HC Deb 24 June 1943 vol 390 cc1302-4
40. Mr. Maxton

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Commissioner of Police, on Thursday, 27th May, and Saturday, 29th May, first interfered with and then prohibited poster parades by a limited number of people, representing the Indian Freedom Campaign, who were advertising a meeting to take place in Trafalgar Square to be addressed by, amongst others, the hon. Member for Bridgeton and for which the appropriate permission had been granted; whether this was done with his knowledge and approval; and, if so, what is the purpose of preventing the advertising of a perfectly legal meeting?

Mr. H. Morrison

The history of the matter is as follows: First, the Peace Pledge Union proposed to hold a poster parade on the subject of India, and were told by the Commissioner of Police that such a demonstration would be contrary to the Order under Defence Regulation 39E, which forbids political processions in the Metropolitan Police District. Then an organisation styling itself "The Indian Freedom Campaign" wrote to the Commissioner referring to his communication to the Peace Pledge Union, and saying that notwithstanding that communication they proposed to hold a poster parade in connection with a meeting to be held in Trafalgar Square. They were warned by the Commissioner about the provision prohibiting political processions, but nevertheless on 29th May they attempted to organise such a procession. This attempt was stopped by the police. The object of the police action was not to prevent the advertising of the meeting, for which it was open to the organisers to adopt other means, but to prevent infringement of the Order prohibiting political processions. The action taken by the Commissioner was in accordance with the general policy approved by me.

Mr. Maxton

Really, would the Home Secretary, with his wide experience of organising political processions, describe a procession of five people carrying posters as a political procession?

Mr. Morrison

As a successful organiser of political processions, I would never organise one with five. This was a breach of the Order, and the people who committed it knew that it was a breach of the Order, because one of them wrote to me personally, and I gave him the courtesy of a reply, and the net result was that he proceeded to defy the Order, in which case the police had to do their duty.

Mr. Maxton

Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the essence of my Question? Why should he support pettifogging action of this description by the police?

Mr. Morrison

I do not wish to encourage pettifogging action, but the police ought not to be faced with this difficulty by people with pettifogging minds sending five people out to break an Order.