Public Libraries: Newspapers (Hansard, 10 July 1986)

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows: To ask her Majesty's Government whether they propose to take action under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 against the local authorities which have withdrawn from public libraries newspapers published by News International, following the dispute between the company and the printing trade unions.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has used the powers in the Act to write to the 20 library authorities about which he has received complaints. He has asked them whether they have withdrawn News International newspapers, and, if so, how they reconcile their action with their duties under the Act. Replies are coming in and in the light of these my right honourable friend is considering what further action to take.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of the local authorities have already passed resolutions confirming their previous decision? In the light of this wholly totalitarian action by this group of local authorities, is it not time that the Government acted when it is clear that local authorities intend to continue to defy the law?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says. We are taking legal advice in order to decide on the next steps. There is no doubt that some of the replies that my right honourable friend has received raise questions on which we have to have legal advice before we can decide what to do.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is it not intoler-able that public libraries supported out of public funds should practice censorship of the press in order to support one side of an industrial dispute? If the Government have not sufficient powers to make the libraries change this practice, will they take them?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend that it is absolutely essential that public libraries should impartially maintain the public right of access to all the main publications of news and opinion. As I said in reply to the first question, there is no doubt about it. We have to look at the powers under the Act, and that is what we are doing at present.

§ Lord Fletcher
My Lords, is the Minister not aware that this is generally regarded as a flagrant breach by these local authorities of their duties under the Act? Is the Minister not aware that the powers open to the Secretary of State under Section 7 of the Act are quite explicit and would enable the Minister, if so minded, to take immediate action without incurring any delay by taking advice?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, is it not the case that the Labour Party has made clear that it considers that this is absolutely undesirable censorship by the libraries? Is it not the case that under Section 2 of the 1964 Act two Library Advisory Councils, one for England and one for Wales, were set up to advise the Secretary of State on matters concerned with library facilities, and that the one for England was later named the Library and Information Services Council? Is not part of that council's terms of reference now to provide guidance, advice and comment on library and information matters for the providers and users of the relevant service, to promote consultation and co-operation, and to cover the whole field where anything of this sort arises? Has the council been brought into play on this matter?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am not aware that it has. The difficulty, I believe, is that under Section 7, dealing with the duty to maintain a comprehensive and efficient library service, we must have legal advice, which we are taking at present, on what constitutes an efficient and comprehensive library service and also what constitutes a political ban. I have no doubt that once my right honourable friend has received advice on that he will take the matter further forward. It is our hope that it could then be resolved without having to resort to further powers under the Act.

§ Baroness Birk
My Lords, may I come back on this? I put a question to the Minister to which his reply was that he was not aware of the point. Since the body to which I referred was established, it has been staffed, I understand, by volunteers from the Office of Arts and Libraries. Is he aware that there is a feeling that a more independent body might be of greater use in matters such as this? Is he aware that the terms of reference include advising the Minister for the Arts on matters that fall directly within his sphere of responsibility for library and information affairs? If the Minister does not have the answer available now, will he inquire as to whether action is being taken through a body set up under the 1964 Act?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, certainly I shall look into that and let the noble Baroness know. There is no disagreement, I believe, in the House and no disagree-ment from the Library Association which, is the professional body. It is clear that under the Act there must be a comprehensive and efficient library service. The difficulty is to find out, or to make sure, whether what is being done in certain library authorities constitutes a breach. I repeat that once my right honourable friend has legal advice on that he will consider what to do.

§ Lord Wigoder
My Lords, is not the issue that of whether the failure of a public library to make available certain national newspapers is a breach of its duty to provide a comprehensive library service? Is that not an issue on which legal advice could have been taken many weeks ago and so should have been forthcoming by now?

§ Lord Belstead
Possibly my Lords; but we are operating in the context of the replies received from the various authorities. It will not surprise the noble Lord to hear that those replies differ.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the chief sufferer from political discrimination until now has been the Morning Star, and that it would be the chief beneficiary if a general ruling was to be issued on this point? This would no doubt be welcomed. I am not sure, however, whether it is the objective of the Question put down on behalf of the socialist defectors' party.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the object of the Question is to give him and others the opportunity of saying firmly and unequivocally that they are opposed to political censorship in public libraries? Is he aware that although we welcome the fact that the department is apparently consulting legal advisers on the point, this matter, as my noble friend Lord Wigoder has indicated, has been before the department for many months? Is he aware that we hope very much to have a statement before the Summer Recess on what the Government propose to do? In the context of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the Government either have powers, in which case they should use them, or they do not, and if they do not, they should seek parliamentary approval for those powers.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I have already made clear that the Government strongly disapprove of anything that smacks of political censorship. Now we have to see how we can prevent it, provided that we are absolutely certain that it is happening and that it can be put right under the Act.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I know of one particular library where not only are the newspapers which have been referred to are banned, but, also, Gay News is allowed, which is, I suppose, very fundamental?