HC Deb 18 December 1980 vol 996 cc536-7
4. Mr. Thomas Cox

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, by requests to chief constables and by such other sources as are available to him, he will make an estimate of the presence of the police at marches which have taken place in the United Kingdom so far this year and which have been organised by the National Front.

Mr. Whitelaw

The police presence at 11 such marches on which I have information varied between 400 and 4,600.

Mr. Cox

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost in terms of police manpower and expenditure to protect the thugs of the National Front fills many people with utter disgust? Is he not aware that the sole reason why the National Front marches in areas where there are Asian and black communities is that it seeks to terrorise and humiliate those communities? If the Home Secretary will not ban those marches, which many people believe he should, will he take far more vigorous action against the National Front under existing legislation than he has so far done?

Mr. Whitelaw

The hon. Gentleman has raised various points. I certainly deplore the activities of the National Front, as I deplore the activities of all those who use violence and other means to destroy our society. Secondly, I must make it perfectly clear that under existing legislation, which is being examined in our review of the Public Order Act, I do not have the power to ban the marches. That is a question first for the chief constable, who applies to his local authority. Of course, in London that is to me as the police authority. If the chief constable in the Metropolitan area applies for a ban, I shall certainly grant it.

However, I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that if we want to ban marches altogether under the review of the Public Order Act, and if this House so decides, we can do so. But the hon. Gentleman should not forget that if that happened all marches would be banned—both those by organisations that he does not like and those by organisations which he may.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

I fully agree with that. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grievance felt by taxpayers and ratepayers that the heavy cost of policing provocative demonstrations falls on them and not on those responsible for such demonstrations? While this is a difficult problem, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has found a solution?

Mr. Whitelaw

In the end, this will be a matter for the House when considering the review of the Public Order Act. I come back to the point that I made earlier. Many people doubt whether we should continue to have marches at all, in view of their cost and the trouble which they cause to many ratepayers and taxpayers as a result. However, if we do that we shall have to do it for everyone, and no organisation will be exempt.

Mr. George Cunningham

Will the Secretary of State think again about what he has just said? Surely it is quite wrong to face the prospect either of banning all marches or permitting all marches. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that at present the law permits him to exercise his judgment. Does he not agree that two conflicting principles are involved? In a free society, people should be entitled to free speech and the right to demonstrate, but it is equally a principle that a march which has all the paraphernalia of Nazism is deeply offensive and provocative to the populations of the areas through which it takes place.

Mr. Whitelaw

Either the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said or he misunderstood what I said. I said that if the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police believes that serious disorder would arise from a march, he would apply to me for a ban. I made it very clear that in my judgment, if the Commissioner did so apply, I would grant it. I should also make it clear that in the provinces chief constables must go to the relevant local authorities. If it is decided that they wish to have a ban, the matter would come to me. I regard the decision of the local chief constable as enormously important, and unless I was persuaded of some major reason why I should not agree to a ban I would agree in all such cases.