HC Deb 24 November 1947 vol 444 cc1749-60

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

11.44 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd (Hackney, Central)

My constituency has achieved some unenviable notoriety lately because it happens to contain Ridley Road where parties have come from all parts of London to conduct their meetings, but it is because this question has national implications that I invite the attention of the House to it even at this late hour.

On 30th October I asked the Home Secretary whether he had seen reports that Sir Oswald Mosley had threatened to come to Hackney to hold meetings, and what he was going to do about it. The Home Secretary, in a Written Answer replied: I have seen Press reports to this effect. I have no power to decide who shall or shall not be allowed to speak at a public meeting. It will be the duty of the police to preserve order and maintain the peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th Oct. 1947; Vol. 443, c. 122.] I yield to no one in my admiration of the Home Secretary's desire to preserve the right of free speech. He holds truly to the famous dictum of Voltaire that however much we may disagree with a person we should fight to the death for that person's right to put his point of view. But I submit that in this particular case there are very special features, and in connection with the reply, I invite the attention of the House to the fact that the Home Secretary said that he has no power to decide who shall or shall not be allowed to speak at a public meeting. It is a bit incomprehensible, and a bit worrying in a case like this, that the legal experts at the Home Office cannot advise the Home Secretary on how action should be taken. Yet when they wanted to stop leaders of the Left, they were ingenious enough.

It is within the recollection of the House that in 1932, when two leaders of the unemployed were going to address a meeting and the authorities wanted to stop them, the legal officers of the Home Office dug up a 14th century Act of Parliament, passed in the reign of Edward III, and on 30th December, 1932, the treasurer and secretary of the national unemployed workers movement appeared at Bow Street Police Court, and were ordered to enter into recognisances and find sureties for 12 months—in other words not to attend that particular meeting. Because they refused to enter into recognisances they went to prison for two months. They were Tom Mann and Wal Hannington. The magistrate, Sir Chartres Biron, in justifying the sentence, said that he, as a magistrate was sworn to preserve the peace. So am I, as a magistrate, and that is some justification for bringing this forward tonight. One of the correspondents of "The Times" said, in supporting this prosecution: Great injury results if a crowd gets out of hand, especially to the spectators on the fringe of it. Prima facie it does not seem unreasonable to require of any citizen that he should undertake to refrain from action which is calculated to precipitate such a situation. It is quite true the Labour Movement protested against using that Act in this way, but fortunately for me there is a more recent Act, the Public Order Act, and I am advised that under Section 5—it was laid down in the case Duncan v. Jones—it is the duty of the police to prevent any action likely to result from a breach of the peace by anyone, and that is the point I want to make on that part of the answer of the Home Secretary.

The other part of the answer says that it will be the duty of the police to preserve order and maintain the peace. I wonder whether the police can. I wonder whether the police can maintain order if Mosley comes to Hackney. In saying that I may be accused of incitement. I do not think that could be held for one moment. It would be burying our heads in the sand to ignore what will happen if Mosley goes to Ridley Road. We have the recent example only a week ago of the Memorial Hall in the respectable City of London. We have the even more recent example of how the Conservative Party at Market Harborough refused to allow their hall for a meeting of this man. And Hackney is very different from either the City of London or Market Harborough. Hackney is a place where, when the husbands and sons were away fighting the German and Italian friends of Mosley, the women of Hackney were being severely bombed by the German and Italian friends of Mosley and Mosley personifies what they had to suffer during the war. Furthermore, Hackney is a borough with a very large Jewish population and we know that many of those Jews have relatives who had first hand experiences of Mosley's friends and methods, and Mosley epitomises to them all those things that they feel so deeply about.

As a result of this, we had a deputation from the borough council of Hackney, from a town's meeting, and similar resolutions have been passed by the neighbouring boroughs of Shoreditch, Stepney and Stoke Newington. But in spite of that, these Fascists are getting bolder every week. Up to now they have been masquerading under the title of the British League of ex-Service men. I say that is an insult to the ex-Service men of this country, an insult to the British Legion, an insult to the 10,000 Jewish ex-Service men who were addressed by representatives of all three parties only three weeks ago, an insult to the Union Jack that they fly on their platform. Now, having become bolder each week, they are becoming more and more like the prewar Fascists. Only last evening I listened to one of their speakers at Ridley Road pouring out the cheapest and nastiest anti-Semitic stuff. They are emboldened by the recent decision in the Morecambe case of Caunt, and one of their spokesmen is now able behind a barrier of police to boast that he has won the battle of Ridley Road.

