HL Deb 27 November 1986 vol 482 cc642-4

3.17 p.m.

Lord Beloff

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 the agreement between the authorities of University College, Cardiff and their students union reported in the Daily Telegraph of 19th November 1986 is a breach of Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 will come into force in September 1987. Institutions have first a period in which to draw up their codes of practice as required by subsection (3). However, my honourable friend has initiated inquiries of the Principal of University College, Cardiff, to find out how he expects that the agreement with the students' union in practice will help protect freedom of speech. In preparing its code of practice, the college will need to consider the bearing of Section 43 upon this agreement.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that informative reply. It seems to me that she would probably agree with me that there are many good uses to which the famous Welsh voice could be put; but would she not agree that chanting to make speakers unable to be heard is not one of the better uses to which the Welsh voice could be put?

Baroness Hooper

Yes, my Lords. The Government's intention is that free speech should be protected. This does not mean that the traditional means of expressing dissent through peaceful demonstration should be inhibited. Nor does it necessarily rule out some heckling. I think your Lordships would agree that where the speaker is a Member of Parliament he or she can reasonably be expected to cope with that. The criterion to be applied is Whether the speaker is being prevented from speaking. Clearly, continuous heckling or chanting could be designed to have this effect.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Cardiff University College, of which I have the honour to be president, is determined to do everything possible to ensure both that speakers are enabled to be heard and that students are free to communicate opposing views, and that the college is totally committed to freedom of speech—at which, incidentally, they are usually so good—within the law; and that, except for the incident, which no doubt gave rise to this Question, the college has a very fine record in this respect? Is the noble Baroness further aware that work is already actively in hand in drafting the required code of practice and associated rules required by the Education Act?

Baroness Hooper

Yes, my Lords, we are aware that the college authorities are taking the necessary steps to prevent the recurrence of such an incident, and institutions, as a result of the Education (No. 2) Act, will have to take a position from next autumn to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable and practical steps to this end.

Lord Irving of Dartford

My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that since the incident in question with Mr. Enoch Powell, Mr. Leon Brittan has addressed a meeting there which took place without disruption and that Mr. Brittan then said, "What happened in Cardiff was an excellent example of what should happen, and much more civilised than happens in some other places"?

Baroness Hooper

Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that quoted remark. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has himself recently been able to make comments in the same vein.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that my Question had nothing whatever to do with Mr. Enoch Powell or his visit to Cardiff? It was based upon a published agreement involving the university authorities, of which I must assume the president of University College is unaware, which laid down permission for students to heckle and if necessary to chant, to drown the speeches of those persons whom they believed to racist or sexist. As neither of those adjectives has any meaning, perhaps the noble Baroness would agree that it is in fact a licence not for free speech but for its ending.

Baroness Hooper

Yes indeed, my Lords; and of course once Section 43 of the new Act is in force it will he for the courts to rule whether particular actions on the part of those under a duty to protect freedom of speech in any way contravene its provisions.

Lord Morris

My Lords, why was it deemed necessary for the commencement of Section 43 to be delayed until the autumn of 1987 rather than have it come into force when the Act was passed?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, since the new provision includes a requirement that each institution should establish a code of practice to guide all those concerned in meeting the new duty within the particular institution, the Government would like those codes to be thoroughly thought through before they are brought into operation. That will take a little time. Some institutions, like Cardiff, are already revising their procedures and reviewing their disciplinary codes in the light of the statutory duty to which they will be subject.

Lord Parry

My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's original Question, is it not a fact that public behaviour at the moment flows through naturally from the greater antagonisms that have been created by confrontation politics? While we deplore the fact that people are shouted down, is it not a dangerous assumption that all the voices raised at Cardiff University were necessarily Welsh voices?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, it is of course important that freedom of speech should be protected.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, in view of the assurance that I have been given on behalf of the college, is it not better now that the opportunity should he taken to see that freedom of speech is ensured? Heaven knows, the Welsh people, of all people, have lived and thrived on it!

Baroness Hooper

Indeed, my Lords, I think that what everybody wants to see is freedom of speech on the university campuses without any problems.