UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

CERD 26^th No. 18 (A/8418) (1971)

28. From its 56^th to its 58^th meetings, the Committee proceeded to determine formally its view as a Committee (as distinct from the views expressed at previous meetings, which were those of the individual members) as to which reports were “satisfactory”, in the sense that they furnished all or most of the required information, and which reports were “unsatisfactory” or “incomplete” and therefore needed to be supplemented by further information. The initial report (and supplementary report, if any) of each State Party was put before the Committee separately by the Chairman. Where there was no consensus, the question whether a State Party’s report (or reports) was “satisfactory” or whether, failing that, the Committee wished to request additional information from that State Party, was decided by vote.

29. The Committee expressed itself as satisfied with the completeness of the reports submitted by the following 15 States Parties, from which no additional information was requested: ... United Kingdom ...

CERD 28^TH No. 18 (A/9018) (1973)

290. The initial report of the United Kingdom, submitted on 14 April 1970, was considered by the Committee at its third session and found satisfactory. The second periodic report, submitted on 10 August 1972, was considered at the eighth session (156^th to 158^th meetings).

291. Several members expressed satisfaction with the following features of the report under consideration: it provided information relevant to all articles of part I of the Convention; it provided information not only on legislative measures but also on judicial, administrative and other measures; it provided information not only on the territory of the United Kingdom itself but also on dependent Territories; it provided specific references to specific legislative provisions; and the extensive information it contained was organized in conformity with the guidelines laid down by the Committee. Some members described the document under consideration as a model report. Special note was taken of the fact that the report furnished details illustrating the problems encountered when a Government attempted to apply the provisions of the Convention; of the range of techniques employed by the United Kingdom Government to ensure the implementation of the provisions of articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention; and of the emphasis laid on conciliation, with recourse only in the last resort to the courts.

292. Some members doubted that the reporting State had fully satisfied the requirement of article 3 of the Convention that “States parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid”. Several members expressed the opinion that the obligations of State parties under article 4, paragraphs (a) and (b), of the Convention, were only partly fulfilled by the reporting State - inasmuch as some obligations (including the obligations to declare an offence punishable by law “all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred”, “incitement to racial discrimination”, and “the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof”, and to declare illegal and prohibit organizations “which promote and incite racial discrimination”) were either not fully discharged or not discharged at all by the relevant legislation. In this connection, some members doubted that the reservation relating to article 4 of the Convention, which was made by the United Kingdom Government upon signing the Convention and reaffirmed upon ratification, justified the restricted application of that article in United Kingdom legislation. Similarly, some members held the view that neither the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nor article 5 of the Convention - which were cited in the report in explanation of the restricted application of the provisions of article 4 of the Convention - in fact justified that restricted application. Some members expressed the opinion that the reporting State’s compliance with article 5 of the Convention was vitiated by some of the exceptions to the application of the general principle of non-discrimination, particularly those provided for in sections 7 (6), 8 (2), 8 (7) and 8 (10) of the Race Relations Act of 1968. Several members disagreed with the assertion made in the report that “it [was] inappropriate for the Committee to correspond with States Parties through the agency of any other body” in order to request relevant information on the situation in their dependent Territories. While welcoming the fact that the United Kingdom Government had chosen to furnish, in the report it submitted in accordance with article 9 of the Convention, information on Territories to which article 15 of the Convention applied, some members were of the opinion that direct communication between the Committee and administering Powers was precluded by the terms of article 15, which made no distinction between administering Powers which were Parties to the Convention and those which were not. In this connection, paragraph 6 of the “Statement of the Responsibilities of the Committee Under Article 15 of the Convention”, 20/ adopted at the first session of the Committee, was recalled. Some members observed that the report under consideration furnished no information on the status of the relations of the reporting State with the racist régimes in southern Africa.

293. Some members asked about the immigration policies and laws in force, and inquired whether aliens who did not come from the Commonwealth were considered as immigrants and what were their rights and obligations. Some members asked whether there had been any cases under the Race Relations Act or other criminal laws dealing with incitement to racial hatred, and whether any steps had been taken or whether any were contemplated - to ban or punish organizations which advocated a policy of racial discrimination and tended to incite racial hatred. In this connection, specific references were made to the phenomenon known as Powellism.

294. The representative of the United Kingdom assured the Committee that the comments and requests of its members would be brought to the attention of his country’s authorities. The views expressed during the debate on the scope and application of article 4 of the Convention would be fully taken into account by the United Kingdom Government in preparing its reply to the request transmitted to it by the Secretary-General in pursuance of the decision adopted by the Committee at the seventh session. 21/ Referring to the exceptions specified in the relevant sections of the Race Relations Act of 1968, and the doubts that those exceptions were compatible with article 5 of the Convention, he spoke of the practical aspects of promoting racial harmony and expressed the view that impeccable legislation might well be unenforceable and that legislation which fully conformed with the provisions of the Convention might be politically impossible to achieve. Referring to the discussion on the manner in which information on dependent Territories of State parties should be sought, he emphasized that, since the United Kingdom had ratified the Convention on behalf of its dependent Territories, it was “more appropriate” for the information in question to be sought from his Government directly rather than through an intermediary. With respect to immigration policies and laws, he referred to the Immigration Act of 1971, which defined categories of persons having the right to reside in the United Kingdom; all other persons wishing to enter the country were subject to regulations. The question of banning or penalizing organizations that preached racial discrimination was determined by section 6 and 7 of the Race Relations Act of 1965. Organizations or individuals who engaged in acts that contravened the provisions of those sections were prosecuted by the authorities; no such action had been taken in the case of Mr. Powell, but proceedings had been brought under section 6 of that Act in 15 cases. Regarding the question of the status of his country’s relations with the racist régimes in southern Africa, he recalled that article 9 of the Convention, did not provide for an obligation on States parties to include such information in their reports, and that there was no provision in the Convention for imposing new obligations on States

parties. He noted that it was clear from the wording of general recommendation III that that understanding was fully accepted by the Committee. Recognizing the importance which the Committee attached to the inclusion of such information in reports submitted under article 9 of the Convention, his Government had given the question careful consideration, but had concluded ___________

            20/      [Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session, Supplement no. 18], A/8027, annex IV.

            21/      see chap. IV above, and chap. X,. section A, decision 3 (VII) below.

 that the relations of States parties with the régimes in question - or indeed with any other country - were not directly relevant to the implementation of the Convention and had decided not to include such information in its reports.

295. The Committee decided to consider the report satisfactory and expressed the hope that the Government of the United Kingdom would continue to co-operate with the Committee as it had done in the past.

CERD 30^TH No. 18 (A/10018) (1975)

136. Members of the Committee observed that the information contained in the third periodic report of the United Kingdom and its voluminous annexes was detailed in nature and comprehensive in scope, complying with all the requirements of article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention; furthermore, like the preceding reports submitted by the reporting State, the report under consideration was organized in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Committee at its first session. The information envisaged by the Committee in its general recommendation IV was supplied in detail. It was noted also that the report maintained a dialogue with the Committee, responding to questions and commenting on observations made by members during the discussion of earlier reports. Members of the Committee took note of the fact that, in the report under consideration, there was a balance between compliance with the obligation to fight against racial discrimination and fulfilment of the obligation to promote racial tolerance and coexistence; there was also a balance between the public and private agencies entrusted with those tasks. In that connection, stress was laid on the information given on the implementation of article 7 of the Convention. Finally, the report was described by some members as “serious and frank” in admitting that racial discrimination continued to exist in the United Kingdom and in forwarding a large number of legal texts adopted to eliminate it.

137. Some members of the Committee, however, noted with regret that the reporting State had maintained its policy of not responding to the Committee’s general recommendation III, concerning information on relations with racist régimes.

138. It was observed that the information contained in the annexes to the report under consideration showed that racial discrimination still occurred in the United Kingdom, that the number of complaints on that subject - which were concerned largely with violations of the right to work, to housing, to housing, to health services, to social benefits and to access to public places - was increasing yearly, and that many of those complaints turned out to have a basis in fact; and it was suggested that the reason why, despite its efforts to implement the Convention, the Government of the United Kingdom had not yet achieved the desired results was that there were gaps in the administrative and judicial measures needed to give effect to a body of legislation which was otherwise satisfactory.

139. It was observed also that the Race Relations Act of 1968 provided for some exceptions from its basic provisions, some of which were temporary and had been abolished, while others remained in effect. Some members recalled that the Convention prohibited the maintenance of such exceptions and expressed the hope that, in the review of the policies then under way, the United Kingdom Government would abolish all those exceptions and would so inform the Committee in its next report.

140. It was further observed that the Race Relations Board itself had concluded that its competence and role were limited and were inadequate to eradicate racial discrimination, and had made some recommendations for reform; and the hope was expressed that the views of the Board would be taken into account and that the Government would provide it with the means to increase it effectiveness.

141. Concern was expressed at the fact that, although the Race Relations Board had placed complaints in connection with the procedure for selection of members of working-men’s clubs and the admission of such members as associates to other affiliated clubs in the category of acts of discrimination in the provision of services, and although the Court of Appeal had ruled that it was illegal to deny associates admission to such clubs on the basis of colour, the House of Lords had more recently ruled that the procedure for selection of members to those clubs was not covered by the Race Relations Act, so that, unless changes were made, it would not be considered an offence to deny certain persons admission to certain clubs on the basis of race or colour, contrary to the requirements of article 5, paragraph (f), of the Convention.

