One of the most substantial changes effected by the 1976 Act was the reorganisation of the administration of race relations legislation. Previously what may be called the enforcement arm — the Race Relations Board — and the hortatory voice — the Community Relations Commission — were separately constituted and funded. The new legislation amalgamated their functions into one body, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), with legal responsibility for both types of activities. Nothing further is said here about the Commission’s role in giving financial assistance to community and self-help groups, including local Community Relations Councils (s. 44), or in supporting research and educational activities (s. 45). Substantial discussion and criticism surrounded the decision to fuse the two structures; Lord Hailsham described the new Commission as combining the functions of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Director of Public Prosecutions. None the less, separate divisions within the Commission are responsible for the disparate tasks and there is no indication that its enforcement activities — the concern of this chapter — are in any way constrained by the existence under the same roof of activities from which legal regulation and conflict are far removed.
KeywordsRacial Discrimination Formal Investigation Employment Protection Race Relation Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 5.See also Creighton, ‘Enforcing the Sex Discrimination Act’, (1976) 5 I. L. J. 42, for description of the indentical procedure under that statute.Google Scholar
- 53.E.g. B. Bercusson in his annotation of s. 6 (11) of The Employment Protection Act 1975 (Sweet & Maxwell, 1976) and S. Anderman, The Law of Unfair Dismissal (Butterworth, 1978) pp. 81–2.Google Scholar
- 54.B. Weekes et al., Industrial Relations and the Limits of Law (Blackwell, 1975) p. 179.Google Scholar