§ 5.0 P.M.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)I beg to move,
That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 20th day of October, 1926, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act.This is the seventh time that it has been my duty to move these Emergency Regulations. I had hoped a month ago that it would not be necessary and that the dispute might have been over. However, that is not the case, and I have once more to ask the House of Commons to pass these Emergency Regulations. Two months ago I was accused of making too long a speech, and a month ago I was accused of making too short a speech. It is a little difficult, but I will endeavour in my utterance this afternoon to find a just mean between the two. It has always been my practice on these occasions to give the House all the information I can as to the way in which the Regulations have worked during the previous months. I am very glad to be able to say that the number of cases under the Regulations during the past month has shown a decrease. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Is that why you are introducing them?"] An hon. Member opposite says if there has been a decrease, why move them? If there is an increase, hon. Members accuse me of using them detrimentally to the interest of the community. It is exceedingly difficult for me to please hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. [Interruption.] It is, however, my duty, and if they wish to listen to the figures, I will give them, but if they do not want to hear them, I will not.During the previous month, which consisted of four and a-half weeks, there 732 were 212 prosecutions under Regulation 21 and 19 prosecutions under Regulation 20. During the last three and a-half weeks—a shorter period for the month—there were only 66 prosecutions under Regulation 21 and three under Regulation 20. It was said to me last month, "Why do you not let these Regulations go and let the police avail themselves of the ordinary law and prosecute under the ordinary law." I made the statement then that I thought it was in the interest of all classes that there should be a short and quick punishment under the provisions of these Regulations—for very rarely indeed is the term of imprisonment given under the Regulations more than two or three months—and that is much better than that a large number of cases should be prosecuted in the ordinary way and go to trial at the Assizes and possibly involve longer sentences.
I am not going to discuss any particular cases, but I much regret to tell the House that although the number of cases under the Regulations is much lower, there are in a certain district—I hope hon. Members will not press me to name the district, because the cases are pending—a number, very unfortunately large, of cases which have been remitted to the Assize Courts to be dealt with there under the general law. I must confess I personally would prefer—and I think the whole country and the House would prefer—to deal with these cases, which are so often the outcome of temporarily bad temper, quickly and not too harshly under these Regulations rather than—
§ Mr. KIRKWOODIf you were sent to gaol would it be dealing harshly with you?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSDoes not the hon. Member, who is not without ability to understand the English language, realise that I am speaking in favour of short sentences?
§ Mr. KIRKWOODWe do not want sentences at all. Would you like to go to gaol?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI will not pursue the matter further. In a few weeks time the results of the Assizes will be known, and I hope hon. Members opposite will be satisfied with what happens at those Assizes.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)I think it would be very much better if hon. Members would listen to the Home Secretary and make their speeches afterwards.
§ Mr. STEPHENMay I ask if it is in Order for the Home Secretary to make the statement which he has made, anticipating and suggesting that at the Assizes there are going to be heavier sentences than would have been the case with prosecutions under Regulations? I want to ask if that is a proper statement for a Minister of the Crown to make, and whether it is conducive to justice in this country?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI do not understand that the Home Secretary was anticipating sentences which might be given at the Assizes, but only that he was drawing comparisons of what was possible.
§ Mr. J. HUDSONIs it not the case that the Home Secretary made a reply to an hon. Member which indicated that the sentences would be longer than would be expected had the cases gone to be dealt with under the Emergency Powers Regulations, and by making that suggestion is it not the case that he is indicating beforehand to the Courts what is expected of them by a Minister of the Crown.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSHon. Members opposite know perfectly well that they have taken advantage of the methods of this House to raise a point of Order which is not a point of Order at all. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. STEPHENOn a point of Order. May I ask if it is in order for any hon. Member opposite to impute bad faith to me. I put to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a point of Order, and I have got an answer from you relative to that point of Order. You have thought it worth while to give me an answer and then the Home Secretary has insinuated that I did not put a real point of Order at all, although you thought it was worthy of an answer. I think that is most unfair on the part of the Home Secretary, and I ask if it is in Order to make such an insinuation against a Member of the House?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI think it would be best if hon. Members and right hon. Members left it to me to deal with points of Order.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSPerhaps hon. Members will agree with the advice given by the Deputy-Speaker, and allow me to make quite a short statement. I understand Amendments are to be moved and questions will be raised and I shall be prepared to answer in detail. But do let me explain, because no one desires to be out of order. I was putting it to the House that the sentences under the Regulations are limited in amount, while the possible sentences at the Assizes are four times at least as heavy. That is what I want hon. Members to realise, and that is why I have all along advocated that these proceedings are better taken under the Regulations, if possible. That is why I ask the House to pass these Regulations in the interests of everybody, because it is desirable, I say quite frankly, that as little commotion should be caused by the events which do sometimes take place during the period of these coal stoppages. That is very largely one of the reasons why I want these Regulations passed.
