HC Deb 26 July 1939 vol 350 cc1589-96
Mr. Pritt

I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after "he," to insert "reasonably."

This deals with the right of search and similar matters. Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he suspects of having committed an offence under this Act or any person whom he suspects to be a person against whom an expulsion order or a prohibition order has been made. I want to have the word "reasonably" inserted.

Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 39, after "he," insert "reasonably."

In line 42, after the first "person," insert "so." —[Mr. Pritt.]

The Chairman

The next Amendment I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

Mr. Benn

Do I understand that you are not calling the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and myself in page 4, line 1, setting a time limit on the period during which a suspect may be kept under arrest without warrant?

The Chairman

That is so. I am not selecting it.

Mr. Benn

Do I understand that you do not select any of the Amendments dealing with this point?

The Chairman

No, that is not right. The Amendment in page 4, line 2, which I am calling, is the second of two Amendments of a similar effect.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 2, at the end, insert: Provided that no such person shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours except with the authority of the Secretary of State expressly given in each case."—[Mr. Pritt.]

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Maxton

I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out "or in any other place."

The purpose of this Amendment is a simple one. I am not urging the Secretary of State to tie himself to this particular Amendment, but I do think that to give the Minister power to detain a person affected by this Measure anywhere—the words are "may be detained in any prison or in any other place" —gives much too general a description. I am not attempting to bar the use of a police station or any authorised place of detention. I understand that in some of the courts there are recognised places where aliens under sentence of deportation can be detained. I do not for a moment object to the use of such places for this type of case, but to give to the police the power to keep prisoners in any unauthorised or secret place seems to me to be a very great departure which I am sure goes outside the intention of the Home Secretary. I would rather that the right hon. Gentleman would agree to insert in the Clause some words that would make that quite impossible.

9.36 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare

I can give the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) an assurance that will, I think, satisfy him. The words "or in any other place "mean a police station, I am informed, and nothing else. They mean also that if it was necessary to keep a person in custody for two or three days while representations were being heard, arrangements for his removal to a prison would be made, so that he could be kept only in a police station or in prison. I agree with everything which the hon. Member said about the grave objections to having any place of confinement other than police stations and prisons. I will look into the wording and see whether, in another place, it can be made more clear that that is so.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Ede

It seems to me to be a great pity that, if a police station is meant, that is not said. After all, when in this Committee we allude to another place, we certainly do not mean a police station.

Sir S. Hoare

I have said that I will look into the wording.

Mr. Ede

There is another point that I want to raise. Is any notification to be sent to the relatives, if known, of the person who is arrested, of the fact that he has been arrested and the place of his incarceration, whether temporary or permanent? As the right hon. Gentleman has admitted more than once, we are dealing with an exceptional Measure. There are, of course, instances at the present time where the police of other States visit a person, take him away, and his relatives and friends have no knowledge of where he is, and do not know anything about him. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to make a provision which may place citizens of this country in that very difficult position merely on the suspicion of a police constable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that, as soon as possible after arrest, the relatives, if known, will be notified of the man's arrest and informed of the place of incarceration.

Sir S. Hoare

Certainly, I will look into that point, and I do not think I shall find myself in disagreement with what the hon. Member has said. I do not think the question arises specifically on this Amendment, but I undertake to look into it.

Mr. Maxton

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out "justice of the peace," and to insert "Judge of the High Court."

The object of this Amendment is to make a search warrant dependent on the decision of a judge of the High Court and not a justice of the peace. In drafting a number of these Amendments, I have simply gone through the Incitement to Disaffection Act and found out where this Bill is, from the point of view of search warrants, more rigorous or looser, whichever way one puts it, than the Incitement to Disaffection Act; and nearly all these Amendments have derived from that examination. I know that it is the right hon. Gentleman's desire to hasten, and judges of the High Court are, by the very nature of their important office, available in London and elsewhere. It may be that the difficulty of location is troubling the right hon. Gentleman, but the trouble is that there are so many different kinds of justices of the peace.

9.41 p.m.

The Attorney-General

An exception was made in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Act. In a very large number of Acts, the search warrant is issued by justices of the peace. I do not want to revive old controversies about the Incitement to Disaffection Act, but certain misapprehensions, which happily proved to be unfounded, were then expressed which led to that exception to the general rule being made. I advise the Committee to stick to the ordinary constitutional precedent of having search warrants issued by justices of the peace, particularly having regard to the very great urgency which there may be in some cases. It is the search warrant that has enabled most of the 64 cases where convictions have been obtained to be brought before the court. This is the normal procedure for search warrants, and I recommend the Committee to stick to it.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Stephen

I know something about the introduction of the provision regarding a judge of the High Court in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, because it was I who drafted the Amendment that was carried. I would like now to suggest that the Government should compromise on this matter, and that instead of the reference being to one justice of the peace, it should be to two justices of the peace. That would make the position correspond to what would be the case in Scotland, where it is the sheriff. [Interruption.] In Scotland, the sheriff corresponds to practically a bench of magistrates here. I think the Government ought to consider this suggestion. The fact that the assent of two justices of the peace rather than one justice of the peace had to be obtained would give a certain weight to the action, and there would not be the same tendency to act irresponsibly.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 18, leave out "procuration," and insert "instigation."ߞ[Sir S. Hoare.]

Mr. Pritt

I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, after "is," to insert, "knowingly."

