HL Deb 22 October 1981 vol 424 cc878-92

5.50 p.m.

Lord Gridley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the interests of democracy they will take action to stop the distribution of literature to the public, to schools and to colleges where such literature is extremist, a threat to authority and an invitation to public disorder.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question of the Government, I think it would be helpful to your Lordships if I explained that it was tabled before the riots of the summer, but that it has been impossible until now to debate this subject. Therefore, my motives behind this debate or Question are not based on hindsight of the summer riots, but on information from many sources that came into my possession in 1980 and earlier this year. From my information then and from what I shall have to say in due course, I cannot believe that inflammatory documents peddled to our youth, the lack of discipline in schools and the slant in social studies taught by some of our teachers in some schools, which has been going on for some time, were not at the very least a challenge to authority, an invitation to achieve an end, and a possible contribution to the summer disorders which occured.

I managed to get one Starred Question to the Government before the summer riots occurred, which is to be found at columns 1351 and 1 352 of Hansard of 4th June. In order to save time perhaps I may paraphrase what was said. I asked what steps were being taken to contain the spread of inflammatory literature then in circulation. The Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, who is now the noble Baroness the Leader of our House, said this in reply: It is the responsibility of local authorities and teachers to deal with any attempts to distribute politically extremist literature in schools and other educational establishments; they have a good record in this respect. I would advise them to inform the police if they believe that an offence may have been committed". That was the Government's reply. That Answer by the Government at that time made me wonder whether the Government were aware that for some years past teachers had suffered physical attacks from their pupils, in consequence of which it had been found necessary to provide them with insurance policies to protect them against loss of life, a limb or an eye; and whether full allowance had been made by the Government for the possibility of intimidation of teachers who reported the existence of inflammatory materials to the police. For myself and in relation to the examples of intimidation and encouragement of violence towards others which I intend to develop later in my speech, I very much doubt whether reports of inflammatory materials were made to the police in any quantity. In addition, there existed Left-wing teachers who were not averse to what was going on.

It is now my purpose to give your Lordships examples of the incitement and encouragement to pupils in schools to become violent—advice given by an organisation known as the Socialist Workers Party. This appeared in a newspaper known as Blot, which I have here and on which I shall be making comments in some detail as I develop my arguments. This newspaper is controlled by the Socialist Workers Party. It is published for and is of the National Union of School Students. It contained this advice in an edition which appeared before the riots of last summer: To change the system in schools we have to organise ourselves independently of teachers and parents and rely on campaigning and militant action to force changes". In another part of the same paper it had this advice to give on what is meant by militant action: Organising militant action is the only way we are going to get ourselves heard and change things, so join your union and fight".

I am unable to report on the accuracy of press reports appearing in the Daily Telegraph last Saturday, 17th October, and in The Sunday Times of 18th October, where, after visiting Toxteth, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is reported as saying: Once rioting starts anywhere you get people coming in from outside. Things can start spontaneously and can perhaps be intensified". I am not convinced from what I have read that youth were conspicuous by their absence in some of the riots last summer. But, as regards the Socialist Workers Party, I must inform your Lordships that my information is that they maintain a group of professional agitators whose duty is to visit any trouble spot to support what is going on.

The situation which I have described in regard to the advice being proffered to our youth to become violent is not a new phenomenon. It is an activity which has been going on for many months. So far the Government's view has been to leave this situation to be dealt with by local authorities. If the education of our youth is—which it must be—of national importance to our future, then the disquiet, which exists and which is widespread, about the capacity of local authorities to meet this challenge is, I would suggest, only further compounded by the antics of certain members who propose political views on these local councils and so on which are none of their business.