I say that this must stop. Mosley must be laughing at us and at the fact that a British Government should provide the police to protect him and his friends in this way, when he is using all the weapons of democracy in order to destroy democracy. I call upon the Under-Secretary, who apparently is to reply, to give us some hope that action will be taken by the authorities to stop this threatened meeting. Whatever the legal subtleties of the position are, common sense demands that we should not allow this thing to grow any further, for it is a thing that will surely destroy us if we are not careful, and if the Home Secretary still maintains that he has not sufficient power to stop Mosley attending this meeting, I say that he ought to seek further powers.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Goodrich (Hackney, North)

I intervene in this discussion to support my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd). We in Hackney, without the slightest doubt, are getting more than our share of disturbances. The residents of Hackney, irrespective of creed, are worrying themselves as to whether Mosley is to come to Hackney and create further disturbances. The latest position is that these Fascist people are getting very arrogant and have now reached the stage when they write more or less threatening letters to Members of Parliament to take certain measures. I would like to read this letter I have received: Sir: Regarding the petition you and others put to Mr. Chuter Ede, Home Secretary, last Monday evening. Such as I can afford to laugh at such as you for what you do. All you seem to try to do is to twist British people around to your own liking. The day will come, if you are not careful, when your alien masters will run you round to their liking. My eyes have been open now for years, and the British people are gradually waking up as to our enemies not outside Britain but within, and are joining movements that are 100 per cent. British. Also they are gradually turning to the greatest living Englishman, Sir Oswald Mosley, to lead them back to the days of sanity. I am an ex-Service man, first world war, Grand Fleet, and I beg to state where would such as you be today if it was not for the protection of the Royal Navy? Britain for the British, aliens last of all. Hail Mosley! I would draw the attention of the House to the last sentence: Mr. Chuter Ede has more brains than ever you will have. I am glad to know that they appreciate that my right hon. Friend has more brains than I have. If I had more brains than he, perhaps I would be in his position. I am not criticising my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; I know the difficult task he has, but I am asking, in support of my hon. Friend, that he will consult further with the Law Officers of the Crown to see whether it is not possible to strengthen further the Public Order Act. My view is that the cases stated by my hon. Friend, while excellent in their way, could be increased by further cases brought before the courts in order to settle this matter, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will realise why the people of Hackney are pressing him so much. There is a necessity to strengthen the Public Order Act, and to stop these meetings and disturbances.

My hon. Friend has said the police are exercising every power they have to prevent a breach of the peace. That is true, but, unfortunately, the protection they are exercising is not so much to prevent a breach of the peace as to ensure the right to hold the meetings, which create further disturbances in the minds not only of those present, but also of those not present who get to hear of what has gone on. I would ask the Under-Secretary to take the message of this Debate to his right hon. Friend, and ask him if he will consult further with the Law Officers of the Crown to strengthen the Public Order Act.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd (Bucklow)

I must express very great surprise that the Home Secretary has not felt it fit and proper to be here to answer this Debate. I cannot understand the reason that has kept him away on this occasion, but I do know that the right hon. Gentleman has written very laudatory words about Sir Oswald Mosley, and it may be that these words which, I hope he has occasion to regret now, are the reasons why he is not present to-night. I want to say that the people of Hackney, among whom I work every day, are really concerned about these meetings. They are really concerned about the advent of Sir Oswald Mosley, with all the paraphernalia of the totalitarian creed, and they feel that it is not right that this man should preen himself before the people resplendent with bodyguards in black shirts and coloured arm bands which are not consistent with our idea of public life in a democracy.

It may well be that the more sensible way of dealing with this situation would be to ignore this rather second-rate individual, and I feel that many of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and many of their supporters in Hackney and the East End of London—which I know well—are building up this mountebank once again. He has been very seriously deflated during the past five years, and we are witnessing the somewhat dismal spectacle of supporters of the Left Wing erecting him once more on a pedestal. It must be difficult to stand in Ridley Road and listen to the vileness of the utterances of the members of the Ex-Service Men's League. It would be much more in the interests of the Jewish community if they left this man alone, because I am convinced that if he is left to the obscurity he deserves, he will sink from notice. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That was said about Hitler."] That may have been said about Hitler, but I am not so foolish as to class Hitler with Mosley, or to class the mentality of the people of this country with the gullible mentality of the people of Germany.

I feel that the Home Secretary has a duty to deal with this issue. I feel that the interests of democracy in this country, and of public order, demand that some more action should be taken against Mosley than has been taken—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Communism."]—and Communism, as my hon friends say. That is a difficulty we are in—that the Communists are pursuing precisely the same-line as Mosley. I feel we should endeavour to impress on those who are so opposing him that the best means of preventing the regime which he is attempting to establish is to ignore him, because he deserves to be ignored. It is only by giving him fresh publicity that he will rally support and once more disgrace the British political scene.