142. Comments were made by members of the Committee on observations occurring in the reports of the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission to the effect that there was a lack of confidence among the minority groups in the intentions of society and government, as a result of which members of minority groups did not avail themselves more fully of the legal and administrative remedies provided for against discriminatory practices. With reference to the Immigration Act of 1971, some members expressed the view that more information was required on United Kingdom immigration policies in order to see if there was any discrimination that fell within the purview of the Convention. The question was also asked whether there was any machinery for ascertaining the views of representatives of minority groups regarding the effectiveness of the United Kingdom Government’s policies to combat racial discrimination and whether any steps had been taken to consult them on matters affecting their interests.

143. It was emphasized that additional information on the actual social and economic situation of the minority groups, and how they viewed their particular situation in the context of society as a whole, would be welcomed.

144. A statement contained in the report of the United Kingdom, to the effect that “each State Party to the Convention retains the right to determine what further measures it will take to implement article 4", was the subject of comments by all members of the Committee who participated in the discussion - most of whom expressed disagreement with that statement. The assertion made in the report, that “no objections or challenges [had] been made against the interpretative statement” made by the United Kingdom when it signed the Convention, and reaffirmed when it ratified it, was considered by some members to be irrelevant, in as much as both the United Kingdom Government and the Secretary-General had not considered that interpretative statement to be a reservation under article 20 of the Convention. Some members suggested that the Committee should request the United Kingdom Government to furnish it with an official statement on the matter.

145. The representative of the United Kingdom, in several statements before the Committee, made the following observations: (a) With regard to the violations of the Race Relations Act and the complaints mentioned in the reports of the Race Relations Board, he said that the situation in housing and employment in the United Kingdom had improved since the figures referred to during the discussion had been compiled. (b) He informed the Committee that his Government was currently engaged in a review of race relations legislation, including the powers and duties of the agencies concerned with its enforcement; that the views and suggestions of the Race Relations Board had a prominent place in that review; that a White Paper containing proposals for strengthening legislation would be introduced into Parliament as soon as possible thereafter. (c) With regard to membership of workingmen’s clubs, he stated that following the ruling of the House of Lords, the Home Secretary had announced that provisions on that subject would be included in the proposed amendments to the legislation. (d) He assured the Committee that the interest it had shown in the immigrant policy of his Government would be reflected in its next report. (e) With regard to the implementation of article 4 of the Convention, he stated that his Government was willing to submit a fuller explanation when it submitted further reports.

CERD A/32/18 (1977)

302. The fourth periodic report of the United Kingdom was considered together with the introductory statement made before the Committee by the representative of the reporting State.

303. Members of the Committee noted that the report before them placed the Committee in a somewhat unusual position. The information in the report related to the situation which had obtained in the two-year period from April 1974 to March 1976, when the Race Relation Acts of 1965 and 1968 were still in force; an annex to the report comprised a White Paper entitled “Racial Discrimination”, submitted to Parliament in September 1975, examining the short-comings of the then-existing legislation and outlining the main features of a new law then proposed; the new Race Relations Act 1976, which had come into force in June 1977, was not supplied to the Committee, on the ground that it had been enacted after the end of the biennial period covered by the report; and the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom, which would report on the new law, would be due during the Committee’s next (seventeenth) session. Some members were of the opinion that, under those circumstances, it would be wise for the Committee to defer consideration of the report before it until it had received the fifth periodic report. It was argued that, inasmuch as the purpose of the consideration of reports from States was to make suggestions and general recommendations, consideration of the fourth periodic report would not lead to relevant results since the legislative situation it described had already come to an end, while, at the same time, the law currently in force was not available to the Committee for consideration. On the other hand, it was pointed out that the reporting State had fulfilled its obligation under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention by presenting - albeit belatedly - the report before the Committee, and that that report contained relevant information on dependent territories and comments on observations and inquiries made by members of the Committee at previous sessions. At its 348^th meeting, held on 5 August 1977, the Committee decided to proceed with its consideration of the introductory part of the report (Part A), the information on dependent territories (part B) and replies to questions raised at previous sessions (annexes I and II), and to refer to the White Paper (annex III) only in so far as it was relevant to such discussion - with the understanding that the information in the White Paper, the text of the Race Relations Act 1976, and the assessment of whether it was working satisfactorily would be considered when the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom was before the Committee. 14/ In that connection, a hope was expressed that the United Kingdom would submit its next report in time for its consideration by the Committee at its seventeenth session and that it would submit also the text of the new law on nationality and citizenship as well as the texts, previously requested, of the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration Rules.

304. Reference was made to the comment in the report on observations made at a previous session of the Committee regarding the implementation of article 4 of the Convention. Although the report stated that “the United Kingdom’s interpretation of article 4 remains the same as set out in paragraphs 22-23 of the Third Biennial Report”, it was noted with satisfaction that in paragraph 126 of the White Paper the United Kingdom Government had indicated that it would ensure that it

____________

            14/ In the following paragraphs, only those opinions and observations which fell within the framework of this decision are reflected.

would no longer be necessary to “prove a subjective intention to stir up racial hatred”. Furthermore, although the Government of the reporting State continued to hesitate to extend the criminal law to deal with the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority in the absence of a likelihood that group hatred would be stirred up by it, it had come to recognize that strong views were held on this important point and had not closed the door to possible reconsideration of its position - as was indicated in paragraph 127 of the White Paper. The information in the annex entitled “Results of prosecutions under the Race Relations Act 1965", submitted in response to requests made by some members of the Committee, was considered insufficient to serve the purpose for which it had been requested in the first instance. Some members noted with concern the reports of the strong racist statements appearing in the media in the United Kingdom in recent years, and wished to know whether action was being taken to curb the racist activities of such organizations as the National Socialist Movement and the National Front.

305. Some members asked for information on the application of the provisions of article 7 of the Convention, and on the programmes which might have been formulated in connection with the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.

306. Part B of the report, entitled “Dependent Territories”, was found to be perfunctory and uninformative in certain sections. The paragraph on Belize, for example, referred to a request by the Committee for information on the ethnic composition of the population of Belize and on the effects of the influx of migrant workers on social relations, and simply stated in reply that the Government of Belize had reported that there had been no developments of note during the period under review and that they had nothing to add since the submission of the third periodic report of the United Kingdom. The paragraph on Solomon Islands referred to the new Constitution of that territory but made no mention of the provisions relating specifically to racial discrimination.

307. It was noted with regret that the information envisaged by the Committee in its general recommendation III and decision 2 (XI), concerning relations with the racist régimes in southern Africa, was not supplied in the report.

308. The representative of the United Kingdom assured the Committee that his Government would endeavour to submit its next report in time for consideration by the Committee at its next session, and would submit also the texts of the Acts requested by the Committee. However, with regard to the request for the texts of the law on nationality and citizenship, he explained that his Government had published a Green Paper on that subject in April 1977, as a consultative paper to be studied by those concerned, but that no legislation was likely for at least two to three years. In connection with the organizations mentioned by some members of the Committee and described as racist organizations, he stated that they had no significant support; they existed because it was difficult to reconcile their suppression with freedom of speech and democracy, but they were kept under close watch. Information on United Kingdom programmes relating to the Decade and on measures taken in accordance with article 7 of the Convention would be provided in the next report, which would also contain more information on dependent territories. With regard to providing the Committee with information on relations with the racist régimes in southern Africa, he recalled his Government’s position regarding general recommendation III, which had been made known to the Committee on 15 August 1973 - namely, that his Government would not include information on relations with South Africa in its reports.

CERD A/33/18 (1978)

332. The fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom and the voluminous documentation appended to it were considered by the Committee together with the introductory statement of the representative of the reporting State.

333. Much of the discussion revolved around the new Race Relations Act, which came into force on 13 June 1977. While the definition of racial discrimination under that Act was considered to be in conformity with the Convention, the exceptions provided for in the Act caused concern for several members of the Committee. It was noted that some of those exceptions were permitted under article 1, paragraph 4, of the Convention, and that some others were based on objective criteria other than “race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”; but there were some exceptions which were considered by members of the Committee to be incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. The representative of the United Kingdom, in his reply, explained the rationale for most of the exceptions in question. He referred to some of them as having been promoted by “common sense” and said that some had been promoted by the desire to protect privacy, while others referred to distinctions based on citizenship and not race. He assured the Committee that if it was found that some of the exceptions - such as those which related to clubs having less than 25 members - served to foment racial discrimination, the law would be changed.

334. Some members of the Committee, observing that it was unusual for national legislation not to apply to a State’s entire territory, inquired why the Act did not apply to Northern Ireland. The representative of the United Kingdom recalled that the various territories making up the United Kingdom often had separate legislation of their own. He added that, owing to the United Kingdom’s immigration procedures, the problem of racial discrimination did not exist in Northern Ireland; and that the legislation applied there was aimed at solving problems of a political, cultural and religious nature, which were the problems troubling Northern Ireland.

335. The powers and composition of the Commission for Racial Equity were discussed. The statement in the report that Commission was an independent body was questioned by a member of the Committee, who recalled that members of the Commission were appointed by the Secretary of State, that therefore there was a clear link between the Commission and the Government, and that the Commission could not address itself to Parliament or submit draft legislation independently of the Government. The representative of the United Kingdom stated, in reply, that the Commission was totally independent of the authorities in carrying out its activities and that that independence was guaranteed by legislative provisions and constitutional safeguards as well as by the traditions of British society. He gave the Committee information on the present composition of the Commission. Members of the Committee requested that the annual reports of the Commission be provided as appendices to future reports.

336. A member of the Committee asked about the composition of the Advisory Council on Race Relations, and in particular how the 14 members of the ethnic minorities were elected or appointed. The representative of the United Kingdom stated that those members were appointed after consultations with representatives and leaders of ethnic groups.

337. It was observed that, inasmuch as the Race Relations Act of 1976 had been in force for only a short time, the Committee would be in a better position to judge the effectiveness of the Act when information on its implementation became available.

