| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, having been involved in looking at the Post Office for 40 years, it is
my considered view that we should get Ministers away from dealing with detailed questions of industrial relations in individual post offices. That is not the way to deal with these issues. I hope that the Postal Services Commission will be able to review these issues in more detail and more effectively. What my noble friend suggests is not the way to deal with these matters. They should be dealt with by management and the Postal Services Commission.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that over the past few years the Post Office has acquired about 20 companies, mostly in Europe, for tens of millions of pounds, can the Minister inform the House of the rate of return on the capital employed in those acquisitions?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not have that information at my fingertips. I shall happily write to the noble Baroness and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in regard to the meeting to which the Minister referred in his first Answer, was the future of small, village sub-post offices and improvements to their viability considered?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give a specific yes, but I would assume so because it is a matter of great concern to the DTI and indeed to the Post Office that we do not continue to see a decline. That is why in November we set a clear formal requirement on the Post Office to prevent any avoidable closures taking place. It is encouraging that, as a result of that procedure, some 100 sub-post offices reopened last year.
Animal Rights Extremists
3 p.m.
Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, in view of the latest reported threats from animal rights extremists to Members of Parliament, they have any plans to proscribe by order any such organisations as terrorist.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear in another place during yesterday's debate on the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2001, he has considered this matter very carefully and does not judge at present that it would be right to proscribe any such groups. However, we do condemn their disruptive and sometimes violent attacks on individuals and property and we are committed to doing whatever is necessary to help the police to deal with these extremists.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, is he aware that I am
extremely dissatisfied with it? Does the noble Lord accept that the Animal Rights Militia and the Justice Department have both advocated violence? Surely it is time for those two organisations in particular to be banned.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness will recognise that additional measures are being taken to strengthen the processes by which we bring such perpetrators of violence to justice. The Police and Criminal Justice Bill will provide a new power for police to move protestors away from homes where such protests may cause harassment, alarm or distress. The Bill will strengthen provisions on sending malicious communications, making that an imprisonable offence. Furthermore, we shall protect the homes of the directors of vulnerable companies by providing that the addresses of those directors at risk of violence or intimidation can be withheld from the public by the use of a secure register. Those measures will provide protection, increased sanctions and new powers for the police to take effective action against extremists.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, do the police have any powers to deal with people who demonstrate on behalf of such organisations but disguise themselves by wearing stocking-masks and so forth over their faces? Does he agree that they can have no possible innocent reason for doing so?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the answer to both of the noble Lord's questions is a definitive "yes". The police are able to take action against people who adopt such disguises in order to inhibit the possibility of being arrested and having charges brought against them.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of the shambolic debate held yesterday in the other place on the order to which the noble Lord has referred--when a single order under the Terrorism Act was debated, proscribing 21 different organisations--does he agree that in the future there should be separate orders for each separate organisation so that they can be the subject of proper debate?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that the debate held yesterday in the other place was shambolic. It seemed to reflect the free expression of critical opinion and an explanation of the Government's position with regard to the order. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord immediately that it is only a matter of days before this House will have an opportunity to debate that order. No doubt on that occasion the noble Lord will participate in a free and democratic, but not shambolic, debate.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, can the Minister expand on his reply to my noble friend Lady Sharples? He said that such extremist groups are already subject to the law. However, when the leaders
of those organisations openly incite people to violence, are they not then committing an offence?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, incitement to violence, if proven, is an offence and would bring a condign punishment. Perhaps I may add that there is a danger here that press comment may exaggerate the extent to which groups such as those mentioned are organised at the same level as a number of the organisations which have been proscribed in the order to which I have just referred. There is a substantial difference between one or, in some cases, two people masquerading under organisational names, then using those names after they have carried out malicious acts and have been charged with them, and large, highly organised groups.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, did the Minister observe that when we debated the Hunting Bill on Monday last, one matter on which all sides of the House were united was in their condemnation of animal liberation groups and their activities in connection with that Bill, as well as the violent actions recently perpetrated against Huntingdon Life Sciences and other companies? As I have said, the whole House is united against such actions. I believe that is also true of another place. For that reason, I believe that, when we come to the order in a few days' time, it will be difficult for the Government to reply in the manner adopted by the Home Secretary last night in another place. He appeared simply to brush it off.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that it is correct for the noble Lord to suggest that the issues were brushed off in the debate held in another place yesterday night. Perhaps I may hasten to add that I know that all sides of the House join in the condemnation of the outrageous and extremist misbehaviour which has been carried out in a number of locations including, as the noble Lord indicated, sometimes in regard to hunts. However, I am seeking to draw a distinction between organisations which it is proper to proscribe because, in so doing, we can take effective action to limit the criminal behaviour of such groups, and dealing with individuals or tiny groups of people who merely appropriate a set of initials or a name. We must beware of giving such people the same credence as organised groups. What we are dealing with in this case are individual criminals who need to be brought to justice.
Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.6 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Strathclyde set down for today shall be limited to five hours.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Standing Orders (Private Business)
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) rose to move, That the amendments in the Marshalled List, dated 14th March 2001, be made to the Standing Orders relating to Private Business.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. With the permission of noble Lords, I wish to move all the amendments together. There are 92 amendments, but I do not propose to deal with all of them in detail. Perhaps I should say that they fall broadly into five categories.
The first group of amendments are consequential on recent legislation, in particular the devolution and Greater London Authority Acts. They also update references to the definitions of local authorities and government departments. The second group of amendments translate imperial measurements into their metric equivalents. I hope that noble Lords will not ask me to do the arithmetic. Thirdly, amendments have been tabled to make some practices of the House of Lords consistent with those of the House of Commons. Fourthly, amendments have arisen out of recent experience with the Private Bill procedure. Finally, amendments have been tabled to rewrite, in contemporary English, the notice to be served on owners of property by proposed legislation.
I hope that, in the not too distant future, I shall be able to move amendments relating to human rights compatibility statements to Private Bills. I should also inform noble Lords that it is intended that a new edition of the House of Lords Standing Orders Relating to Private Business 1991 shall be published. It will include not only these amendments, but will also incorporate certain stylistic changes to make it easier to read and to use.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page