I now wish to refer to parents. Parents came in for a certain amount of criticism after the summer riots. This was from official sources; it also appeared in the press. Once again, let me refer to this paper, Blot, controlled by the Socialist Workers' Party, and to the advice given to our youth on the attitude that they should adopt towards their parents. This paper advises our youth in schools in the following terms, inviting chaos and finally militancy. It is also political, as the motive is clear; that is, to change the school system. I shall now quote some of the extracts which have appeared in this paper. It says: To change things we have to organise ourselves independently of teachers and parents. We have to put up with boring lessons. If we choose not to go to them, they call it truanting. We cannot choose to avoid the pointless rules. We have to organise ourselves independently of teachers and parents and rely on campaigning and militant action to change things". Note, again, the words "militant action". Reasoned argument?—no. But what hope have parents of controlling their children in the face of this atmosphere and advice? Youth are then told by this paper that they have "no rights". This paper and others emanating from the same source never, ever, anywhere have advice to give their readers on their responsibilities to society or how society might be advanced by reasoned argument. No, it is only too clear that the invitation to our youth is that to effect change, militancy is advised to smash society.

There then follows a derogatory comment on our democracy and politics, in which the Prime Minister is personified in disparaging drawings and comments. I have it here, and this is what it says: We live in a democratic society', says Maggie Thatcher, picking her nose. 'We have to uphold freedom of choice.' Well, Iron Lady"— it goes on to say— what choice do we get?". That is the question which this paper poses. There then follows a drawing of the Prime Minister in a Hitlerite pose. Here it is. It shows a large knife in her hand, cutting up hospitals, schools and jobs. It shows her mouth wide open and a fork in her hand shoving the lot down her throat.

The motive here is to inflame young minds. Fertile ground, yes. Clever, yes, because of the difficulties which face our youth in the present economic situation—this I do not deny. But never is there any attempt to give the reader any rational explanation. I submit that this is not democracy. The Socialist Workers' Party, which, as I have said, controls the magazine Blot, also, I am informed, edits and controls a weekly newspaper entitled Socialist Worker with a circulation, I am also informed, of 30,000 copies. The Socialist Workers Party is reported as arguing that the present system cannot be reformed, as Labour and trade union leaders believe; the Socialist Workers Party says that the system has to be overthrown. It propounds the idea of a workers' state and a workers' militia. At the very least, this paper is attempting, through what it has written and with its circulation in schools, to further the party's policies by converting the minds of our youth and seeking recruits to its ranks.

There are other forms of attack made upon our youth which they are called upon to resist and which are perhaps even more sinister in their way because these attacks are made when they are not at school and when they have every reason to believe that they are enjoying themselves. This attack is made through the pamphlet Rock for Jobs. This is calculated to reach the maximum number of our young people. It advertised a rock and roll band in Brookwood Park at 1 p.m. on 30th May. This was at the end of the People's March to London. The pamphlet advertised four bands—all of this was on the front page and was therefore most likely to attract young people. On the reverse side it was nothing less than a propaganda leaflet for the Anti-Nazi League and a recruiting document. It was specifically addressed to schools, colleges and the unemployed. It states that the enrolment fee is 50p. I will not go into detail about what it says, but in the writing under "Youth against the Nazis" there are the sub-headings "Getting a job", "Getting rid of the Bomb", "No freedom", "Violence", et cetera. Most of what is written in this pamphlet is inflammatory and violent. One might ask, who was responsible for this pamphlet? The formation of the Anti-Nazi League, as one might suspect, was the responsibility of the Socialist Workers Party.

Up to this stage I have concentrated the evidence in my possession on the activities of ruthless organisations bent on subverting the minds of our youth from outside, against society as we understand it. I have looked also at the inside to see whether any resistance to this was being offered to our youth by their teachers in the curriculum offered inside, in schools. Frankly, I am alarmed. It is known that there are left-wing teachers. I came across a magazine entitled Teachers' Action. It is produced by an organisation known as the Teachers' Action Collective from an address in south-east London. I will quote from that magazine: The features in this issue continue to reflect our conviction that the political battles of schooling are being and will be fought in and around the school institution itself—not, as some would have it, in Eastbourne or Scarborough or wherever the National Union of Teachers decides to have its annual beano. This conviction gives us a distinction among left-wing teachers. It enables us and our readers to organise the forces which will defeat the oppression of teachers and pupils and revolutionise the institution ". Not much hope there, my Lords. I then examined documents passed to me to indicate the type of argument being used by certain teachers in the curricular teaching of social sciences in schools. Here is one such document. There is a heading which reads: It's easy to show problems. Our TV screens are full of them". There is then a picture of a brick being thrown through a window on a television screen. Another screen shows a house halfway under water. Another shows bombs falling and another shows a picture of a child, very emaciated and starving, eating from a begging bowl. Under the television pictures are the words "vandalism", "National disaster", "War", "Poverty" and so on. Under the heading "The people to blame for all of this", there is a caption which reads, It's easy to find people to blame". There is then a drawing of a court room dock in which stand a boss, a trade unionist, a man of the Church, a politican, a terrorist, a teacher, an adman and a parent. All these people are blamed, my Lords, for that situation.

I take exception to that picture, but what particularly upsets me is putting in that picture a parent next to a terrorist. How on earth are parents expected to exercise any control over their offspring? What is that illustration but an invitation to susceptible young minds to blame even if not to destroy society? Earlier I mentioned the magazine Teachers' Action which states that the political battles of schools will be fought in and around the school itself, that forces must be organised to defeat oppression, and that the institution must be revolutionised. I could give countless examples of a similar nature of the types of curriculum used in the teaching of social sciences in schools.

Mrs. Trenaman, the principal of St Anne's College, Oxford, was asked by the Government to report with her comments on the activities of the School Council. She had this to say at the conclusion of her activities—her full report is, of course, awaited, but it was reported in The Times on 17th October that she was particularly scathing about the council's deliberations. The Times reported Mrs. Trenaman as saying that her inquiry showed that the root of the criticism of the Schools' Council, both from its detractors and its supporters, was dislike of the application of power politics to a matter so important as school education. It was a dislike that she shared. There were many other bodies within education, similar to the Schools Council but which were more successful in holding frank discussions in a less abrasive atmosphere, she said. It was also reported that she was concerned also about the tiresome, anti-intellectual flavour of some of the council's discussions in meetings, and believed that public esteem would be enhanced if council members were better mannered and used more precise language. From that, I can only assume that the rot I described has already permeated to higher levels.

I have not spoken without experience. For five years I was chairman of the board of governors of an independent school. I have also been a governor on the board of a state school in London. Finally, let me say this: that in the past few days I have received information that a number of books from the Soviet Union are going unsolicited to schools in Britain. I understand that the Department of Education and Science have been informed of this. Is my noble friend the Minister who will reply in a position to give his comments on this matter?

Of all of the comments on this situation, as I see it, and of which I have given examples in this debate, I am most concerned to hear of this Soviet activity. With regard to the present situation which I have depicted, I am quite appalled. This is a free country, I understand that, and our people are free to express their views, but more than views have been expressed in the examples I have given in this speech. In the examples I have given incitement to violence is the method. There is no other way to change society, cry the writers.

This is not democracy. This is not Government by Parliament. On the way to this destruction of society these writers and pamphleteers seek our youth to be their willing tools. Without being critical of anything that the Government, or past Governments, have done—we are all to blame to a certain extent for the existence of these things—I would say to my noble friend and the Government that it is my hope that the Government who, after all, must govern in this situation will do so. It seems to me a situation which demands action. Education is of national importance, and I believe from what I have said that our education and our youth are at risk.

6.12 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I must make clear first of all that from these Benches we share concern at extremist activities in all aspects of our industrial, political and social life. Having said that, there are a few issues which arise from the actual words of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley. First of all, what is extremism? What is a threat to authority? And how in a democracy are we going to deal with these matters?