338. Some members asked for information on the proposed changes in immigration law and hoped that the next periodic report of the United Kingdom would contain details of the Government’s plans in that regard. The representative of the United Kingdom stated that his Government had announced that it would not take action on the report of the Committee on Race Relations of the House of Commons and did not intend to change its current immigration policy.

339. The question of compliance by the reporting State with the mandatory requirements of article 4 of the Convention - which had been discussed at previous sessions (A/9018, para. 292; A/10018, para 144; and A/32/18, para. 304) - was discussed again at the eighteenth session in the light of the new legislative situation brought about by the enactment of the new Race Relation Act. Members of the Committee welcomed the fact - intimated in the fourth periodic report 18/ and in paragraph 126 of the White Paper appended thereto - that under the new legislation it was no longer necessary to prove a subjective intention to stir up racial hatred. However, it was regretted that - notwithstanding the statement in paragraph 127 of the White Paper indicating that the Government had not closed the door to possible reconsideration of its position with respect to the question of prohibiting the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority, as required under article 4, subparagraph (a), of the Convention - the new legislation did not reflect any change in the position of the United Kingdom Government in that regard. It was also noted with regret that section 70 of the Race Relations Act of 1976 on “incitement to racial hatred”, stipulated, first, that in order for a statement which is likely to stir up hatred against any racial group to be an offence, it should also be threatening, abusive or insulting” and, secondly that, in any proceedings for the offence of publications or distribution of written material under that section, “it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he was not aware of the content of the written matter in question and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect it of being threatening, abusive or insulting”.

340. In his reply, the representative of the United Kingdom drew attention to the “reservation” formulated by his Government when signing the Convention, saying that it was “a reservation which had been accepted and which should therefore be taken into account when judging the attitude of the United Kingdom in relation to that article”. In that connection, some members of the Committee pointed out that the declaration regarding article 4 of the Convention, which was made by the United Kingdom at the time of signature and confirmed at the time of ratification, was a “statement of interpretation” and not a “reservation” under article 20 of the Convention, and did not have the legal effect ascribed to it by the United Kingdom representative.

341. The representative of the United Kingdom proceeded to note that the problem of striking a fair balance between freedom of expression and the activities of certain groups and organizations had always been a subject of discussion in the United Kingdom. He informed the Committee that his Government

___________

            18/ CERD/C/R.90/Add.30

“intended to keep that question under study with a view to adopting new provisions in the future”. With regard to the exceptions made in the case of those who unwittingly published or distributed written matter likely to stir up racial hatred, he said that, because of the enormous quantity of written matter disseminated in that country it was impossible to insist that every publisher and every distributor must read carefully everything he published; and therefore the law allowed any person to show that in handling such material he had not been aware of its content.

342. Several members of the Committee referred to neo-Nazi organizations and movements in the United Kingdom and said that, in accordance with the mandatory obligations of States parties under article 4, subparagraph (b), of the Convention, those organizations should be banned. The representative of the United Kingdom said, in reply, that despite the wide publicity which certain groups having racist tendencies had been receiving recently, it was clear that those movements were not gaining ground: “their view had not found a response in the population and the reaction of British society to them had been one of unequivocal opposition”.

343. With regard to the provisions of article 6 of the Convention, it was noted that, under the procedure instituted by the Race Relations Act of 1976, individuals could take complaints of racial discrimination direct to the courts or, where appropriate, to industrial tribunals. However, in the case of those educational bodies in respect of which the Education Ministers have powers of direction, complaints have to go first to the Education Ministers. In reply to a question from a member of the Committee as to whether the Education Ministers were required to take action within a specified time period, the representative of the United Kingdom Stated that the Ministers were allowed two months in which to reply to a complaint before the complaint could be submitted to the courts.

344. Several members of the Committee referred to the statement made in the report, that “a prosecution for an offence of incitement to racial hatred in England and Wales requires the consent of the Attorney-General” and asked why that limitation was put on the guarantee required by article 6 of the Convention. The representative of the United Kingdom said that the authorization of Attorney-General was needed in cases of public incitement to racial hatred because such incitement affected a group of persons; he denied that procedure was in contradiction with free access of individuals to the courts.

345. With regard to the implementation of article 7 of the Convention, it was noted that the information envisaged in general recommendation V of the Committee was not provided in the report. A member of the Committee, however, stressed the importance accorded by the reporting State to conciliation - a practice which was commendable, since “penal measures by themselves could not turn a racist into an opponent of racism”.

346. It was noted with regret that the report under consideration did not provide the information envisaged in general recommendation III of the Committee, regarding relations with the racist régimes in southern Africa. The representative of the United Kingdom reaffirmed his Government’s position in that regard: that “article 9 of the Convention did not impose an obligation to report on relations with the régimes of the countries of southern Africa, or of any other country, and that such information was not relevant to the implementation of the Convention”. The Chairman said that the Committee would continue to invite States parties to provide such information, and urged the Government of the United Kingdom to reconsider its position and provide information on that subject in its next report.

CERD A/35/18 (1980)

385. The sixth periodic report of the United Kingdom (CERD/C/66/Add.13 and Add.24) was introduced by the representative of the reporting State who pointed out that in the Race Relations Act 1976, which was referred to in the report as the chief instrument for the implementation of the Convention, the centrepiece was the Commission for Racial Equality, whose main duties were to work towards the elimination of discrimination, to promote equal opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups, to keep under review the working of the 1976 Act and, when required by the Government, to draw up and submit to the Government proposals for amending the Act.

386. The Committee commended the Government of the United Kingdom for its well-organized report, which contained answers to many of the questions raised during the consideration of the previous report, and welcomed, in particular, the frankness of the report which showed that the United Kingdom was perhaps unique in the open and serious way in which it attempted to discuss and explain all aspects of the problem of racial discrimination and that it had made serious efforts in taking action to reduce the number and gravity of instances of racial discrimination in the country.

387. The Committee drew particular attention to the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. Some members were of the view that the exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination set out in the Act were very vague, permitted certain kinds of racial discrimination to exist and did not meet the requirements of the Convention, especially its article 1, paragraph 4, and its article 2. With reference to the exceptions to protect personal and intimate relationships, it was asked what precisely was meant by transactions between one individual and another and whether section 21 (3) of the Act, which exempted a person from the requirement not to discriminate in the disposal of premises if he neither advertised nor employed an estate agent, meant that a seller could refuse to sell his property to someone of a different race. With reference to the exceptions to prevent manifest anomalies and absurdities, it was observed that section 26 of the Act tended to create the impression that the exceptions laid down could be exploited to protect the majority group vis-a-vis racial or ethnic minority groups, and that section 25, which exempted small clubs of fewer than 25 members from the provisions of the Act on grounds that such associations were domestic in character, seemed to be the most inadmissible; it was important in this regard to take specific measures to prevent formalized organizations, whatever their size, from practising racial discrimination. With reference to the exceptions for acts done under statutory authority, it was observed that such exceptions appeared vague and it would be interesting to know the criteria governing acts by a Minister of the Crown under section 41(2) of the Act and whether such criteria ensured adequate protection to ethnic minorities, what type of cases might be involved and which Minister was concerned. It was noted in this connection that the Government, in accordance with section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act of 1972, was obliged to give nationals of European Community States preferential treatment in certain respects as it was observed that such provision was not consistent with the spirit of the Convention; it was also asked whether nationals of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States associated with the European Community enjoyed the same privileges as citizens of the nations of the European Community. With reference to the employment exceptions, it was asked whether section 5(2) of the Act, which covered work where the job-holder provided persons of a racial group with personal services promoting their welfare, could be extended to include the police force, particularly in areas where ethnic minorities were predominant. Information was also requested on the percentage of ethnic minorities recruited to the police force. Some members were of the view that some of the exceptions of the Race Relations Act of 1976 were legally unassailable and that the Committee should also bear in mind the legislature’s declared willingness to review and revise any exceptions that appeared in practice to foster racial discrimination. Furthermore, one member noted that reference was made in the report to the review by the Government of the United Kingdom of the operation of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, and asked for further information about programmes and activities organized by local authorities to meet the needs of ethnic groups in their areas and about any changes in attitude of the local authorities which, according to the previous report, were reluctant to pay attention to the problems of ethnic minorities.

388. In connection with article 3 of the Convention, some members of the Committee regretted that the Government of the United Kingdom had reiterated its position that it was not obliged to report on its relations with South Africa or other countries, and hoped that information in this regard would be provided in the next periodic report. One member wished to know, in particular, whether British firms in South Africa complied with the United Kingdom Labour Code with respect to the wages and working conditions of workers employed by them and what measures were taken by the Government to persuade those firms to model their practices on the Code. Another member stressed that members of the Committee were not unanimous in their interpretation of the obligations of States parties under article 3 of the Convention.

389. With regard to measures for the implementation of article 4 of the Convention, it was observed that there seemed to be in the United Kingdom no legal guarantees in conformity with the provisions of that article and that it was not possible to establish, for instance, whether the existing legislation specifically prohibited verbal propaganda for racist ideas or financial assistance to racist organizations. The hope was expressed that the reservation made by the United Kingdom on signing the Convention would be revised so that adequate legislative guarantees could be enacted in conformity with article 4 of the Convention. Furthermore, it was noted that the Race Relations Act 1976 did not extend to Northern Ireland; that there was no detailed presentation in the report of the legislation in force in that part of the country; and therefore it was not possible to determine whether legislation valid in Northern Ireland fulfilled the requirements of the Convention. In this connection, the wish was expressed that the text of such legislation, in particular, the text of the prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, would be made available to the Committee. Some members welcomed the information that the British Government was conducting the review of the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation, taking into account the questions previously raised by the Committee, with a view to striking a balance between the individual’s freedom of expression and the provisions of article 4 of the Convention. Referring to the role of the Commission for Racial Equality which, in accordance with the Race Relations Act 1976, was given powers to conduct formal investigations for any purpose connected with its statutory duties of working towards the elimination of discrimination and promoting equal opportunities, one member noted with satisfaction that some 48 per cent of the incidents to racial discrimination pursued by the Commission in 1978 had been settled by conciliation; another member, noting that the Commission had the power to influence public opinion, asked what was being done to improve attitudes towards migrant workers.