Mr. Benn

I should like to raise a point on this Amendment. I am concerned with the position of a man who finds himself landed with an order, is not told why the order is made against him, and knows himself to be perfectly innocent. I want to know what his position will be. Supposing that a man comes to my house or to the house of my agent and says, "I am an Irishman, I have received an order to leave, but I am innocent." I may say or my agent may say, "I will make representations to the Home Office and in the meantime you may stay the night here." Is that to be considered as harbouring a man against whom it is known that an order has been served, and can a search warrant be issued in that case? As I have said already, I do not want to stand in the way of this Bill. If it can get at the people who are committing these crimes, then let that be done, but do not let us, because we are afraid to examine the Bill in detail, pass all sorts of powers which may lead to great injustice.

9.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General

The words, if this Amendment is accepted, will be "who, knowingly, is harbouring any other person so concerned." The justice of the peace would, of course, make up his mind on the information before him, but he has to be satisfied that it is a case of knowingly harbouring a person concerned in the preparation of such acts of violence.

Mr. Benn

That means to say that the justice would have the power in a case such as I have mentioned, to issue a search warrant. If a person on whom an order had been served went to a friend and asked for his assistance to get in touch with the local Member of Parliament and have his case put to the Home Office, and if the friend asked that man to stay at his house, he would be knowingly harbouring a person on whom an order had been served and his house could be searched.

The Attorney-General

The person has to be a person "concerned in the preparation of such acts of violence" and not a person on whom an order has been served. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the case not of a person concerned in the preparation of acts of violence, but a person against whom an order has been wrongly made. I think that, on the whole, these words are favourable to the case which he has put forward.

Amendment agreed to.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson

I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, after "may," to insert: on an application made by an officer of police of a rank not lower than that of inspector.

Sir S. Hoare

I accept this Amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. Henderson

I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "any," to insert "such."

This Amendment is consequential.

The Attorney-General

I do not think this is consequential. This would mean that an officer of a rank not lower than that of inspector would have to be present whenever a search warrant was executed. That we do not regard as administratively practicable.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

I am afraid I misled my hon. and learned Friend by telling him that this was consequential. I recognise that it is no good having a search warrant unless you can serve it quickly, but in connection with these searches abuses may and sometimes do arise, and it is not a very strong requirement to say that it must be done by an officer of a certain rank.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 27, after "time," insert "within one month from the date of the warrant."ߞ[Mr. Pritt]

Mr. Pritt

I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, at the end, to insert: Provided that if a search warrant under this Act has been executed on any premises it shall be the duty of the officer of police who has conducted or directed the search to notify the occupier that the search has taken place, and to supply him with a list of any documents or other objects which have been removed from the premises, and where any documents or other objects have been removed from any other person to supply that person with a list of such documents or other objects. These words I have taken from the Incitement to Disaffection Act in this country. Even in Germany, when it was a civilised country, they had very strict rules of this kind and they were carried out even in periods of the greatest stress. Young men who are provided, I suppose, with more explosives than money, and who come from another country to cause trouble here, are generally to be found, one presumes, in lodging houses and similar places where many different kinds of people, having no particularly close ties with each other, are also to be found. These people will have all sorts of miscellaneous bits of property. When the police have gone some things may be missing and I can well imagine Mr. A alleging that Mr. B's missing property must have been taken by the police and this leading to a breach of the peace and further legal proceedings. If it is necessary to carry out a search in a hurry, let it be carried out in a hurry, but at any rate tell these people many of whom are not even charged with or suspected of any offence, what you have stolen from them.

9.53 p.m.

The Attorney-General

If in the execution of a search warrant, the police did steal something, they would be liable to the ordinary process of the criminal law just the same as anybody else. All that the search warrant entitles an officer to do is to take articles which he has reasonable ground of suspecting to be evidence in relation to these matters. If he takes any article which he has no reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of these matters, he is just as much liable as anybody else who takes an article which he is not entitled to take. The hon. and learned Member said these words were taken from the Incitement to Disaffection Act. Again, I do not want to raised old controversies, but it was suggested that the search warrant under that Act might be used to search peoples' libraries. I do not think that arises at all in connection with this Bill.

There is an additional reason why this Amendment would be undesirable. The police might find documents the nature of which it would be extremely desirable to keep secret. If this Amendment were passed they would be compelled to give to the occupier who might not himself be involved, particulars of all the documents which had been found.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Leslie

I should have thought the Minister would have been more reasonable in this matter. We all know that the Irish are extremely clannish and that young Irishmen like to lead a communal life. The result is that quite a crowd of them will board together. Imagine what may happen. The police make a raid and ransack the belongings of the inmates of a house, taking away papers and other things, and no list of the articles is left behind. A man gets a summons, and he may or may not accept the statement that the police have ransacked his belongings and taken his goods away. You can imagine what might happen in a boarding house. Surely it is not too much to expect that when the police ransack the belonging of the individuals in that house, they should give a list stating that they have been there and taken from the house certain articles, so that nobody else would be suspected of doing what the police have done. Surely that is a reasonable request.

Amendment negatived.

9.57 p.m.

Sir R. Acland

I beg to move, m page 4, line 34, to leave out "it appears to."

This Amendment goes with the next Amendment to line 35, and is one which, in my submission —

The Attorney-General

We are prepared to accept these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 35, after "superintendent," insert "has reasonable grounds for believing." —[Sir R. Acland.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.