a t e and that the S e c r e t a r y
of State f o r D e f e n c e was not m a d e f o r m a l l y a n s w e r a b l e in r e s p e c t of
the o p e r a t i o n of this m a c h i n e r y t o the R R B .
12,
If it is d e c i d e d in p r i n c i p l e that the B i l l should apply to the
Crown ft w i l l be n e c e s s a r y f o r further c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o be g i v e n to the
position of the R o y a l Household and the R o y a l D u c h i e s , but although
l e g a l and constitutional p r o b l e m s m a y a r i s e h e r e such l i m i t e d exemptions
as m a y be r e q u i r e d would not have the same e f f e c t in weakening the
p r i n c i p l e of the B i l l as the total e x e m p t i o n of the C r o w n ,
On balance
and by a s m a l l m a j o r i t y the C o m m i t t e e a c c o r d i n g l y r e c o m m e n d that the
B i l l should bind the C r o w n on the l i n e s p r o p o s e d by the H o m e S e c r e t a r y .
The P o l i c e
13.
P o l i c e o f f i c e r s occupy an independent position and a r e not
e m p l o y e e s e i t h e r of the C r o w n or the P o l i c y -Authority.
The question
how far the B i l l should bind the p o l i c e does not t h e r e f o r e turn on its
application to the C r o w n .
The H o m e S e c r e t a r y p r o p o s e s that the B i l l
should apply t o the p o l i c e in a l l r e s p e c t s except in t h e i r o p e r a t i o n a l
dealings with the public.
In this f i e l d the existing statutory p r o c e d u r e
should apply.
T h i s p r o v i d e s f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of complaints against
the p o l i c e and f o r the punishment of p o l i c e o f f i c e r s found guilty either of
c r i m i n a l or of d i s c i p l i n a r y offences.
It is consequently both m o r e
a p p r o p r i a t e and m o r e e f f e c t i v e than the m a c h i n e r y of the R a c e R e l a t i o n s
B i l l , which w i l l p r o v i d e f o r no d i r e c t punishment of p e r s o n s p r o v e d to
have c o m m i t t e d acts of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .
14.
The argument to the c o n t r a r y is that, as with housing, the
t r e a t m e n t of i m m i g r a n t s by the p o l i c e in the execution of their duty is
a sensitive a r e a , and that i m m i g r a n t opinion w i l l not be satisfied that
complaints a r e f a i r l y dealt with by a p r o c e d u r e which does not usually
result in i n v e s t i g a t i o n by an o f f i c e r f r o m outside the F o r c e in question.
The C o m m i t t e e concluded by a m a j o r i t y that, p r o v i d e d that acts of
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w e r e made specific offences under the p o l i c e d i s c i p l i n e
c o d e , the b a l a n c e of advantage lay in l e a v i n g complaints against the
police in t h e i r o p e r a t i o n a l aspect to be dealt with by the e x i s t i n g
statutory m a c h i n e r y .
Appointment of a s s e s s o r s to sit with courts h e a r i n g p r o c e e d i n g s
brought by the R R B
15.
T h e H o m e S e c r e t a r y p r o p o s e s that p r o c e e d i n g s brought by the
R R B to e s t a b l i s h that an act of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and contravention of the
B i l l ha.s o c c u r r e d should in England and W a l e s be brought b e f o r e
county courts s p e c i a l l y designated f o r the purpose sitting with cwo
a s s e s s o r s d r a w n f r o m a panel appointed by the L o r d C h a n c e l l o r ,
It
is argued that the p r e s e n c e of a s s e s s o r s , who m a y be either white or
c o l o u r e d but w i l l be chosen f o r t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e of the r e l e v a n t
p r o b l e m s , is e s s e n t i a l t o give i m m i g r a n t c o m m u n i t i e s confidence that
the court w i l l d e a l with the case without b i a s .
But to the extent that
SECRET
^
14 5 the a s s e s s o r s a r e seen t o be present t o c o r r e c t a b i a s against "the
i m m i g r a n t they m a y be a s s u m e d by the white m a n whose conduct is
c o m p l a i n e d of t o be e x e r c i s i n g an influence on the c o u r t p r e j u d i c i a l
t o h i m s e l f j and t h e i r m e r e appointment can be said t o be a r e f l e c t i o n
on the i n t e g r i t y of the j u d i c i a r y .
It was r e p r e s e n t e d that the
appointment of a s s e s s o r s would be p a r t i c u l a r l y difficult t o justify in
Scotland w h e r e it is p r o p o s e d that e a s e s brought by the R R B should be
heard by s h e r i f f s whose j u r i s d i c a t i o n is w i d e r than that of county
courts in England and W a l e s .
16.
T h e C o m m i t t e e a p p r e c i a t e d the difficulty of holding the right
balance in this m a t t e r , but a g r e e d by a m a j o r i t y that in the context
of a m e a s u r e d e s i g n e d t o c r e a t e confidence in the a b i l i t y of the
community to condemn r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n it was p r e s e n t a t i o n a l l y
i m p o r t a n t that the party m o s t l i k e l y to f e a r that the m a c h i n e r y of the
court would be b i a s s e d should have the r e a s s u r a n c e p r o v i d e d by
assessors.
It was a g r e e d that if a s s e s s o r s w e r e t o be appointed in
Erigtaad and W a l e s they must a l s o be appointed by the L o r d A d v o c a t e in
Scotland.
Conclusions
17.
T h e H o m e A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e w e r e d i v i d e d on s e v e r a l of the
m a j o r i s s u e s that a r i s e on the proposed R a c e R e l a t i o n s B i l l .
The
a r g u m e n t s a r e f a i r l y e v e n l y b a l a n c e d , and the C o m m i t t e e r e a c h e d its
conclusions by a m a j o r i t y .
The i m p o r t a n c e attribxited to the v a r i o u s
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s depends l a r g e l y on how much weight is to be given t o
the need t o g i v e a striking public d e m o n s t r a t i o n of the G o v e r n m e n t s
d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o condemn r a c i a l p r e j u d i c e and t o r e a s s u r e i m m i g r a n t
c o m m u n i t i e s that the m a c h i n e r y which applies the ultimate sa.nction is
not b i a s s e d against them.
The H o m e A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e attach high
i m p o r t a n c e t o the d e m o n s t r a t i o n of p r i n c i p l e ana t o the i m p a c t which the
B i l l m i g h t be e x p e c t e d to have on public opinion,
18.
i t h e r e f o r e invite the Cabinet t o a g r e e ­
( a )
that the B i l l should apply t o the sale of o w n e r - o c c u p i e d h o u s e s ;
(b)
that the B i l l should bind the C r o w n , subject to n e c e s s a r y e x e m p t i o n s on r e c r u i t m e n t to the C i v i l and D i p l o m a t i c S e r v i c e s and t o e x e m p t i o n f r o m l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s ; ( c )
that the H o m e S e c r e t a r y and the S e c r e t a r y of State f o r D e f e n c e
should consult further with a v i e w to finding m e a n s of applying
the B i l l t o the A r m e d F o r c e s without p r e j u d i c e to the
o p e r a t i o n of the e x i s t i n g statutory m a c h i n e r y f o r dealing with
grievances;
( d )
that the B i l l should apply t o the p o l i c e e x c e p t in t h e i r operational capacity; ( e )
that a s s e s s o r s should be appointed to sit with county court judges in England and Waxes and c o r r e s p o n d i n g courts in Scotland. M.S.
7 0, W h i t e h a l l , S. W. 1.
8th January, 1968