390. With reference to article 5 of the Convention, one member asked whether the Government of the United Kingdom, as a signatory to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, had agreed to let the provisions of that Convention extend to the dependent territories under its jurisdiction. He also noted that the country had taken a large number of refugees from Viet Nam, but wondered how refugees from other parts of the world, such as southern Africa were treated. Another member observed that there seemed to be nothing in the report dealing with the actual guarantees of the rights of the non-white population. Some members drew particular attention to the legal provisions concerning immigration and nationality in the United Kingdom. As regards the White Paper outlining the Government’s proposals on the revisions of nationality legislation, specific information was requested on how the changes would affect British overseas citizens and on a demographic breakdown of the estimated 1.5 million persons affected by those changes; it would also be useful for the Committee to receive information on the notion of the partial criteria for full citizenship in order to understand the different categories of citizenship and the rights they conferred. It was noted in this connection that there had been considerable unease in the country, especially in the immigrant communities, since the publication of the White Paper and it was stated that assurances by the Government that the concerns of the immigrant communities would be taken into account in the final legislation were comforting, but the Government must be prevailed upon to ensure that the effect, as well as the intention, of the new legislation would not be in any sense discriminatory. As regards the revised Immigration Rules which came into force on 1 March 1980, it was noted that they had ended the automatic right of some women settled in the United Kingdom to be joined by their husbands and fiancés and it was observed that provision seemed incompatible with the guarantee of the right to marriage and choice of spouse. It was also asked whether the progressively stricter immigration rules which had been introduced in the United Kingdom since 1971 had, in fact, resulted in an improvement of race relations and whether they had actually had the effect of guaranteeing human rights to ethnic minorities. Furthermore, it appeared from the information provided that there was an acute problem of unemployment in the United Kingdom among ethnic minority groups, that unemployment among the immigrants had increased and that there was discrimination in the field of employment against young people; information was requested on measures the Government planned to introduce to tackle those problems and what short and long-term solutions it proposed. With reference to the provisions of the Immigration Act and the new Immigration Rules, it was asked how an illegal immigrant was defined under the law, how many illegal immigrants had been apprehended, how many had been deported, what was the breakdown of their nationality and whether there was any administrative discretion as to whether or not to deport a so-called illegal immigrant.

391. Reference to the new Immigration Rules was also made in connection with article 6 of the Convention: it appeared that under United Kingdom law individuals, when applications for entry into the country were refused, could exercise their right to appeal only outside the United Kingdom, and it asked how, if the appeal was successful, compensation would be paid for financial damages incurred as a result of the original refusal of permission to enter. Some members referred to the provisions of the Race Relations act 1976, under which discrimination had been defined as a full civil wrong, and it was observed in this connection that civil suits could drag on for long periods and that, in order to provide effective protection, discrimination should be designated at least a criminal offence. It was noted that the Commission for Racial Equality had the sole right to bring legal proceedings against various infractions of the Act and it was asked whether the injured party or a civil rights organization was therefore disbarred from instituting proceedings independently of the Commission and how the independence of the Commission was ensured. Clarification was requested on the information that legal aid was not available for proceedings before an industrial tribunal; it was noted, in addition, that a person wishing to pursue a complaint in industrial tribunals could seek professional help from his trade union, and it was asked what help was available to those workers who did not belong to a union and what means, beyond a further prosecution and fine, were used to ensure compliance with the ruling of an industrial tribunal. Some members were not entirely satisfied with the explanations provided in the report in response to the questions previously raised by the Committee with regard to the possibility of a conflict between the requirement for the Attorney-General to give his consent to a prosecution and the principle of individual access to the courts, and one member expressed the opinion that such requirement might deny individuals the right to seek redress in the courts.

392. With reference to article 7 of the Convention, it was noted that most of the publications dealing with the race relations situation in the United Kingdom, listed in the 1978 annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality, seemed to be aimed at ethnic minority groups in the country and not at the non-minority population, and information was requested on what efforts had been undertaken to educate the population as a whole about the cultures and traditions of the immigrant communities and ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom, to develop the knowledge and understanding of foreign cultures, and to disseminate information about the Convention through the mass media. It was also asked whether there were any other organizations in the United Kingdom, besides the local community relations councils, that sought to promote understanding, particularly among young people.

393. Replying to questions raised by members of the Committee, the representative of the United Kingdom explained that the exceptions to the Race Relations Act 1976 appeared to be very broad, but in many cases they involved only a few individuals and that many of the exceptions were designed to protect members of minority communities. He pointed out that, if racial discrimination did occur in connection with exceptions to protect personal and intimate relationships, the law would have to be reviewed; the pressure of public opinion was a powerful force in this regard and the Commission for Racial Equality also had the power to bring incidents to the attention of the Government. As regards the exceptions to prevent manifest anomalies and absurdities, he pointed out that the provisions allowing the formation of clubs or associations based on nationality were intended to protect minority groups and that the law made it clear that colour could not be the basis for the formation of a club. As regards the exceptions for acts done under statutory authority, he stated that exceptions for Ministers of the Crown, under section 41 of the Race Relation Act, had to be seen in relation to section 75 of the Act, and that there was no evidence of abuse of those provisions which would have been, otherwise, publicized by the Commission for Racial Equality and the mass media. In this connection, his Government felt that preferential treatment for nationals of the European Economic Community was consistent with the Convention. As regards the employment exceptions, he stated that there was no question of discrimination in the recruitment of staff for Government departments and informed the Committee about the recruitment campaigns by the various police forces specifically to recruit officers who were immigrants or of immigrant descent and about the increased contacts and activities in the police force to improve relations with immigrant communities. Racist conduct on the part of a police officer would not be tolerated and, when a case was reported, it was dealt with extremely severely. As regards the attitudes of local authorities towards the needs of ethnic minorities, he stated that there was no widespread evidence of lack of attention by local authorities on the subject.

394. Referring to questions regarding the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, the representative stated that, as far as relations with South Africa were concerned, there had been no change in his Government’s position: the matter did not fall within the purview of the Convention and there were other forums in which his Government could more appropriately state its abhorrence of apartheid.

395. With reference to article 4 of the Convention, the representative stated that incitement to racial discrimination was already a criminal offence. The balance between freedom from racial discrimination and other freedoms was a delicate one and, while his Government would take account of the comments of the Committee, the Committee too had to take account of his country’s traditions. He referred to the practical and constitutional reasons why the Race Relations Act 1976 did not extend to Northern Ireland already explained in the report and assured the Committee that the texts of the legislation relevant to that part of the country would be provided. He also wished to clarify that the Act did apply to Scotland and to Wales.

396. With reference to article 5 of the Convention, the representative informed the Committee that the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms had been extended to the few remaining dependent territories with limited exceptions such as territories with no permanent population like Antarctica, territories in the Indian Ocean and Hong Kong which had a special status, and that cases of alleged racial discrimination had been taken to the European Commission of Human Rights. As for the non-white population, it had precisely the same rights as all other elements of the population. People who had left South Africa for political reasons had in many cases chosen to go to the United Kingdom because of its liberal policy about refugees. The representative provided some figures on immigration to the United Kingdom and on cases of refusal of entry into the country, and stated that imposition of immigration controls had created an atmosphere of confidence and reassurance for the majority of the population. He explained in this connection that there had been too many cases of women forced to marry a particular man in order for him to gain entry to the United Kingdom, and that his Government did not feel obliged to permit primary immigration through marriages arranged for that purpose. It was his Government’s view that the new immigration rules did not discriminate on the grounds of race or sex and, as regards recent provisions and proposals on nationality, an assurance had already been given that there would be no question of altering the status of those already lawfully settled in Britain

397. With reference to article 6 of the Convention, the representative emphasized that incitement to racial hatred was already a criminal offence, but that in its approach to racial discrimination, the United Kingdom preferred reconciliation to draconian penalties. He referred, in this connection, to information provided on civil cases which had been settled without delay and sometimes with the award of substantial damages. He also explained that in the United Kingdom legal aid meant financial assistance for legal representation and that in employment cases, an individual could bring someone to represent or assist him but no financial assistance was provided in order to maintain an informal atmosphere which was thought to be conductive to settling such cases. As regards the right of individual access to the courts, he stated that under the Race Relations Act 1976, there was no need for an individual with a grievance to have recourse to the Attorney-General who was concerned with cases of incitement to racial hatred as a general phenomenon and not with injustice against individuals. The individual, however, could enlist the help of the Commission for Racial Equality in order to redress his grievance.

398. With reference to article 7 of the Convention, the representative drew the attention of the Committee to the information provided in the annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality concerning school curricula and efforts made by local authorities and various organizations, especially in areas with large immigrant populations, to promote understanding in the local community.

399. He finally assured the Committee that the next periodic report would provide information with regard to those questions which had remained unanswered.