During the last month or two I have been bound to take certain steps in regard to the position of the police, and I should like, and I think it is desirable, to explain where the responsibility lies for the maintenance of law and order in this country. In the first place, the responsibility is with the local police. The Chief Constable and the Watch Committee, or the Standing Joint Committee in the counties, are the primary authority responsible for the maintenance of law and order. They are the authorities who deal with the police, direct the movements of the police in their own immediate districts, and who direct and carry out any prosecution which may be necessary. The Secretary of State has a curious kind of supervising power. So far as London is concerned, I am the police authority and act with the same power and responsibility as the Watch Committee in the borough or the Standing Joint Committee in the county. But in the other counties and boroughs the Secretary of State, in behalf of the Government, exercises merely a curious kind of supervising 735 power. I have no power, except under such particular power as is given by these Regulations, to direct these police forces or their actions. The only power I have under the general law is to deal with the numbers of police and the expenses of the police. Of course, as the House knows, the Government pay a certain proportion of the costs of all police forces, and that is where the power of the Government comes in in regard to the number and personnel of the forces.
I want to tell the House that during the last month I have been greatly interested as to the sufficiency of the police forces in certain parts of the country in regard to possibilities of trouble. There have been, as the House knows, not many, I am glad to say, but a few sporadic cases in which there was serious trouble between the police and sections of the community. That being so, I thought it desirable to communicate with the Chief Constables, who are moistly concerned in districts where the coal stoppage exists, asking them whether they were satisfied with regard to the number of police under their control and asking them whether they wanted any further support. I have no power, except under one regulation, to require additional police forces. I have power, it is true, under the Regulation, if I so think necessary, to send additional reinforcements into a county or borough, even if that county or borough may not desire them. It has not been necessary for me to act under the provisions of that Regulation, but I sent a letter to the Chief Constables about 10 days ago, which I think it is only right that I should read to the House. I think hon. Members opposite will agree that I have never attempted to keep back anything that I have done in this matter, and I desire to put forward what I have done in a clear manner to the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "To how many was the letter sent?"]. To all concerned in the counties or boroughs where there was a stoppage. I think the hon. Member may take it that it was sent roughly to from 16 to 20. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman promised yesterday to give us the names of the areas."] I promised yesterday to tell the names of the counties where a certain other thing was done by me. It was an 736 order dealing with the prohibition of meetings. I have those names here, and I shall be prepared to give them, because it so happens they were the same districts as those in which I communicated with the Chief Constables. They were as follows: Brecon, Carmarthen, Cheshire, Cumberland, Westmorland, Denbigh, Derby, Durham, Flint, Glamorgan, Gloucester, Kent, Lancashire, Leicester, Monmouth, Northumberland, Nottingham, Pembroke, Shropshire, Somerset, Stafford, Warwick, Worcester, and the West Riding of Yorkshire.
§ Mr. N. MACLEANWhat about Scotland?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, representing the Secretary of State for Scotland, is here and, I presume, can take part in the Debate. I have a lot of burdens on my shoulders, and I trust hon. Members will let my colleagues take their share of them.
§ Mr. MACLEANWe asked yesterday for a list of all the places to which this particular order was given, and we did not take into consideration the fact that one part of the country was under the Secretary of State for Scotland, but thought the whole list of the places to which that order had been issued would be read out by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman is now splitting it up into two parts.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSReally, the hon. Member must not make insinuations of this kind. I have issued that order to the counties and boroughs which I have enumerated to the House. My right hon. Friend Who represents Scotland issues his own orders.
§ Mr. MACLEANUnder your jurisdiction.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo. The hon. Member, when he has been Home Secretary or Secretary of State for Scotland, will know how these things are done. The representative of the Secretary of State for Scotland is here, and, with his permission, I should like to state that he, and not I, issued the orders to all the Sheriffs in Scotland.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSIf the hon. Member will only let me speak, he will hear. I never interrupt him, and if he finds when I have finished that I have not given him all the information which he wants, I am here and shall be till eleven o'clock or afterwards, and he can ask as many questions as he likes. This is the letter which I wrote:
I have naturally been following with great care the position of affairs during the coal stoppage, and more particularly during recent weeks, as it affects police forces in certain areas of the country. It is the distinct wish and intention of His Majesty's Government that the utmost protection should be afforded to every man who desires to work in the coal mines of this country. Developments which have taken place since your reports were furnished in reply to my Circular of the 8th instant have naturally altered the situation in some respects, and I should be glad if you would let me know whether you are satisfied that in the present situation the police under your control are sufficient to enable this object to be fully carried out. As you have already been informed, ample police are available in other parts of the country, and arrangements can be made for you to have such further reinforcements as you may desire. I shall accordingly be glad if you will reply to me, if possible by return of post, letting me have your views on the situation in the light of this letter.
