§ Mr. CLYNES(by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the action of the Chief Constable of Staffordshire, in prohibiting certain miners' meetings in that county, was decided upon with his knowledge and approval; can he state the grounds for the action taken and whether he has been in communication with and has received any report from the Chief Constable on the matter?
§ Mr. AMMON(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether it was by his instructions that the General Secretary of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain was prohibited addressing meetings in the Staffordshire coalfield?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)The Chief Constable had been authorised by me, under Regulation 22 of the Emergency Regulations, to prohibit any meeting or procession in connection with the present stoppage in the coalfields if, in his opinion, there was reason to apprehend that the holding of the meeting or procession would conduce to a breach of the peace and thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police or would promote disaffection. I understand that, acting under that authority, he prohibited two meetings proposed to be held at East. Hayes and Pelsall yesterday. The Chief Constable 551 has reported to me that he was satisfied that the meetings if held at the time and place proposed would conduce to breaches of the peace.
§ Mr. CLYNESCan I take that answer to mean that in this instance the Chief Constable acted upon his own opinion, without prior consultation with the right hon. Gentleman, and, secondly, whether this is an area where there has been uniformly peace and concord throughout the whole period of this dispute?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe right hon. Gentleman must not take that to be so. A very serious speech was made in this very area two months ago, and the Chief Constable had grave anxiety in regard to a repetition of that speech, or anything like it at the present time. As regards the first part of the supplementary question, I thought it better to make a general order authorising all chief constables in the mining areas to act on their own responsibility. They know whether a particular meeting is or is not likely to cause a breach of the peace, and it would have been very difficult for me to express an opinion upon that compared with the knowledge the Chief Constable himself must have.
§ Mr. CLYNESIn view of the single instance which has been mentioned, does the right hon. Gentleman really think that on account of that single instance prohibition in this case was desirable?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI must confess that I have come to the conclusion that it would not be possible for me to interfere with the discretion of the Chief Constable, whom I know personally and who has been Chief Constable there for a long time. He is a person in whom I have every confidence. I may add that another meeting in the same area was permitted to take place yesterday afternoon, because the Chief Constable did not anticipate that there would be a breach of the peace at that particular meeting.
Mr. W. M. ADAMSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Chief Constable in Stafford gave any notice with regard to the prohibition of the meeting in my constituency; whether he allowed people to congregate before he notified those responsible for the meeting; and under what particular Regula- 552 tions the right hon. Gentleman allowed the meeting to gather before notifying the prohibition of this meeting?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe Chief Constable took every possible step as early as six o'clock in the morning, even going to the extent of knocking up several miners' leaders, who were in bed, to tell them that the meeting would not be allowed to take place.
Mr. BECKETTIs the reason for one meeting being permitted and the other prohibited that the speaker would have had a bigger meeting at the first meeting?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe reason simply is that in regard to one meeting there was no anxiety about a breach of the peace and in regard to the other there was very grave anxiety—
§ Mr. SAKLATVALADoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that the prohibition of a meeting of this kind throws upon the police resources a greater burden in actuality than would have arisen if the meeting had been allowed to proceed?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThat is entirely a matter of the hon. Member's opinion. I am satisfied that the proper course was taken in this case.
§ Mr. J. HUDSONHow does it come about that this last-minute procedure was embarked upon of knocking men up at six o'clock in the morning and interfering with the crowd after the people had actually assembled for the meeting?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThere has been no reason during the last few months to anticipate that there would be a breach of the peace at any particular meeting in this district, but during the last few days information was received that the gentleman in question was going to hold a meeting there, and the Chief Constable, with a full knowledge of the facts and the condition of affairs in the county, thought that a meeting held by that gentleman would be likely to lead to a bleach of the peace, and he therefore stopped it.
§ Mr. N. MACLEAN rose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere will be an opportunity of discussing this question in the course of the Debate.
§ Mr. MACLEAN rose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have allowed quite a dozen supplementary questions already.
§ Mr. MACLEANI have risen several times—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!" and "Name!"]—but Mr. Speaker, have called upon other hon. Members. I want to ask a question with regard to the original answer given by the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think this discussion had better be taken later on.
§ Mr. MACLEANA reply to my question might assist the Debate that will follow, and that is why I wish to put it now.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI must use my discretion in regard to this matter.