We must not confuse this with the expression of views with which we may disagree, we may even dislike, or may even abhor. Our democracy allows persons to question the existing establishment. May I say in passing that there are plenty of bodies which can, and do, defend aspects of the existing establishment. But it is not an offence against our democracy to question aspects of the establishment. There must be a free interplay of ideas, and what is challenging today is often accepted tomorrow. There are living examples in your Lordships' House of persons whose views were regarded with abhorrence some years ago but who are now respected Members of this noble House.

I think there will be general agreement among your Lordships that, whatever else we do, we must not interfere with questions of academic freedom. That does not mean that we permit licence. Academic freedom is essential in a democratic society. Also the number of pressure and interest groups on all issues in this country runs into many hundreds. These also are part of our democratic process. Your Lordships know only too well what some of the work of the pressure groups and interest groups can do, and be very helpful in our deliberations.

I and my colleagues are concerned with extremism, but I must say both from the right as well as from the left. Reference has been made to one particular organisation. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, there are others on the left which he might have mentioned, as well. There are also a large number of organisations on the right, to which he has made no reference. The National Front, split into four groups, a short while ago; the British Movement; the League of St. George. I could go on and give another list, and I shall refer to one or two of their activities later on. I recognise that schools have increasingly become targets for extremist activity and recruitment. I recognise some of the agitation to which the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, has referred. I recognise the incitement there is in some cases to disrupt classes. But he has not referred to the National Front.

Lord Gridley

My Lords, might I just intervene? I have so many documents here and I could have referred to all of those things, but the debate would have gone on too long and I gave just a few examples.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I wish to refer to the National Front because this body frequently distributes scurrilous racist literature at schools, and also endeavours to get at the youth at football grounds. It is to the credit of the football clubs that they took action to resist this, and I think credit should be given to the football clubs. The British Movement, one of the four bodies which has grown up from the National Front break up, has also been stepping up activities and recruiting at schools, and also endeavouring to do the same among football crowds.

The noble Lord referred to a Question that he put down earlier in the year. Another Question on a similar theme was put down on 8th April by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, on behalf of the Government, in reply said something somewhat on the same lines as the comment made in reply to Lord Gridley's Question. The noble Baroness said at column 529 of the Official Report: … local education authorities and head teachers are aware that it is an offence to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, insulting or likely to stir up hatred against any racial group in Great Britain. Where a teacher or local education authority has reason to believe that the material offends against that provision, they should report the matter to the police. With that observation on behalf of the Government, and the previous observations to which the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, referred, we on these Benches would completely concur. I shall be very surprised if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, does not echo similar views when he replies to this debate.

The law must, of course, be applied where appropriate and necessary, but what we must be careful not to do is to make martyrs or to give publicity to really insignificant groups, and we can do that if we are not careful. We must be vigilant, but there must also be the exercise of some tolerance, with the full right of persons to put forward minority views and opinions so long as they do not transgress the law in the points mentioned by the noble Baroness in her reply.

As I think noble Lords will appreciate, I have been concerned with aspects of certain activities. Some of us have kept ourselves informed of the activities of all extremist bodies, both right and left. But what I have never sought to do is to prevent persons with whose views I disagree from putting those views, so long as they act within the law, and so long as they do it through their own organisations and not through someone else's.

We must be extremely careful not to act contrary to the democracy which we seek to protect and to nurture. A democratic society and democratic institutions, we all know, are prone to extremist exploitation because of their very nature that they are democratic. But too many of us are quiescent and apathetic, and as individuals with all our various organisations, whether they be political, social, trade union, all types of bodies and societies, we should expose extremist activities and utterances whilst at the same time encouraging the fullest expression of diverging views and opinions so long as they are within the law. In whatever groups with which we are associated, the majority must get off their seats and sec to it that the majority control. In too many cases the majority leave matters to the minority, and that is why we face some of the problems we do from extremist bodies.