§ Mr. LUNNI am concerned about a proviso at the top of page 4 of the Preable to these Regulations. In that proviso it is laid down very clearly that workpeople have the right to strike and the right to picket in connection with the strike, which is the law under the Trade Disputes Acts, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has called the attention of the Chief Constables to the law in that connection, because it is a very important matter that they should be well acquainted with what is the law with regard to picketing, and that workpeople have the right to picket, which to-day some Chief Constables are prosecuting people for doing in a peaceful manner.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not want to be put out of my stride, but the hon. Member who interrupts will see that I will answer that question before I sit down. I am very glad to state that, in reply to my letter which I have just read 738 out, most of the Chief Constables give me a very satisfactory report as to the condition of affairs throughout the country. There are two or three places where, on receipt of that letter, and on further consultation with the Home Office, certain reinforcements have been sent down.
§ Mr. WALLHEADTwo or three?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWell, three or four, if the hon. Member likes, but certainly not a large number. In a small number of cases it has been thought desirable to have reinforcements by those who are primarily responsible. I am trying to show where the question of responsibility lies. The responsibility of the Government is to see that the police authorities in the country have sufficient reinforcements. The demand has to come from them in the first instance, because I have not used my over-riding powers at all. The demands, therefore, coming from them—the men who are on the spot and know what is needed for their own districts — have been fully met by the Home Office, who have given to them, from different parts of the country, such reinforcements as they have desired. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn) asked me whether I had informed the Chief Constables what the law is in regard to picketing. That is so. A Circular was issued by me, and is already a Command Paper, which can be obtained in the Library, fully setting out my views as to the law of picketing, and that Circular was one which was viewed and approved by the Law Officers of the Crown.
§ Sir HENRY SLESSERI understood that the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) was not whether the right hon. Gentleman had given a general explanation about picketing, but whether he had explained the proviso to the Regulations in regard to picketing. The Command Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is in relation to picketing in general, but I understood my hon. Friend's question to refer to the proviso under the Emergency Powers permitting people to be persuaded if they wished not to work.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThere is no difference in the law as to picketing under the Emergency Regulations and under the general law of the land. I am 739 quite clear on that point. The proviso in the Preamble to the Regulations reads:
Provided also that no such regulation shall make it an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike, or peacefully to persuade any other person or persons to take part in a strike.That is the preamble to these Regulations, and it governs the whole of them. There is no suggestion whatever that a peaceful persuasion to prevent any person carrying on his work is not legal or permissible under the provisions of these Regulations.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Member says that, but I venture to differ. There is, of course, a line, a very narrow line indeed, beyond which peaceful persuasion may become intimidation, and that line, when it is once passed, brings the so-called peaceful persuader within the provisions not merely of this, but of the general law of the land. Intimidation is clearly not permitted under the law of the land.
§ Mr. SULLIVANI have a question to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I have been stopped twice by the police authorities, and I want to know what is my position. It seems to me that in these matters a Chief Constable is a law unto himself.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThat is not exactly a question, but a statement. All I can say to the hon. Member is this, that if he will communicate with the Secretary of State for Scotland or with me, if any similar case occurs here, and any Member is stopped in what he conceives to be his right to act, I will at once call for full inquiries. It is, of course, impossible to imagine that any Secretary of State can know at any moment what is going on all over the country, or what is happening to any individual Member of Parliament, but if any hon. Member opposite, under similar circumstances as the hon. Member suggests, writes to me and says: "I think I have been wrongly stopped under the Regulations, or outside the Regulations, and such and such a Chief Constable is 740 exceeding his duty," it is my duty to cause inquiries to be made, and I will make them. I hope I have explained fully and clearly the exact position, first, in regard to the duty of the Secretary of State so far as the administration of the police is concerned, and, secondly, in regard to the question of peaceful picketing.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSThe right hon. Gentleman says that peaceful picketing is still permissible. Might I read to him a copy of a poster circulated all over South Yorkshire, or over the West Riding area of Yorkshire at all events, with the signature of the Chief Constable for the West Riding underneath? It is as follows: