| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rea: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any truth in an article in today's
Independent, which stated that the Government will introduce their own Bill to prohibit tobacco advertising rather than rely on the more chancy procedure of a Private Members' Bill? Is he also aware that if they do that, the health of the nation will improve and that the image of the Government in the eyes of all health professionals, which is presently at rather a low ebb, would greatly improve?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I read that report. My noble friend is as well informed as I am about that matter, which is not covered by the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that the Government's public health and environmental objectives will not be altered and that there will be no lessening of the level of duties on tobacco products and petrol?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear more than once that one reason for the level of excise duty on tobacco is the preservation of personal health and, in relation to fuel duties, the protection of the environment. Those have always been high priorities for the Government.
Menwith Hill and Fylingdales: Security
3.21 p.m.
Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the security arrangements at Menwith Hill and Fylingdales are satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, in light of the recent incursions by demonstrators at Royal Air Force Menwith Hill, Her Majesty's Government recognise that the security arrangements in place are not satisfactory in relation to this public order threat. It is not government policy to comment on specific security measures, but security at RAF Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales will be reviewed and appropriate remedial action will be taken.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that although it would be wrong to suggest that these silly people from Greenpeace are a security threat, what happened suggests that it might be possible for serious intruders with a serious design to get into two very important and sensitive establishments?
Lord Bach: My Lords, what happened was serious but the noble Lord is right to say that the people who took this action were peaceable protestors whose aims were limited. It is important to point out that a peaceable protest required a proportionate response. The noble Lord knows that minimum force that is proportionate to the event is to be used and that this event received a proportionate response. Equally, if there had been a serious attempt of the kind to which
the noble Lord referred--an attempt to break into the operational functional mission of the base--the response would have been proportionate. That would have been a much more serious eventuality.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it the case, as was reported, that some of the intruders were at large in the compound for a considerable time before they attracted the attention of the security forces? Would that have been the case if they had not been peaceable intruders?
Lord Bach: My Lords, some of those who got in were within the outer perimeter--there are several fences at this establishment. The noble Lord is right--some protestors were within the outer perimeter but it was known that they were there. That outer perimeter is not as secure as the inner perimeters because families live on the base inside the outer perimeter. A balance has to be kept between the requirements of the operation there and the needs of the families to live everyday lives.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, as the former chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, noble Lords will know that I have always taken a keen interest in liaison matters between the Ministry of Defence Police and the local police service. Today, the deputy chief constable came to brief me carefully on operational matters concerning the demonstrations at Menwith Hill. I was pleased that the noble Lord did not in any way criticise the North Yorkshire Police Force, which was responsible for looking after the outer perimeter.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, will the noble Lord please accept that there has to be good and close liaison between the local police and the Ministry of Defence Police? Does he recognise that we must be able to see with clarity that the two responsibilities are entirely different?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am delighted to answer the question of the noble Baroness, who has huge experience in this field, particularly in the area of England that we are discussing. She is right--in my view, no criticism is to be attached to anyone. We agree with the propositions that she put forward.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, while welcoming my noble friend's response to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, it is clear that although the event at Menwith Hill was good humoured and peaceable, there is still the risk, as my noble friend acknowledged, that demonstrators can turn nasty. That raises the risk that harm or injury may be caused to peaceful demonstrators or to staff in the targeted establishment. Are there any other establishments like Fylingdales and Menwith Hill which could become alternative targets if security is tightened at those two establishments? Will the Government make it
absolutely clear that they remain committed to fulfilling the obligation that people and places shall be safeguarded from the risk of harm as a result of unsatisfactory demonstrations, such as those at Akrotiri earlier this week?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can answer my noble friend in the affirmative. We are looking at other possible bases and we do indeed take what happened seriously. I entirely agree with what he said. While we must of course recognise people's right to protest and to demonstrate--that is the mark of a free society--irresponsible actions by protestors, such as we have seen in this case, put them at risk of coming to harm. It is then our duty--the duty of the Ministry of Defence--to return them to a place of safety. I hope that noble Lords appreciate that when the protestors entered the base, it became our duty to ensure that they were not themselves harmed. Fulfilling that duty in turn places our security personnel at risk of harm. I agree with my noble friend for those reasons.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the election, we fought off a proposal by the government to extend the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police. It seems that we were absolutely right. Where were the Ministry of Defence Police, and why were they not fulfilling their proper function, which is to guard Ministry of Defence premises? Would it not be appropriate to do that before their powers were extended more widely outside Ministry of Defence premises?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have to say that the noble Lord is going too far. A number of Ministry of Defence Police were on site--they work a shift system--and some were at the gate. I shall tell the noble Lord what happened. Thirty people alighted from a bus and a truck at the main gate and barged past the main gate guard. A number of those people were stopped by the normal number of Ministry of Defence Police who were on duty. Other people went to another part of the four-mile perimeter and scaled the perimeter fence using ladders that they had specifically brought for the occasion. That is what happened; no criticism is to be levelled at the Ministry of Defence Police who were present. I am rather surprised that the noble Lord sought to do that.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, should not those who protest by attacking the Armed Forces and their bases be reminded by Her Majesty's Government that their freedom and right to peaceful protest was gained for them by the victories won by the Armed Forces in years gone by?
Lord Bach: My Lords, that is an extremely important point made by the noble and gallant Lord. Not only were victories won, but won at a huge cost to those members of the Armed Forces who fought for us then. It is perhaps something that protesters may care to think about when they next set out on their task.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, without in any way criticising either the Ministry of Defence or the local police, does the Minister agree that the demonstrators highlighted the fact that new construction works have taken place at Menwith Hill? Do not the Government consider that if those works are in preparation for Star Wars 2, prior authority should have been sought from Parliament?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his experience, will not be surprised at my answer. It is not and never has been government policy, whatever government is in power, to comment on specific security measures.
Standing Orders (Private Business)
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This series of amendments to the Standing Orders for private business was passed by the Commons this morning. Noble Lords will realise that the proposals stem from changes in the nomenclature of government departments.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:
- Amendment No.
- Standing Order 27
- 1. Line 74, leave out from "the" to end of line 76 and insert "the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Health and Safety Executive"
- Standing Order 27A
- 2. Line 33, leave out "four" and insert "two"
- 3. Line 34, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government"
- Standing Order 29
- 4. Line 7, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government"
- Standing Order 30A
- 5. Line 4, leave out "of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
- Standing Order 31
- 6. Line 7, leave out "of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
- Standing Order 32
- 7. Line 10, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
- Standing Order 34
- 8. Line 12, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government"
- Standing Order 37
- 9. Line 10, leave out from "Office" to end of line 11 and insert ", the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions"
- 10. Line 14, leave out "a copy" and insert "two copies"
- 11. Line 17, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and one"
- 12. Line 18, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government"
- Standing Order 39
- 13. Line 3, leave out from "Bill" to "three" in line 4
- 14. Line 5, after first "at" insert "the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and"
- 15. Line 7, leave out "the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,"
- 16. Line 10, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills"
- 17. Line 11, leave out "of Social Security" and insert "for Work and Pensions"
- 18. Line 23, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills"
- 19. Line 27, leave out "Employment" and insert "Skills"
- 20. Line 33, leave out "Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" and insert "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs"
- Standing Order 45
- 21. Line 17, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and at the Department for Transport, Local Government"
- Standing Order 47
- 22. Line 12, leave out "of the Environment, Transport" and insert "for Transport, Local Government"
- Standing Order 139
- 23. Line 11, leave out "the Environment, Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government"
- 24. Line 27, leave out "the Environment, Transport" and insert "Transport, Local Government".--(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |