The BNP and the Race Relations Act | Employment Law Advocates

This is the week where everyone is talking about the BNP. The appearance by Nick Griffin on Question Time yesterday came shortly after he finally conceded the need to change a constitution which restricts membership on racial grounds. Frustratingly, the media coverage has not analysed the relevant law which is not as straightforward as it seems and so it is worth giving some thought to this tricky issue.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which used its powers to bring the case, provided the best summary of issues in its letter before claim. What is clear is that there is no express provision in the Race Relations Act for political parties. Rather, they have been found to qualify as associations covered by section 25 of the Act, in the House of Lords case of Watt (formerly Carter) v Ahsan. Incidentally, this was a case brought against the Labour Party and funded by the Commission for Racial Equality, now part of the EHRC, so the suggestion by Nick Griffin that his party has been singled out is simply untrue.

However, the Race Relations Act provides a special defence to a section 25 claim for associations set up for the benefit of people of a particular racial group. It seems that the BNP was attempting to bring itself within this exception. One of the less-trumpeted consequences of the new Equality Bill is that this defence is being abolished with the consequence that, even if the BNP had been successful in arguing the point, it would have been futile. This is why Nick Griffin is reported to have made the concession.

In case you think I have forgotten that this is an employment law blog, there is a point to be made in that area as well. Application forms for jobs with the BNP ask candidates to supply their membership numbers, implying that only party members can be employed. This has the effect that employees are also selected on the basis of their race, which is undoubtedly unlawful. The BNP would have had more chance of succeeding if it had tried to defend its membership rules without this additional problem. On the other hand, a requirement that employees be members is probably lawful so long as membership is not restricted on the grounds of race. Ironically, to defend this practice, the BNP would have to assert that membership does not constitute a philosophical belief for the purposes of the Religion or Belief Regulations, where previously they have said that it is. Still, the BNP seems unworried by incoherence.