CERD A/38/18 (1983)

162. The seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom (CERD/C/91/Add.24) was introduced by the representative of the reporting State. He informed the Committee about a new Nationality Act, new immigration rules and about the series of public disorders which had occurred in several parts of England in the summer of 1981. While, with the possible exception of the disturbances in Brixton, they did not seem to have been racially motivated, they had had serious implications for community relations and especially race relations. The Home Secretary has appointed Lord Scarman to conduct an inquiry into the causes of the Brixton disorders and make recommendations. His report focussed primarily on policing matters and recognized the importance of relations between ethnic minorities and a predominantly white police force. To follow up Lord Scarman’s recommendations, a new bill had been introduced in parliament. The Government was also endeavouring to improve the training of policemen and to make changes in the procedure for handling complaints against the police. He added that his Government had set up a joint working party to study ways to promote good race relations through the involvement of local authorities.

163. Members of the Committee commended the report of the United Kingdom not only for the comprehensive information it contained, but also for the lucidity and frankness with which it had described the problems encountered. Appreciation was also expressed for the regularity of the United Kingdom in submitting its periodic reports and for having sent a high-ranking official to maintain the dialogue with the Committee. The report showed that the Government was fully aware of its responsibilities under the Convention and had the courage to recognize the existence of racism and racial discrimination. Although it provided information on measures contemplated by the British Government to eliminate racial conflicts, the report was more problem-oriented than solution-oriented.

164. Members of the Committee expressed concern about the exceptions made under the Race Relations Act of 1976. One member, noting that the Act did not apply to personal and intimate relationships, said that it introduced a dangerous degree of flexibility which almost amounted to authorizing discrimination. In that connection, it was pointed out that the exemption relating to the private disposal of premises was of even greater concern for it appeared to be one way of perpetuating segregated neighbourhoods, a practice that was directly against the Convention. One member felt that the restrictions imposed on the eligibility of overseas students were unfair and more information was asked regarding the current situation. Another member, while not agreeing that the exemptions to the Act promoted racial discrimination, requested that the next report contain some examples of the effects of such exemptions. Special concern was expressed by the Committee that the Race Relations Act had not been extended to Northern Ireland because of the absence of the racial problems there and that the legislation dealt only with discrimination on religious and political grounds. In this context, it was asked whether the Irish people were regarded as constituting a separate ethnic and racial group, and it was observed that racial and religious problems in Northern Ireland were inextricably linked; the Committee asked whether any change could be expected soon within the obligations arising under the Convention.

165. In context of the implication of article 2, the Committee analysed the racial disorders which had occurred in some English localities in 1981, the behaviour of certain members of the police as well as the measures that were being adopted or implemented by the British authorities as a result of those events. The Committee requested additional information on the Government’s response to Lord Scarman’s recommendations on policing the police and ways of ensuring a more positive role by the police in maintaining racial harmony. More information was also asked for concerning the recommendations of the Home Secretary to reduce racially-motivated crimes. Several members posed the question whether any action had been taken against the members of the police force who had been guilty of racist behaviour. One member, referring to explanations given for the events, stated that such racial disorders, whether sporadic or orchestrated, violated the right to security of persons and might have been motivated in order to undermine the confidence of minority groups as a whole. On the subject of recruitment of members of ethnic minorities in the police, the hope was expressed that the next periodic report would indicate a significant increase in the number of members of the ethnic minorities recruited and forming part of the police force. The question was also posed whether the screening procedures in the police force were applied only to potential recruits of minority ethnic groups. As far as the responsibility of local authorities in dealing with race relation problems was concerned, it was asked which aspects of the basic rights of individuals were currently the concern of local authorities. Also more information was asked for regarding: the provision of funds to local authorities to meet special needs of immigrants; the representation of minority groups in the local authority associations; and the projects making up the Urban Programme in the Inner City areas.

166. With regard to article 3 and the information furnished about the Code of Conduct of companies with interests in South Africa, members of the Committee, in general, commended such initiative. It was pointed out that, though the Code was voluntary, the information it contained would enable vigilant anti-apartheid groups in Great Britain to mould public opinion and perhaps influence Government policy. Yet, one member observed that the Code virtually legalized co-operation with South Africa and, in this context, it asked whether such co-operation was increasing or decreasing. Several members regretted that the United Kingdom, a member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), had not supported the resolution adopted by the General Assembly concerning the collaboration between IMF and South Africa and had done nothing to prevent the granting of loans by IMF to that country.

167. Commenting on the fact that the United Kingdom legislation did not fully comply with article 4 of the Convention and analysing the actual situation under section 5 A of the Public Order Act of 1936, members of the Committee found it disturbing that, in spite of previous criticisms expressed by the Committee, the Government had not yet reached an opinion regarding changes in section 5 A of the Public Order Act. The delay, it was said, could probably be explained by the interpretative declaration regarding discretion over enactment of legislation that the United Kingdom had made upon signing the Convention. The Committee, however, had taken the position that the interpretative declaration did not have the same legal effect as a reservation and was therefore irrelevant; and its categorical position was that the implementation of article 4 was not open to discretion but was mandatory, whether or not racial discrimination actually existed.

168. As far as the implementation of article 5 was concerned, the Committee found it unusual that the British Nationality Act 1981 provided for three categories of citizenship. In this connection, a number of specific questions were posed by members. Confirmation was requested as to whether those persons of New Commonwealth and Pakistan (NCWP) origin born in the United Kingdom would be entitled to full British citizenship including the right to vote, and clarification was asked about the status of the remainder of the NCWP population, since the other two categories of citizenship provided under the Act did not confer the right to abode within the United Kingdom. Members wished to know how many former British subjects had been denied the right to live in the United Kingdom and how many children of the people in the British Overseas category who had opted for British citizenship at the time of independence were likely to become stateless. Clarifications were also asked for about the immigration controls and whether those had affected other subgroups more severely than those from Pakistan and Bangladesh and whether the Lomé Convention had liberalized controls and the same immigration rules applied to the people of Caribbean ethnic origin as to the people originating from NCWP. One member was also interested to know which non-white subgroup of NCWP was considered the most racially disadvantaged and whether the United Kingdom government was discussing immigration problems with the relevant Commonwealth countries. Finally, members expressed the hope that the next periodic report would contain information on how the commendable programmes in education, training and employment launched by the authorities had benefited disadvantaged communities and helped to improve their socio-economic situation.

169. During the discussion of article 6, members of the Committee expressed the hope that future reports would include more information on the Commission for Racial Equality, particularly about its competence, role, membership, procedures, and activities and initiatives that it had undertaken under the 1976 Race Relations Act. Members were interested to know whether the Commission had made any recommendations to Parliament to revise exceptions made under the Act. Of interest was also the Commission’s locus standi before the British Courts in instances where action under the Convention was not necessary but it was possible under British legislation. Additional information could also be provided relating to any plans the Government might have to assess the work of the Commission as well as on whether an independent evaluation had been carried out to ascertain the views of minority groups regarding the functions of the Commission. One member drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that incitement to racial hatred was a criminal offence which could be investigated by the Attorney-General, while other racial crimes considered to be civil offences were taken up by the Commission. It was stressed that since the enforcement of the laws on racial discrimination was the responsibility of the Commission it was to be assumed that steps had been taken to ensure that the Commission could act completely independent from th Government. A clarification was requested regarding whether the independent appellate authorities responsible for considering cases of refusal made to immigrants were administrative or judicial.

170. Turning to the activities carried out by the United Kingdom in implementing article 7, the Committee took note that the Government had actively supported the organization of the Festival of India and deployed efforts to train young people in aspects of racial tolerance. The establishment of a Committee of Enquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups was also a positive step. In this context, additional information was requested about what was being done in respect of university education of those children in order to ensure them equal opportunities with others. Members also showed interest in knowing what efforts were being made to introduce different languages into schools with pupils from ethnic minority groups. The next periodic report should also include details on how local authorities were responding to the Central Government’s recommendations and how respect for religious and moral values of other races was taught in British schools.

171. In respect of the information contained in the report about dependent territories, several members expressed surprise that, with the exception of Bermuda, nothing substantial had been reported about the implementation of the Convention in the other dependent territories. Such information, it was pointed out, would be of interest and would facilitate the work of the Committee. One member felt disappointed that no mention had been made in the report of the recent conflict which had endangered the peace and security of the Latin American continent and of the current situation in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in particular of the Argentinian inhabitants in the Islands since the conflict. He, therefore, requested details of the British Government’s intentions regarding the future of the Islands.

172. In reply to the questions posed by members of the Committee in relation to the Race Relations Act, the representative of the United Kingdom said that legislative measures had been enacted to ensure that the principles of the Convention applied in Northern Ireland and human rights there were more protected than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Discrimination in Northern Ireland could best be dealt with by legislative references to political or religious discrimination. So far, there had been no demand in Northern Ireland for new legislation regarding racial discrimination; if that happened, or if an immigrant population developed, the United Kingdom would seek a legislative remedy, following its interpretation of the phrase “legislation as required by circumstances” in article 2, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention. Regarding the exceptions to the Race Relations Act, especially in personal or intimate relationships, he stressed the fact that his Government considered those exceptions to be necessary in the interest of striking a balance between individual freedoms and Government restrictions. The Commission for Racial Equality, an independent body entrusted with examining the legislation, would be making proposals later in the year, but he did not know whether it would be removing the exceptions to the Act. He specified that no complaints had yet been lodged concerning the effects of the exceptions to the Race Relations Act and that the Government had renewed foreign students’ eligibility for grants. Referring to the recent civil disorders in the United Kingdom, he informed the Committee that individuals who had taken part in those disorders and committed criminal offences had been punished. While in Brixton most offenders had been black, in other cities criminal acts had been perpetrated by both blacks and whites, but the disorders had been directed against the police and had not been the result of racial antagonism. He indicated that one way of obviating abuses of racist behaviour in the police force was the recruitment of ethnic minorities to the police service. There had been a 35 per cent increase, since the time of the report, to a total of 459 ethnic minority officers recruited by the end of 1982 and the official policy was to keep that momentum. In that connection, he confirmed that the screening of potential recruits to the police force, which was aimed at preventing the recruitment of individuals prone to racial discrimination, was universally applied. Regarding the policies of local authorities in dispensing services, he pointed out that a number of local authorities were employing specialist race-relations advisers on services relevant to the local ethnic groups. As for the Government’s response to Lord Scarman’s report on the 1981 disorders, the authorities were seeking to provide special economic assistance to the areas involved in order to attack the roots of the disorders.

