§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, in rising to ask this Question, I should like to explain that it was originally put down in the name of Lord Jessel, who, unfortunately, is indisposed and has asked me to put it.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the action of the British Transport Commission in ordering the removal of a perfectly harmless Family Planning Association advertisement and, if so, whether such action has their approval.]
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am told that the poster in question was withdrawn by the British Transport Commission because it was controversial on religious grounds. The responsibility for such decisions rests with the Commission, and Her Majesty's Government do not seek to influence or express any opinion on them.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, is it not remarkable that this advertisement, which had no controversial or objectionable matter in it, which had been fully accepted by the Board four or five months ago, and which was issued by a very responsible organisation, should now be removed, bearing in mind that dubious advertisements are still being shown on the railways in London? Does the noble Lord not remember that a similar attempt was made in this House to prevent the Family Planning Association from appealing for funds on the B.B.C., and on that occasion the Board of the B.B.C. stood firm? Is it not against all tolerance that this should happen, and is it not more an arrogant attack on liberty?
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, I should like to put some supplementaries.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, I think the noble Lord should be allowed to answer one set of supplementaries before another is put to him.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I do not believe this is an arrogant attack on liberty at all. So far as I am aware no one has suggested—at least, I have not been told so—that this poster was in any way offensive in itself. Indeed, I have seen a copy of it and I have one here. The poster itself is not exceptionable, but I am informed by the British Transport Commission that they have received letters objecting to the poster on religious grounds. I think I should remind the 370 noble Lord of Rule l8 of the Commission's regulations regarding advertisements which they cannot accept. Rule 18 deals with posters
which refer to religious or sacred subjects in a manner which might give offence or contain matter or illustrations likely to he construed as religiously controversial".Evidently this poster was so considered, and the British Transport Commission, it appears, saw fit to withdraw it on those grounds.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, as I said, I should like to put some supplementary questions to the noble Lord. As there are several of them, I propose to divide them into two sections in order that he may be more easily able to remember them. Before doing so, perhaps I ought to admit to an interest of sorts in this problem, as I have the honour to be a Vice-President of the Family Planning Association. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether any reasonable man, looking at that advertisement, could possibly say that there was anything objectionable in it. It is said that it is the Roman Church which is conducting this vendetta against the Family Planning Association. I would ask the noble Lord whether the Government have any information which supports that view, which is so commonly held, and whether he is aware that this is at the present time causing intense anger among a large number of citizens, many of whom have had most valuable help from the Family Planning Association in regard to their family problems. I would also ask the noble Lord whether the Government do not think that at this time, when the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has been conducting a goodwill mission, so to speak, to Rome and the Pope, it is most unfortunate that this sort of matter should be raised in this way. II want to ask some more questions, but those are the first.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I really think that the questions which the noble Lord has asked are not matters upon which I can comment. They are matters upon which, as I said in my answer, the Government do not seek to influence or express any opinion; they are decisions which are the responsibility of the British Transport Commission. And I really cannot go any further than that.
§ LORD CHORLEYWould the noble Lord say whether the information of the Government is that it is the Roman Church which is conducting this vendetta? We know that it was so in connection with the British Medical Association handbook that was censored. Quite apart from this vendetta, do not the Government feel that pressure brought by minorities, whether the Roman Church or any other minority, on public institutions like the Transport Commission is very dangerous in the public interest? Do not the Government think that the law ought to be tightened up in order to prevent it? Over recent years we have been passing Acts of Parliament to prevent restrictive practices on the part of industrial concerns.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, this is introductory to the question, whether the Government do not think that something of the same sort should be put on the Statute Book to prevent this pressure from being brought to bear, which I suggest is, in its own way, just as dangerous as industrial pressure.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, there is no question, however controversial, which cannot be discussed in Parliament, but I do not think it is fair that my noble friend should be pressed to answer questions on this matter which do not arise quite out of the original matter, when he has already disclaimed Government responsibility. If the noble Lord wants to pursue questions of this sort, it is open to him to put down a substantive Motion and then time can be allowed for it, if the House desires it.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, it is all very well to ride away behind this immunity of public Corporations to have their decisions questioned in your Lordships' House, but it is obvious—and I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree—that very soon we shall have to have an actual Resolution debated in the House on this matter, because it goes from Corporation to Corporation now on the very matter which is being discussed. In the last few weeks some of us Protestants have been denied access to make a statement of our case on public broadcasting, and if that sort of thing continues the Government must surely expect to get a great deal of trouble.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I do not know that the Government need have any trouble at all. If the noble Viscount desires to put a Resolution down on the Order Paper, it is within his power to do so; and I am sure that if the House wishes to discuss it, it will. But I feel also that the House will support the Government in not desiring to introduce the Government into matters for which the will of Parliament, not the Government, is responsible.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, may I put a final question to the Minister concerned? May I have confirmation that the poster displayed conformed in all possible respects with the rules and regulations laid down by London Transport?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am not sure that I understand the full import of the noble Lord's question. I seem to have got myself into slightly deep water in this matter, through endeavouring to be helpful and to give the noble Lord all the facts I have available in order to help him with his question. I have told him what I have been informed was the reason for withdrawing the poster, which is the question that he asked. That is the reason and, so far as I am aware, there is no other one.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I think that this is a matter which will have to be raised outside Question Time.