British Race Bill Splitting Tories

By ROBERT L. MOTT

L.A. Times/Washin/sfon Post Service

LONDON The Labor Government's race relations bill is threatening to become a bitter partisan issue, not only between Britain's two major parties but within the Conservative opposition as well.

The proposed law, published April 9 and due for debate in the House of Commons this week, is a comprehensive measure aimed at barring discrimination in a broad range of areas including housing, jobs, credit, insurance and advertising.

UNTIL recently there existed a semblance of bipartisanship in favor of some kind of antidiscrimination legislation, and statements by Tory leaders had led most observers to believe that the opposition would support at least broadlythe government's longawaited bill.

But only hours after the draft bill was off the presses, Tory leader Edward Heath said the shadow cabinet had decided to oppose it because it "will not in its practical application contribute to the achievement of racial harmony."

The Conservative decision could weaken attempts to strengthen the measure by liberals in both parties who feel the bill as written lacks the teeth needed to enforce its provisions.

MOREOVER, the opposition move had revealed a deep split within Tory ranks. This was pointedly demonstrated by the resignation from the party last week of Humphrey Berkeley, a former Tory MP and a champion of such constroversial causes as homosexual law reform.

It appears to most parliamentary observers that the surprising decision (Heath denies it is a reversal of policy) was forced upon the Tory leadership by its aggressive, and apparently well-organized right wing, which favors a moratorium on Commonwealth immigration and opposes the race bill on the grounds that it infringes the right of free choice.

THE BILL would prohibit in one stroke discriminatory practices that have been outlawed only over a period of years in the United States. It would give the Race Relations Board,

created in 1965 but until now essentially powerless, the dual role of investigating and taking to special courts persons accused of discrimination on the basis of color. And it provides for unlimited fines not only for "quantifiable damages" but also for "loss of opportunity" damages.

But under the law as written, the board would have to first go through a time-consuming counciliation procedure, taking an alleged of-

fender to court only if that failed. And the board would still lack the authority to subpoena witnesses and

documents, an

-AA

omission

that could make it nearly

impossible to obtain convictions.