173. In relation to article 3 of the Convention and the European Economic Community (EEC) Code of Conduct for companies with interests in South Africa, he indicated that the United Kingdom interpreted article 3 as applying in the territory of States parties to the Convention and had taken the necessary action under the Race Relations Act. The United Kingdom vote on the General Assembly resolution regarding the IMF loan to South Africa did not concern the implementation of the Convention and was therefore not of concern to the Committee.

174. Explaining the declaration made by the United Kingdom on acceding to the Convention in connection with article 4, he said that his Government saw the need to prevent the heinous crime of incitement to racial hatred, but distinguished between that and forms of writing or speaking that did not constitute incitement. Both the Public Order Act and the provisions regarding incitement were, however, being reviewed. The review had been going on for a rather long time, but the issues were complex and radical to a democratic society. He would none the less report the concern of the Committee to his Government.

175. Turning to questions raised about the implementation of article 5, he informed the Committee that the decline in growth for all subgroups of NCWP other than those from Pakistan and Bangladesh had several explanations. The increase of the Pakistan and Bangladesh subgroups had been largely a natural increase of the population rather than an increase due to immigration. A historical factor was involved since immigrants from those areas had traditionally come alone to Great Britain, being unable to afford to bring their families; the families had arrived in the latter part of the decade, thus raising the population figures. The same pattern did not hold for other countries of immigration. The population of Caribbean origin also showed a natural increase. At no stage had separate immigration provisions ever been applied to the Caribbean ethnic group and the Lomé Convention was not relevant in their case. As to the question whether one could distinguish varying degrees of racial disadvantage among the various subgroups, it could be said that the Asian community in particular was unfamiliar with the language. Regarding nationality legislation, the Government intended to assess the British Nationality Act 1981 after observing how it worked in practice and would report on that matter in its next report to the Committee. As for the number of those denied the right to live in the United Kingdom under the new British Nationality Act, there had been none. The Act did not affect any entitlement to immigration prior to January 1983; it had simply tried to rationalize the categories of those with entitlement and those without. The Government would, of course, be reviewing the provision regarding the citizenship of descendants. With respect to the residents of the United Kingdom who were of Pakistani origin, he observed that some were citizens of the United Kingdom, but that others had deliberately retained their Commonwealth citizenship. All individuals, however, who met residence requirements as Commonwealth citizens were eligible to vote in Commonwealth elections.

176. With regard to article 6 of the Convention, the Commission for Racial Equality did indeed have a point of view with respect to its role; that viewpoint was spelled out in the Commission’s reports. The Commission’s role was reviewed by the Home Office and by a select committee of Parliament, a select committee review had been conducted just over a year previously and had produced some criticism of the Commission. The Commission was currently reorganizing its administrative structure in the light of that report. In addition to such official review procedures, letters on the subject of the Commission were often sent by representatives of minority groups to the Home Office. He informed the Committee that under the Immigration Rules persons denied entry into the United Kingdom or deported from it could make an appeal to an adjudicator who was an administrative person but not a judge. The decision of that individual could be appealed to an administrative tribunal, which was subject to a judicial review from the High Court.

177. The objectives of article 7 of the Convention had been particularly promoted by the Festival of India, which had increased awareness among United Kingdom citizens of India and its culture. In the same context, he pointed out that programmes had been set up to educate people of British ethnic background in the culture and mores of the different ethnic communities living alongside them. As for the terms of reference of the review being conducted by the Committee of Inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minority groups, he pointed out that it had been limited to primary and secondary education. In many areas of the country, especially those having strong immigrant populations, “access courses” were offered by local education authorities to facilitate entry into specific academic programmes.

178. Turning to the question raised about dependent territories, he indicated that he would inform the territories of the interest expressed by the Committee and see that more information was provided on the subject in the eighth report. With regard to the remarks made on the Falkland Islands, those appeared to relate to the political future of the Islands and thus were not pertinent to the mandate of the Committee. However, any specific questions pertaining to the implementation of the Convention would be forwarded to the Falkland Islands authorities. He wished, however, to draw the Committee’s attention to article 1, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which he considered to be applicable in the present instance.

CERD A/40/18 (1985)

287. The eighth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CERD/C/118/Add.7) was considered by the Committee at its 716^th and 717^th meetings, held on 15 March 1985 (CERD/C/SR.716 and SR.717).

288. The report was introduced by the representative of the United Kingdom, who drew attention to relevant parts of the report and provided information on new developments which had taken place since it was compiled. The report contained Northern Ireland legislation applicable to forms of discrimination - particularly religious discrimination - which, unfortunately, existed there. In Great Britain, the Race Relations Act was the major piece of legislation on racial discrimination and the Commission for Racial Equality was continuing to fulfil its statutory duties with the Government’s firm support. Several recent developments were relevant to the provisions of the Convention. As at 31 December 1984, there had been 680 ethnic minority police officers in England and Wales - almost double the number three years earlier - and ways of boosting ethnic minority recruitment continued to be sought. The offence of incitement to racial hatred had been extended to include words broadcast in cable television programmes. The 1985 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which amounted to a codification of police powers and of safeguards provided to prevent their abuse, met Lord Scarman’s recommendation, following the disturbances in Brixton in 1981, that consultative arrangements between the police and the community should be placed on a statutory basis. That part of the Act had come into force at the beginning of 1985 and it was now the duty of the police authorities to seek the views of the community on policing matters. The act also contained a provision requiring racially discriminatory behaviour by police officers to be made a specific offence under the police disciplinary code. An experimental series of courses in racism-awareness training had been sponsored by the Government. Local authorities had also been encouraged by the Government to exercise their statutory responsibilities with regard to race relations. In conclusion, his Government recognized that, despite many developments in recent years, there was still much to be done to reduce racial disadvantage in the United Kingdom, but it was committed to taking action, in partnership with the ethnic minorities, to achieve that objective.

289. The Committee congratulated the Government on the high standards of its report, which continued the tradition followed by the United Kingdom of submitting frank and comprehensive reports in compliance with the Committee’s general guidelines (CERD/C/70/Rev.1). The report showed a serious approach to the problem of racial discrimination and testified to the Government’s determination to overcome racial problems in what had become a multiracial society.

290. On the question of Northern Ireland, the Committee took note of the reasons for not extending the Race Relations Act 1976 to that part of the territory. It pointed out, however, that, even if the problem that had led to violence was basically political and religious, it was complicated by problems of race relations. The scope of the relevant United Kingdom laws should therefore be extended to cover that part of the country. The Committee hoped that the British Government would give serious consideration to the Committee’s position.

291. Members of the Committee asked whether all the people referred to in the report who had originated in the countries of the New Commonwealth and Pakistan had the status of foreigners or whether some were British citizens. In addition to the figures given in the report for persons of New Commonwealth and Pakistani origin, they were interested in receiving a breakdown of figures for the other ethnic groups of the population living in the United Kingdom, in particular how many were British citizens, British Dependent Territories citizens or British overseas citizens.

292. With reference to article 2 of the Convention, the Committee welcomed the police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985 as a positive development and trusted that more information than in the past would be provided on disciplinary action taken against police officers in respect of acts of racial discrimination. Members requested information about the punishment that had been meted out to police officers for misconduct during the Brixton disorders in 1981. The Committee praised the programme for the recruitment and training of members of ethnic minorities as police officers and placed emphasis on the importance of increasing such recruitment. In that context, members of the Committee pointed out that minorities represented only 0.49 per cent of the police force, although they constituted 4 per cent of the population. It was asked whether the policies used in recruiting members of ethnic minorities for the police force also applied to the civil service.

293. Members of the Committee asked for detailed information on the income levels of the various groups in Northern Ireland and inquired whether Catholics had a lower income per capita than Protestants. They also wished to know the ratio of manual to professional workers among the various ethnic groups and proportions of college and university graduates by ethnic group. The Committee welcomed the efforts to monitor the social and economic position of ethnic minorities, since such monitoring was an important way of promoting equal opportunity, and hoped that future reports would describe the economic, social and cultural progress made by ethnic minorities. It was interested to know about the budgetary allocations to improve the education, housing and medical facilities of ethnic minorities. Members requested information on the participation of ethnic minorities in British representative institutions at both local and national levels and asked whether children of ethnic minorities had the opportunity to be educated in their own language. The Committee wished to know how the Government intended to solve the problem of public opinion in relation to racially discriminatory attitudes, especially in view of the high rate of unemployment. Members asked whether there were any poll findings about public attitudes to racial discrimination. The Committee considered that the Commission for Racial Equality had developed fruitful and original ideas aimed at solving racial discrimination problems. It asked, however, whether the Commission’s methods and procedures were sufficiently effective, and whether all the recommendations of Lord Scarman’s report had been fulfilled. Members wished to know whether the functions of the Commission for Racial Equality extended to education and whether it could make suggestions regarding curricula. The Committee was interested in receiving information on the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups which showed that ethnic minority children were not achieving their full educational potential.