What we must not do is to stop the proper and legitimate distribution of political literature which is within the law, even at schools. I joined a youth organisation of a political party when I was 15, and of course people stay on at ordinary schools now until 16 or more. We must do nothing to prevent the distribution of proper literature, so long as it is within the law, and let us remember that there are many young people who want to know the answers to problems when they appreciate that they may be leaving school and facing a year or two or more of unemployment. Therefore, proper and legitimate literature must not be interfered with.

The democratic process and the discussion of politics should be encouraged throughout the education system, and in this connection I would refer to an agreement to which I was a party, along with John Pardoe from the Liberal Party, John Selwyn Gummer from the Conservative Party and Dr. Bernard Crick of the Hansard Society, a few years ago and a document drawn up saying exactly how political education should be encouraged in our schools. I should like to see the Government take that on board again because we do not want to stop legitimate discussion; we want to see that it is encouraged in the correct and proper way, which is what that joint statement at that time endeavoured to do.

Baroness Gaitskell

My Lords, I am wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, for whom I have considerable respect, is frightening himself into fits about what he calls "this problem" and is suffering from a very large dose of paranoia.

Lord Gridley

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness thinks I am suffering from paranoia. I thought I had made a balanced speech about the flammatory stuff which is being distributed in schools but which has nothing to do with legitimate politics. That is the first point I wish to emphasise. We face an awful danger. I have been chairman of the board of governors of a school and I have seen what has been happening. I value the future of our country and I have no objection whatever to anybody sending any pamphlets to schools if the material is constructive, but I suggest to the noble Baroness that part of the trouble from which her party is suffering just now is due to the work done by the people I described, who have penetrated deep into our society, into our schools and elsewhere, so that what is threatened is parliamentary democracy and the future of our country.

6.23 p.m.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gridley, with his customary clarity and thoughtfulness, has asked a Question of major importance. However, I suggest we must be very careful in these times of racial and other kinds of troubles, not only in this country but internationally, to measure our words very carefully.

I have a daughter who has taught for three years in a comprehensive school in a fairly poor part of Nottingham where, so far as I am aware, there have been no major problems of the kind we are discussing. It is my belief that in the majority of schools there are not problems of this magnitude. I am not suggesting there are no problems; there are, of truancy, race relations, rudeness and general indiscipline. I suggest too—because we really must face the facts—that this is not confined entirely to the state schools. It is an unpleasant fact that in some of the independent schools today standards of discipline and behaviour are in some cases seriously breaking down, so we must get the problem into perspective.

Some noble Lords may have seen the programme on television last night about the social services in Nottingham. I thought it was very interesting because it instanced in particular a girl aged eight who has been put in care, by a very human and sensible social worker, into a family who will, hopefully, mend some of the damage caused to her through a broken home. One hopes too that the girl's proper parents, so to speak, will in time mend their differences and the girl will be returned to them, though according to the contents of the programme, at present that seems unlikely. I mention that because it is just that sort of child, one who appears to be good-natured and intelligent, who presents a case of someone who, if wrongly handled, could become involved in just the kind of problems which my noble friend mentions in his Question; in an indirect manner perhaps, but it is just the kind of problem we face.

I agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said on the subject, which is not primarily a party political matter. We all abhor extremism, whether it is the National Front, one of the most evil of all organisations, the Socialist Workers Party, or any party which is trying to exacerbate race relations for unreasonable purposes. We all have views about race relations and we differ not only across parties but to a certain extent within parties, but that is not primarily the subject of the Question now before the House, though it is obviously very germane to it.

I have only a matter of minutes ago given my noble friend notice of a question I wish to ask. Will he pay heed to Section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which lays down penalties for incitement to racial hatred? I hope—my noble friend will no doubt be able to confirm this—that covers the racial hatred which is inherent in the more extreme pamphlets to which my noble friend Lord Gridley referred. I refer, of course, to the evil outpourings not only of some of the extreme Left, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, fairly and properly pointed out, of the extreme Right—the National Front, who have probably done more damage than almost any other organisation in this country.

