North Cyprus Posters: LRT Policy (Hansard, 4 April 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, I understand that London Regional Transport withdrew the posters because of complaints demonstrating a conflict with terms of the contract providing that: No posters will be displayed if they are likely to offend the general travelling public or to offend ethnic, religious or other major groups". The Government do not intend to intervene in discussions proceeding between London Regional Transport and Mosaic Holidays.

§ Lord Willis
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is it not true that the posters were withdrawn as a result of bomb threats and that London Regional Transport, as I understand it, received something like 10 or 12 letters, one of which at least contained a bomb threat? Further, have the Government formed an attitude on the matter?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, some of the telephone complaints received implied a threat of violence and one anonymous caller used words to the effect that there could be a bomb on the Underground if nothing was done. That threat was not judged to be serious. However, some posters were defaced and LRT considered that there was a risk of incidents endangering passenger safety.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his reply gives the impression of being a bromide on something which is much more important than that? Is he aware that this is a case where the organisation accepted the advertisement as being perfectly correct and that it was only after the receipt of letters containing threats that it decided arbitrarily to alter the arrangements which had been made for the display? Is my noble friend further aware that those of us who happened to be in northern Cyprus at the time when the matter was disclosed saw at first hand the dismay which was felt there? Does he also realise the dangers which could flow if the world thinks that an important organisation in this country is prepared to be 1004 diverted from doing what it thinks to be right because of a threat?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I understand that when London Transport Advertising accepted the advertisement in the first place it did not foresee the political significance of the reference to northern Cyprus, nor did it foresee the threats which might be received.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, are we to understand from the Minister's reply that London Regional Transport did not seek anyone's advice before it took this action? If that is so, will the Government give some advice to LRT as to what action it should take if there should be a renewal of this kind of threat? Further, if the threats are taken seriously, what action will the Government take to ensure that London Regional Transport reviews its staffing policy to make sure that there is adequate staff in all London Underground stations?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, this is of course a contractual matter between London Transport Advertising and the advertiser. Early discussions are being arranged between the parties with the aim of finding a solution which meets the advertising needs of Mosaic Holidays and the terms and conditions of London Transport Advertising, to which I referred in my original Answer.
So far as concerns staffing on the Underground, I really think that that question is a little wide of the original one on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, does not the Government's action, on the face of it, look like a surrender to both terrorism and vandalism?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
No, my Lords; there is no question of that. The primary consideration was that the reference to northern Cyprus was causing offence to a significant group of passengers. I understand that London Transport Advertising often rejects campaigns on those grounds.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is this not a Catch 22 situation? If LRT had completely ignored everything and continued with the poster campaign and ultimately a bomb had gone off with people being killed, there would have been a heck of a row. Indeed, I am willing to bet that the Government would have been blamed for it.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I must say that I have to agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, says. There would almost certainly have been a great deal more of a row if something of that nature had happened than there is now as a result of what did happen.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, that being so, would the Minister also agree that that really gives the lie to his previous answer that it was only a matter of contract? Surely it is a great deal more than a matter of commercial contract.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, no. As I said, the reason London Transport withdrew the posters was that part of the contract stipulated: No posters will be displayed if they are likely to offend the general travelling public or to offend ethnic, religious or other major groups". That is why the posters were withdrawn.

§ Baroness Strange
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the whole island of Cyprus, both north and south, is sacred to the Goddess Aphrodite, who is the Goddess of Love and therefore presumably not of bombs?

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
Not that kind of love!

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I was not aware of that fact. However, I shall take my noble friend's word for it.

§ Lord Hughes
My Lords, in view of the reference to ethnic or other groups, if Mrs. Whitehouse's organisation should object to the posters about pregnancy which appear all over the London Underground will the authorities then decide to withdraw them because they give offence to her—although I am quite certain that she will not be threatening to bomb the Underground?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I think that every case must be dealt with on its own merits.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I am sorry to come back on this point, but the Minister said that the bomb threats were not taken seriously. If that is so, on what basis was that decision taken? From what body did London Regional Transport seek advice before taking that decision?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I said that the bomb threat was not judged to be serious. That is true. However, some of the posters were defaced and London Regional Transport considered that there was a risk of incidents endangering passenger safety.

§ Lord Lovell-Davis
My Lords, I hold no brief for either side in the present unhappy situation which exists in Cyprus, but I am concerned, as I believe is every Member of the House, with terrorist threats here. Will the Minister tell the House whether records of similar threats made to advertisers or organisations displaying advertisements exist, and whether the Government issue specific advice and guidance as to how companies should react when they are subjected to such threats?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am sure that we would give advice if threats were received. If they needed to be taken seriously, we should be bound to give advice on them.

§ Lord Newall
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the case of Mr. Salman Rushdie the Government paid a great deal of attention to threats and such things? Why, because this matter did not receive 1006 as much publicity, are they taking a completely different point of view?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, we are not taking a different point of view. London Regional Transport has clearly stated terms in its contract. If those terms are breached, it is entitled to withdraw the posters.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that London Regional Transport accepted the advertisement in the first place, and must therefore have thought that the terms were such that it was safe and proper to accept it?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, as I believe I said earlier, London Regional Transport did not understand or foresee the political significance in the reference to northern Cyprus.

§ Lord Willis
My Lords, surely there is a difference here. Does the Minister agree that the Government have no responsibility for London Transport and no responsibility for publishing and writing, and yet they came out in the strongest possible terms against the threat to Salman Rushdie? Here was a threat to the travelling public, and the Government are silent on it. Is the Minister aware that when the Salman Rushdie case occurred the Prime Minister insisted that freedom of speech was essential and could not be threatened by force? Will the Government therefore make the strongest representation to London Regional Transport, and other similar bodies and say that it is not the policy of the Government and the country to give in to threats of violence?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I can agree with the latter part of the noble Lord's question: it is not the Government's policy to give in to threats of violence. In my original Answer I quoted the passage from London Regional Transport's contract as to where an advertisement might offend ethnic, religious or other major groups. If it felt that the advertisement fell within those terms, that is why it was turned down.