294. In relation to article 3 of the Convention, members pointed out that no information had been provided in the report. They expressed concern, particularly in view of the many questions raised during consideration of the country’s previous report. It was pointed out that while article 3 of the Convention referred to one particular form of racial discrimination as practised by a particular State in its territory, the preamble to the Convention underscored the necessity of speedily eliminating racial discrimination throughout the world. A State’s foreign policy should normally be consistent with its domestic policy. Members requested information about the United Kingdom’s relations with South Africa and asked whether the United Kingdom had any intention of altering its position, particularly in the light of Security Council resolution 560 (1985). The question why the United Kingdom had given aid to South Africa through the International Monetary Fund was reiterated.

295. In relation to article 4 of the Convention, the Committee welcomed the information that section 5 A of the Public Order Act 1936 was currently being reviewed. It would be interested to learn about the outcome of the review. The Committee also hoped that the Government would revise its position on freedom of speech and association in relation to article 4 of the Convention. The Committee did not agree with the British Government’s view that legislation should only be enacted when a particular problem existed: that approach did not take sufficient account of the preventive role of legislation in the field. Morever the provisions of article 4 of the Convention were mandatory. Members of the Committee asked whether section 5 A of the Public Order Act 1936 applied only to groups or to individuals as well. It was pointed out that under that section, legal prescription was confined to organizations avowedly dedicated to terrorism and the violent overthrow of the State. In that connection, it was asked whether there were any legal provisions in the United Kingdom prohibiting organization which sought to overthrow other States.

296. With reference to article 5 of the Convention, the Committee commended the Government for its adoption of the new British Nationality Act 1981, particularly the new provision allowing women as well as men to pass on citizenship to their children. Clarification was sought, however, on information indicating that passports of citizens born in Commonwealth Territories were being revoked. Concerning the revised immigration rules, the Committee wished to know more about the tests designed to prevent the use of marriage as a device to circumvent immigration control. It was asked whether the tests were given to all women regardless of their ethnic origin, or whether in practice they were applied only in certain cases. Members asked for clarification on cases of alleged abuse of basic human rights in that regard which had been brought before international courts. They were also interested to know how many illegal immigrants had been apprehended in past years. The Committee expressed the hope that more information would be provided in the next report on steps taken to overcome racial bias among immigration officials. Regarding refugees, members of the Committee asked to what extent the United Kingdom had been affected by the flow of refugees worldwide, whether refugees had been brought under any kind of quota system and whether there were any specific measures to help them.

297. In connection with article 6 of the Convention, members of the Committee were interested in receiving information concerning complaints which had been brought under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and the Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and what redress had been made. They also wished to know whether immigrants who were subjected to discrimination had any specific means at their disposal for dealing with such discrimination.

298. Regarding Dependent Territories, the Committee pointed out that, though some positive developments had taken place in Bermuda during the period covered by the report, the information provided by the United Kingdom with regard to most other Territories was not satisfactory. The Committee would like to receive further details on the results of the study on racial attitudes carried out in Bermuda. It expressed the hope that the British Government would impress upon authorities in the Dependent Territories the need to comply more closely with the Convention.

299. It was asked whether any Argentine citizens were currently living in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and whether they had maintained all their rights and privileges. It was further asked whether the bodies of the 300 Argentine soldiers killed in the conflict with the United Kingdom had been released for repatriation and, if not, whether their families had been allowed to visit their graves.

300. Replying to the observations made by members of the Committee on the subject of Northern Ireland and the non-application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to that part of the territory, the representative of the United Kingdom said that he would transmit the Committee’s continuing concern on the matter to his Government. He pointed out, however, that article 2, paragraph 1 (d), of the Convention required States parties to act by all appropriate means, “including legislation as required by circumstances”.

301. Regarding the composition, status and citizenship of the 2.2 million members of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom, he indicated that they were mainly from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the West Indies. British nationality was a matter of individual choice and did not affect rights, even voting rights, if the people concerned were legally settled in the United Kingdom. Figures on citizenship of those minorities would be included in the next report.

302. With regard to questions raised and comments made in connections with the implementation of article 2 of the Convention, he pointed out that, though the number of ethnic minority police officers had virtually double over a period of three years, there was no reason for complacency. Research into the behaviour of the London police had shown that racially discriminatory attitudes had not affected the behaviour of the police except on rare occasions. Against that background, the Government had decided to introduce the specific offence of racially discriminatory behaviour. Emphasis was also being placed on training with a view to influencing the attitudes and behaviour of the police. Training had also been started for the staff of the Immigration Service, and a study was under way on how the Prisons Department could also carry out such training. Consultations between the police and the local communities which they served was now required by law. By mid-1988 a survey of the entire civil service would be carried out in order to find out the proportion of ethnic minority recruitment. The first results of a survey carried out in north-west England and the Avon district showed that 0.9 per cent of the persons surveyed (77 per cent of those questioned had replied) had identified themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority. The Government was determined to take steps to improve the percentage share of ethnic minorities in the civil service.

303. The Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups had published its report on 14 March 1985, when the Secretary of State for Education had informed the House of Commons that the Government had accepted the Committee’s findings. The Government was determined to improve the performance not only of ethnic minority children, but also of white children from the majority of the population. It proposed to remove obstacles to advancement, notably by promoting the teaching of English as a second language. Morever, it wanted schools to preserve and transmit national values in a way which would ensure respect for the United Kingdom’s ethnic diversity and promote tolerance and racial harmony.

304. Regarding the number of ethnic minority individuals represented in the country’s main institutions, the representative of the United Kingdom said that, though no comprehensive data was available, the number of local government councillors from ethnic minorities was increasing rapidly; all major political parties had put up candidates from ethnic minorities for election to the House of Commons although none had been elected.

305. Information on the social and economic conditions of ethnic minorities would be included in the next report. He indicated that in 1979, £39 million had been spent on the salaries of local authority employees whose task was to meet the special needs of ethnic minority groups; in 1985-1986 that amount was expected to increase to £85 million. The Commission for Racial Equality had carried out a review of the Race Relations Act and would submit formal proposals to the Home Secretary within the next few months for amendments to that Act.

306. With reference to article 3 of the Convention, he said that the reasons for not including material on the implementation of that article had been that policies of racial discrimination or apartheid did not exist in the United Kingdom or in any of its Dependent Territories. His Government’s interpretation of article 3 remained unchanged.

307. As to the questions and observations made regarding the implementation of article 4, he indicated that incitement to hatred against an individual belonging to a racial group as well as hatred against the racial group itself would be an offence in so far as it would constitute a breach of peace, although not under section 5 A of the Public Order Act 1936. He was of the opinion that incitement to hatred against groups outside the United Kingdom would fall under section 5 A in so far as the act took place within the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom.

308. As to immigration rules, the tests applied with regard to a husband or fiancée were merely intended to satisfy the requirement that the primary purpose of marriage was not immigration to the United Kingdom. They were applied in an interview at the point of entry and presented no obstacle to a genuine marriage.

309. He said that from time to time there had been special programmes for the reception of particular groups of refugees, most recently for some 1,800 Vietnamese refugees and earlier for a smaller number from Latin America. Such special programmes involved stays at reception centres, intensive training in the English language, the teaching of skills in some cases, and assistance in finding housing. Those groups continued to receive assistance from the Government through special assistance to refugee organizations.

310. All aspects of the United Kingdom’s policy towards the Dependent Territories were regularly reported to the Special Committee of 24, in accordance with the United Kingdom’s position as an administering Power under Article 73 e of the Charter. All Dependent Territories in the Caribbean had been visited by the United Nations visiting missions, which had submitted lengthy reports. In none of those reports had there been any evidence of the existence of racial discrimination.

311. The question of the activities of foreign economic and other interests had been discussed in detail in the Special Committee of 24. That was the proper forum for those matters. Private investment had contributed to the development of the Dependent Territories. For example, thanks in large measures to private investment, the economy of Bermuda was currently close to the $1 billion level; the Territory had a sound economic infrastructure, and valuable training had been provided to the local population. The issue of racial discrimination had not arisen.

312. Information relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) had been received too late for inclusion in the report. Legislation regarding racial discrimination in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) did not exist but all persons in the Islands were equal under the law. The new draft Constitution, which would be promulgated later in 1985, contained a section relating to the protection of human rights. The policy of the United Kingdom on the issue of the Argentine war continued to be that it was ready to facilitate the repatriation of the remains of the war dead or visits by bona fide next-of-kin under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross. A message to that effect had been conveyed to the Government of Argentina in August 1983, and the United Kingdom was still awaiting a reply. The offer had been repeated by Mr. John Cheke, an elected member of the Falkland Islands Committee, on 30 October 1984. In reply to a further point raised, he said that he had no information regarding foreign nationals in the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). The question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) was, however, essentially unrelated to the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

CERD A/42/18 (1987)

693. The ninth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CERD/C/149/Add.7) was considered by the Committee at its 793^rd and 794^th meetings on 12 and 13 March 1987 (CERD/C/SR.793-SR.794).

694. The report was introduced by the representative of the United Kingdom, who referred to the domestic structure for implementing Government policies for eliminating discrimination and combatting racial disadvantage. She explained that racial disadvantage covered both direct and indirect discrimination. She informed the Committee that legislation under the Public Order Act 1986, to extend the law on incitement to racial hatred had completed its passage through Parliament and would take effect on 1 April 1987. The new provisions strengthened protection against such behaviour by penalizing conduct intended to stir up hatred or likely to have that effect. The law had also been extended to cover broadcasting, and a new offence - possession of racially inflammatory material - had been created. A new Public Order Act (Northern Ireland) was due to be issued shortly to incorporate the new provisions of the Public Order Act, 1986, thus strengthening the law on incitement to racial hatred in Northern Ireland. She stressed that the problem of Northern Ireland was essentially one of religion and constitutional aspirations, rather than race relations. The number of ethnic minority police officers had continued to increase. In July 1986, the House of Commons Home Affairs Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration had published the report on its inquiry into racial attacks. The recommendations for better police training in the handling of racial incidents were being pursued. She referred to a number of policy changes affecting refugees or asylum-seekers and immigration rules contained in the report. She also referred to the relevant part of the report dealing with dependent territories, which had been expanded in response to the Committee’s interest.