I have been to some of the third world countries, some of the old Commonwealth countries and some of the new ones, Jamaica for example, and I believe the majority of Jamaicans in this country are law-abiding citizens. However, there is—we must face this—a minority who are troublemakers, and it is only right, whether in Brixton or elsewhere, that the police, if those people are convicted of extremely serious offences, should lay down the hardest arm of the law. But of course that must be done, and seen to be done, in all sections of society.

Where Section 70 of the Race Relations Act and any other Acts of Parliament are contravened the remedy very often lies in the hands of the magistrates' courts; and I declare an interest here because my wife is a magistrate, though not in the area where these troubles are of great significance. But one knows that they take place in many parts of the country.

I should like very briefly to instance one town, Southall. I do not want to sift over old ashes of the very tragic recent occurrences in Southall, but I have been to Southall a number of times. It is a town where the ethnic (if that is the right word) community have settled over a number of years and have caused very little trouble—far less trouble than in some other areas where in some cases they have been the instigators of trouble. We must face that fact. But in Southall the recent disturbances have been proved beyond any doubt very much to have been formented by the National Front, and I think that this is the kind of point that we ought to have in mind.

I entirely agree with my noble friend that children are very vulnerable. It is essential that they are protected as much as possible from extremism. But even if they do not obtain some of this surreptitious literature at schools, they are able to obtain it from other sources. It can be brought by a big brother from college, or they can obtain it from some other source, and I believe that the real problem underlying this question is how the law is to be seen to act.

It might well be that Parliament will have to look into this question very much more carefully. If necessary, there might have to be some strengthening of the Race Relations Act 1976, in particular Section 70. But we really come into problems of free speech and freedom of action and distribution. In this country we have laid down laws of libel and slander, and it is to be hoped that where there is evidence of literature of a libellous nature being hawked around (for want of a better expression) the law will come down in a very hard manner on those responsible.

Finally, I consider that this Question has been a most necessary one to ask. This is an important subject and one to which the Government must constantly apply their minds. In election campaigns we are now seeing all kinds of fringe political parties, some of them quite harmless, others with distinct racial connotations. Of course anybody should be free to stand. We are not living in Romania or Czechoslovakia—both countries which I have visited—and we must be extremely careful here to tread the very thin tightrope involving free speech, even if the free speech is not of quite the same quality as some of your Lordships will recall from the famous television programme of yore when the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, Mr. Michael Foot, and others took part in controversial, but always practical and helpful, discussions. Today, we are in danger of getting things out of proportion, but in this connection I should like to repeat my plea to my noble friend to study Section 70 of the Race Relations Act to see whether it needs to be looked at further, and, if necessary, tightened up, not from only one aspect, but from every aspect.

6.36 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the Question that my noble friend Lord Gridley has asked this evening has given those of your Lordships who have spoken in this short debate the opportunity to raise matters of the utmost seriousness. Everyone who wishes to maintain and promote the values and freedoms of our democratic society must view with distaste and concern the efforts of anyone who seeks to undermine our values, not least among the young people of this country.

First, there are two important and related general considerations which I should like to emphasise. The first of these follows from the fact that we have in this country a traditional freedom for people publicly to express themselves, however wrongheaded or ob ectionable any of us may find what they say, provided that in doing so they do not break the law. I note that in his Question my noble friend asks that any action which is taken should be in the interests of democracy. I am sure that he will agree that, in responding to words and actions which cause concern, in some cases deep concern, we must be careful not to be led, perhaps inadvertently, into encroaching upon democratic freedoms in our attempts to defend them. Of course, that is not to say that we should let extreme and divisive opinions and propaganda pass without comment; and nor do we. The Government condemn the activities and views of extremist organisations.

