§ 35. Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can make any statement as to the circumstances in which, on Friday, 25th September, police officers occupied, without a search warrant, the premises of the "Daily Worker" and the Utopia Press, and exercised a censorship of the matter to appear in the issue of the following day, Saturday, 26th September?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley)No question of censorship by police officers arises. The matter has culminated in criminal proceedings, and the hon. Member will appreciate that it would be improper to make any statement while the case is before the court.
§ Mr. BROWNQuite apart from the individual prosecution, with which I am not concerned in the slightest, I desire to ask whether it is not a fact that for 359 a period of approximately one hour the police confined the staff of this newspaper within a given room, and did, in fact, exercise a rigorous censorship over the contents of the following day's paper? Under what Government powers was that action taken?
§ Mr. STANLEYI can only repeat that it would be improper for me to make any statement with regard to this particular case. The hon. Member knows as well as I do the steps that are open to any hon. Member if he considers that the police exceed their duty.
§ Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONWho pays for the "Daily Worker"?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is very unusual to put a supplementary question when an answer of that kind has been given.
§ Mr. BROWNOn a point of Order. The question and the supplementary question addressed to the conduct of the police on one matter has been answered by reference to the prosecution of an individual, with which I am not in the least concerned. I submit, with great respect, that this House is the custodian of the liberties of the Press, among other things, and I wish to ask what is there in the circumstances that an individual is being prosecuted which prevents a reply to the question on the Paper?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Minister has stated that the ease in question is sub judice.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot see how any point of Order arises. I can only give the hon. Member advice on the matter.
§ Mr. BROWNWith very great respect, I understand that what is sub judice, at the present time—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is not a point of Order.
§ Mr. BROWNAm I not to be entitled to submit my point of Order? Is a legitimate point of Order to be denied expression because of disorder on the other side of the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWith regard to that, I am not influenced by either side of the House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf ally genuine point of Order is submitted to me, I am always willing to hear it and consider it.
§ Mr. BROWNSo we always understand. I have put a question relating to the conduct of the police in certain circumstances. I have had a reply that the action of a given individual is now before the courts. I desire to say to you that it is no answer to a question about the conduct of the police to refer to an individual case which is sub judice in the courts. The two things are quite separate and distinct, and I can see no reason why I should not have a reply to my question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is really not a, point of Order. I am not responsible for the answers given. If hon. Members are not satisfied with the answers, it is no fault of mine.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONArising out of the original answer, do the executive claim any right whatever of censorship over matter which may appear in the Press of this country?
§ Mr. STANLEYThe first part of the original reply which I gave indicated quite clearly that the executive, the police, do not exercise the practice of censorship over the Press.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs there no way in which we can protect ourselves against Members getting up and audaciously raising points of Order which are not points of Order?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am quite capable of dealing with those matters.