695. Members of the Committee welcomed the United Kingdom’s frank and detailed report. The very fact that problems were admitted was encouraging. The report had been compiled in accordance with the Committee’s guidelines (CERD/C/70/Rev.1). After an exchange of views, which evinced a consensus in that direction, the Committee decided that part III of the United Kingdom report dealing with dependent territories would be considered during the Committee’s discussion of article 15 of the Convention.

696. In relation to the implementation of article 2 in conjunction with article 5 of the Convention, members of the Committee observed that the statement that divisions in Northern Ireland were a product of religious and political aspirations did not explain the situation adequately. The report admitted that the Roman Catholic community was disadvantaged in socio-economic terms. It was observed that in 1983/84, the unemployment level for male Roman Catholics had been approximately double that for Protestants. It was asked whether that was due to discrimination by protestant employers. The hope was expressed that legislative action would be taken to counter such discrimination. Racial discrimination could not be dissociated from discrimination in the economic, social and cultural fields. Members requested further information on the measures that were being taken to narrow the socio-economic disparities between Protestants and Catholics, as well as statistical data on education and income levels of Roman Catholics and Protestants, and their relative representation in the civil service, the judiciary and the police.

697. Members of the Committee expressed deep concern about the racial incidents that had taken place in the United Kingdom. Clarification was sought regarding the authors and victims of the racial attacks mentioned in the report. It was pointed out that the action taken to improve race relations and to reduce poverty in the United Kingdom appeared to fall short of expectations in the light of independent and authoritative reports, which indicated an all-round deterioration in race relations, particularly in employment, housing and in the attitudes of the police to non-white ethnic minorities. The action taken by the authorities seemed to deal more with the consequences than with the causes of the situation. Social and economic policies were partly to blame for helping to create explosions such as the Birmingham riots. The reduction of the education budget was also a retrograde step. Members of the Committee wished to receive information on the housing situation in Birmingham, which appeared to be serious, the measures taken to protect the community of workers from Bangladesh and Pakistan in East Ham, where incidents appeared to have been racially motivated, since the area was a stronghold of the National Front, and the increasing assaults on the Jewish community, and they asked whether the culprits had been arrested.

698. Members were also worried about the situation of ethnic minority groups in general and people of Asian and West Indian origin in particular. According to research findings mentioned in the report, many in these groups believed that their situation had deteriorated during the past five years. Committee members observed that the proportion of members of ethnic minorities in the civil service was very low. They wished to receive more detailed information about their proportion in the civil service and to know whether there were or had been any ethnic minority ministers, diplomats or judges. It was suggested that the Government should inquire into the reasons for that situation. It was observed that unemployment among Pakistanis and Bangladeshis was higher than among other ethnic minority groups and it was suggested that special concrete measures be taken in order to eliminate such inequalities. It was also indicated that the Fair Employment Committee was seized of a large number of cases, but that its proceedings were extremely slow and that complainants usually abandoned their complaints. A question was also raised concerning the action that the Government was taking to promote the participation of disadvantaged ethnic groups in the decision-making process regarding measures affecting them; it was asked whether the Government was contemplating the possibility of giving the right to vote in local and national elections to persons who had been living in the country for a number of years, but who had not got British nationality.

699. It was observed that there was no central monitoring and that the central Government did not have any information on racial discrimination in local Government employment. It was suggested that the Government should obtain that information and assess whether there were any cases of racial discrimination. Additional information was requested regarding the Local Authority Race Relations Information Exchange and it was asked whether persons belonging to disadvantaged or under-represented groups were considered by the authorities to be victims of discrimination and whether there was an official definition of terms used in the report, such as “ethnic minority” and “race”.

700. Members observed that the Government had decided to introduce visa requirements for citizens from five Asian and African countries, while South Africans were allowed to visit the United Kingdom freely. It was asked whether a recourse procedure was possible for individuals who had been refused a visa and, if so, where the complaint should be addressed. Information was requested on the number of South African citizens who also had British nationality and it was asked whether those persons could settle at any time in the United Kingdom.

701. Members welcomed the measures taken by the Government to improve the ethnic representativeness of the police. They pointed out, however, that the proportion of members of ethnic minorities was still insufficient and expressed the hope that their number would increase. It was observed, nevertheless, that the integration of members of ethnic minorities in the police force alone could not solve the problem of racial discrimination. It was more important to train teachers belonging to ethnic minorities. In that context, it was pointed out that, according to the report, many children from ethnic minority groups were achieving less than their potential and it was asked whether there were any schools providing teaching in the mother tongue of the various ethnic groups.

702. With regard to the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, members of the Committee observed that the report did not contain any information relating to that article and to the Government’s policy on apartheid. The British people were known to be opposed to apartheid, but it was important to know what the Government was doing to bring about its elimination. Reference was made to the annual list of transnational corporations assisting the régime of South Africa issued by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and to the fact that only 6 of 1,200 British corporations trading with South Africa had stopped such trading. Members stated that it was regrettable that the United Kingdom had vetoed the latest resolution of the Security Council proposing mandatory sanctions against South Africa. It was observed that 8,000 children below the age of 18 had been detained in South Africa and that 4,000 if them were still in prison and it was asked what the attitude of the Government of the United Kingdom was to South Africa’s violations of children’s rights. Members wished to know the level of diplomatic relations with South Africa, the level of United Kingdom investment in South Africa, the volume of trade and air and sea links between the two countries, and whether there was any co-operation in military or nuclear matters. Members of the Committee pointed out that a State party could not, on the one hand, implement the Convention at the national level and, on the other, support apartheid beyond its frontiers.

703. Regarding the implementation article 4 of the Convention, members of the Committee commended the proposals of the United Kingdom Government to reinforce and extend the legislation relating to incitement of racial hatred under the Public Order Act, 1986, which would bring it into closer conformity with the provisions of article 4. They expressed concern, however, about the applications of article 4 (b) dealing with racist organizations. They pointed out that the proscription of political organizations dedicated to terrorism and the violent overthrow of the State, did not give full effect to the provisions of article 4 of the Convention, and that, in accordance with article 4(b) , all organizations which promoted or incited to racial discrimination should be declared illegal. Members expressed the hope that the Government would adopt legislative measures to give effect to the provisions of article 4 (b) of the Convention.

704. As to the implementation of article 6 of the Convention, members observed that the Commission for Racial Equality had no status before a court or tribunal in relation to any proceedings in which it was assisting an individual. They inquired about the type of assistance the Commission could provide and asked whether there was a system of legal aid for needy persons in the United Kingdom. It was asked whether criminal proceedings could be instituted against an employer who had committed an act of discrimination. It was also asked when the proposed amendments to the Race Relations Act, 1976, submitted by the Commission for Racial Equality to the Home Secretary in June 1985, would be implemented.

705. Concerning article 7, the hope was expressed that the next report would reflect the political will to raise the standard of human rights and that higher priority would be given to the implementation of article 7 of the Convention.

706. With regard to article 14 of the Convention, it was asked whether the Government was considering making the declaration under article 14 recognizing the competence of the Committee to deal with individual communications, which might facilitate co-operation between the ethnic minorities and the national authorities.

707. In reply to the questions raised and observations made by the members of the Committee, the representative of the United Kingdom said that the mingling of races that had characterized Northern Ireland for centuries currently made any racial distinctions between the religious majority and minority very blurred. The most recent figures on unemployment were disappointing and the persistent differences between the Roman Catholics and Protestants had led the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to propose new measures and other institutional arrangements to eliminate discrimination on grounds of religious or political belief. At the same time, the independent Standing Commission on Human Rights was conducting a major review of the effectiveness of the law on discrimination based on religious belief, but at the present stage it was too soon to say what shape the ensuing legislation would take.

708. Regarding the lack of a central apparatus for monitoring the activities of local authorities in the field of race relations, she said that her Government did not have any official information on that subject, but it would be wrong to say that many central organizations were not watching what local authorities were doing. The annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality, a copy of which had been given to the Committee in an annex to the ninth periodic report, might be a helpful source of information on that subject.

709. With regard to education, the languages of the different racial communities were indeed used in primary schools where a substantial number of pupils did not speak English.

710. Although recruitment had been slower than expected, the representation of minorities in the police was improving. Relations between the police and the community were in fact much better than some members of the Committee had implied. As was stated in the report, the disturbances in 1985 had not been due strictly to racial factors.

711. There were two ethnic minority members of the House of Lords, but there were no members in the House of Commons. For the next elections, however, the main parties had chosen some ethnic minority candidates. In addition, there was one judge of Asian origin. The number of ethnic minority counsellors in local authorities was growing quite noticeably and committees of all kinds - many functions in the United Kingdom were carried on by small committees of voluntary members - included an increasingly large number of members of ethnic minorities.

712. With regard to the situation of Bangladesh in Great Britain, the House of Commons Home Affairs Sub-Committee on Racial Relations and Immigration had published a very full report on that question in January. The Government was now considering its response, which should be published shortly. It was the Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who were most often the victims of racial harassment. It should be noted, however, that such incidents had decreased in number and violence.

713. Concerning the visa régime recently established for nationals of five other countries, the representative explained that the visa was an administrative measure adopted for purel