But the need to preserve the freedoms of our society brings me to the second consideration that I have in mind. It is that the power to take action which may bring the criminal law to bear on people because of their words or deeds, and the responsibility for taking that action, must rest solely with the law enforcement authorities. It is for the police, in consultation as necessary with the Director of Public Prosecutions, to decide whether or not charges should be brought in any particular cases and, if they are, what the charges ought to be. It is then for the courts to determine whether an offence has been committed and, if it has, to impose the appropriate penalty, within the limits laid down by Parliament.

The nature of the criminal law in relation to the distribution of offensive literature depends really upon the circumstances of distribution. The provisions which are most likely to be in point are Sections 5 and 5A of the Public Order Act 1936. As your Lordships may recall, the Government are currently reviewing that Act and related legislation, on which my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland published a Green Paper in April last year. But particularly in the context of the Question of my noble friend Lord Gridley this evening it is worth recalling that in the Green Paper the Government saw every reason for retaining Section 5 of the 1936 Act. As amended, Section 5 provides that any person who in a public place, or at any public meeting, uses words or behaviour, or distributes or displays material, which is threatening, abusive or insulting with intent to cause a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, is guilty of an offence. The offence, which carries a power of arrest without warrant, attracts maximum penalties of 6 months' imprisonment or a fine of £1,000, or both, and is, I am sure, firmly enforced by the police.

The other provision to which I have just referred, Section 5A of the 1936 Act, is a reflection of Parliament's concern about the problem of racialism. This is the provision about which my noble friend Lord Auckland spoke. My noble friend referred to it, quite rightly, by reference to the Race Relations Act 1976, which indeed inserted this section back into the 1936 Act. My Lords, racialism, with its divisive effect on society and its serious, and often insidious, implications for the maintenance of public order, is a danger which particularly threatens a democracy. Literature which incites racial hatred has accordingly been thought by Parliament to warrant the specific statutory control of Section 5A.

Under that section, which also applies to spoken words, it is an offence to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting and likely, in all the circumstances, to stir up hatred against any racial group in Great Britain. Although I feel that many of your Lordships know these two sections far better than I do, may I emphasise, since it is a point which is sometimes misunderstood, that this offence applies equally to literature which incites hatred against white people as to literature which incites hatred against any of our ethnic minorities.

It is sometimes suggested that this provision, Section 5A, is a major infringement of freedom of expression. But the object of the provision is to catch only literature which is so extreme that it carries with it the seeds of racial violence, which is a stringent test. There is a further safeguard in that a prosecution cannot be brought under Section 5A unless it is with the consent of the Attorney General. On the other hand, it is also sometimes suggested that the offence is drawn too narrowly, and permits the circulation of seriously damaging racialist literature. I think, if I may say so, that my noble friend Lord Auckland was absolutely right to say that Parliament may well need to consider whether the balance is right here; and may I reply to my noble friend this evening simply by saying that in the course of our review of public order legislation proponents of both points of view have had full opportunity to put their arguments to the Government.

The Question asked by my noble friend Lord Gridley, about the distribution of literature in educational institutions, is, of course, a matter which is subject to the general law. My noble friend, in his speech, gave examples of some highly-offensive and inflammatory material; and I agree with my noble friend that it would be wrong to underestimate the extent of the distribution of such material, on both the extreme Left and the extreme Right, or the influence which the material may have, particularly if it is associated with other manifestations of extremism and intolerance. But, of course, I think it is also important, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, put to us, not to over-react and to run the risk of thereby giving a false importance to events which could properly be consigned to oblivion, those responsible for them so receiving the very publicity that they are constantly seeking.

My noble friend mentioned the distribution of Soviet literature. I trust that the teaching profession sees through the propaganda content of Soviet and Eastern bloc literature. But I must emphasise that it is the responsibility of local education authorities, and of schools, to deal with political and extremist activities on school premises. Internally, if a pupil distributes extremist literature or engages in political activities on school premises, it is open to the headteacher to confiscate the literature or prohibit the activity. As to the criminal law, I am sure that local education authorities and headteachers are well aware of the offence of incitement to racial hatred, and where there is reason to believe that material falls within the provision I should like to make it clear that it should be reported to the police. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said he knew I was going to say that, and I have.

Similarly, if the behaviour of people outside a school is causing, or seems likely to cause, a breach of the peace, it is open to the headteacher to seek the assistance of the police. I know that chief officers of police are very happy to provide advice, both on particular problems and generally in these areas, to those responsible for our educational institutions. I also understand that in recent years local education authorities and major teacher organisations have issued advice to schools on ways to deal with the distribution of extremist leaflets within or immediately outside school premises. I think it is vital to recognise and acknowledge the importance of professional judgment among teacher and local authority representatives, and that the overwhelming majority of them exercise their professional judgment wisely in these matters.

But, my Lords, the problems that there are with the distribution of extremist literature in schools should not, I think, be seen totally in isolation from other attempts to create disaffection and violence. I think my noble friend was quite right to make the point that, although he decided some months ago to have this debate, it was before the major disturbances during the summer.

In a speech on the civil disturbances made in another place on 16th July, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear that the Government have a responsibility to promote the conditions in which violence should not flourish but should be rejected. This responsibility is simple to state but is complex to carry out, as many of your Lordships would be the first to tell me. We have, I admit quite openly, in particular to take account of the fact that it can be most difficult of achievement with young people, particlarly those suffering from disadvantages in inner city areas, including serious and extended unemployment. There is there a reservoir of frustration which some would attempt to tap for their own, sometimes violent, ends.

Within the Government, responsibility for some of the measures which may be taken to minimise that frustration and to try to overcome at any rate some of the problems of urban decay and deprivation rests, of course, with a number of my right honourable friends. Your Lordships will be aware, for example, of the continuing action which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking with regard to Merseyside. In addition, authorities and agencies apart from central Government, not least the local authorities and voluntary organisations, have a vital part to play in this respect.

But on the broad front of the responsibilities of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, if I might end by referring to my right honourable friend's own department, there is, as I have said, this review of public order legislation going on at the present time. My right honourable friend will report the Government's conclusions on this review to Parliament in due course, set in the overall perspective of what new measures generally may be required the better to maintain order and deal with disorder. As your Lordships may imagine, this review has in part extended to the problems of extremist racialist activity, including the distribution of racialist literature.

Your Lordships probably will also be aware that in February this year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the institution of a study, to be conducted by Home Office officials, of the incidence of racial attacks and the activities of racialist organisations alleged to be responsible for attacks. One area included in the study is alleged recruitment and racialist activities by extremist groups in schools and other educational establishments. The work on this study is now well advanced, and my right honourable friend will report the findings to Parliament as soon as possible.

Added to those two studies, there is, of course, the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, of his inquiry into the disorders in Brixton in April this year, with special reference to the problem of policing areas where the community is multiracial. I understand that the noble and learned Lord hopes to present his report soon to my right honourable friend. It would be wrong to anticipate the report at this stage, but I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will give the Government's response to the report to Parliament in an appropriate and timely manner.

My Lords, I hope your Lordships did not mind my ending by speaking generally about these inquiries and reviews. I have done so because I feel that they relate to and should help to promote a range of policies and activities involving many people and organisations, linked, among other things, with the subject my noble friend Lord Gridley raised this afternoon. And, as the conduct of the racial attacks study illustrates, the local authorities, with their responsibilities for education, planning and other local services, have a crucial part to play. Also communities themselves have an opportunity and a responsibility to make an invaluable contribution. In the Government's view, the common objective surely must be to sustain and develop mutual tolerance and understanding, which will wither the roots of extremist threats to authority and public disorder, whether those appear in the literature which is the subject of my noble friend's Unstarred Question today or in any other form.