12.3 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger)

I am well aware that the strong views which have been expressed from both sides of the House represent the strong views and deep anxieties felt in the country on this matter. I can assure the House that the strength of the feeling is fully appreciated by my right hon. Friend. I have been called upon, from both sides of the House in different terms, to do something more about this problem. The questions may be divided into two parts—firstly, "whether one can do something more with the existing powers, and, secondly, the question—hinted at by the last two speakers and which it would be out of Order to discuss—whether further powers should be taken by legislation. I do not think the House will expect me to deal in any detail with the question of new powers. I would only say that my right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that he has been, and is, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown as to the possible lines of action, should it be considered necessary for any fresh powers to be taken.

I think the strong feeling there is about this subject sometimes leads people who are apt to criticise the police to forget just how difficult and delicate is the task of the police. As my right hon. Friend said in answer to the question mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd), the duty of the police is to preserve order and maintain peace, and the whole crux of this question is: What is the criterion which the police are to use in intervening or deciding not to intervene in public meetings—mostly political meetings, but not necessarily always political meetings, where there is reason to fear a threat to order or to the maintenance of peace?

I would narrow the problem a little by asking the House to agree to two things with me about this criterion which the police ought to apply. First, I think we can agree that it would not be proper to ask the police to distinguish between political opinions which are desirable and political opinions which are undesirable and to take action accordingly. That is certainly not a discretion that the police would be glad to be granted, and I cannot think anyone, on either side of the House, would wish to give it them. Secondly, I think we can agree we could not ask the police to take action in advance to prevent the holding of a meeting which was, in itself, in no way an infringement of the law merely because they had some reason to think there might be an attempt at a breach of the peace. If the police were to adopt that as the criterion it would put a premium on violence, and mean that anybody could be stopped from holding a meeting or making a speech by any gang who made it known that they were going to make a row. I think there were some admirable movements, which started sometimes as small, sometimes as unpopular movements, which would have been nipped in the bud if that principle had been followed.

If the House will allow these propositions, I think we must fall back on what is the law, namely, that the police have the responsibility simply to prevent a breach of the peace, and to protect people who are going about their lawful occasions, and who wish to hold meetings or to make speeches in the perfectly normal way.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Are we, then, to understand that the Home Office is abandoning the proposition that it is the law of this country that it is unlawful to incite to race hatred and race discrimination?

Mr. Younger

No. I think I made it quite clear that it is the duty of the police to protect people who are engaging in their lawful occasions. What my hon. Friend has just referred to would be, of course, unlawful under the Common Law, I think, as well as under certain statutes, possibly. If the police were to abdicate the duty of protecting people holding prima facie lawful meetings, that would at once give rise to the growth of private armies organised to protect public speakers. We all know that that was beginning to happen with the growth of the Fascist movement before the war—a thing which the Public Order Act, 1936, was specifically aimed to prevent.

It was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney that there was a case in 1932 in which action was taken to compel a certain person to enter into recognisances to be—I do not know the exact phrase that was used—to be of good behaviour and to hold no more meetings; that he refused and went to prison. I would point out to my hon. Friend that, as he said, that was done under a very ancient Statute, the terms of which I have not with me. I think that what had to be proved under that Statute before action could be taken in the courts was that there was reason to believe the person was organising disorder or breaches of the peace.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

No.

Mr. Younger

I may be wrong about the exact phraseology of the Statute: I have not the text of it here. In any event, the point is that a decision has to be taken by the court, and, therefore, the action of the Home Secretary or the police in initiating action in the matter must be governed by the probability of their contention being upheld by a court of law. It is the standard of the court of law that upholds the law. There was another case mentioned, that of Duncan and Jones. I have not the judgment by me; but I think I am right in saying that that was not preventive action taken in advance of a meeting in the sense of prohibiting someone, but a case of taking action just before the meeting started, in the light of experience of previous similar meetings held just before, when breaches of the peace did in fact result. If such a situation were to arise in respect of a meeting or visit by Sir Oswald Mosley to the Hackney district, it might well be that some breach of the peace could be caused by these hypothetical circumstances, but I do not think that supports the contention of my hon. Friend, that even under existing powers the Home Secretary might possibly have the right to prohibit in advance the visit of Sir Oswald Mosley or anybody else in order to address a meeting.

Mr. H. Hynd

The hon. Gentleman says it is hypothetical. Has the Home Office any doubt whatever as to what will happen if Mosley comes to Hackney?

Mr. Younger

I do not think that is a thing on which I would like at the moment to commit myself definitely. I agree that what happened at visits of Mosley's colleagues to Ridley Road would encourage one to believe that if he himself went, there would be a considerable amount of trouble, and of course the police would have to take the necessary action, as they did, I understand, in the case of Duncan and Jones. Such action might be necessary to preserve the peace, but it was strictly correct to say, as my right hon. Friend did in answer to a Question, that he has not the power to prohibit anybody in advance from attempting to hold a meeting and to order the police to take any action until there is such evidence of an impending breach of peace as would be likely to satisfy a court before whom it would have to come. To suggest action any earlier than that is a very difficult proposition.

Lastly, while, as I said at the outset, my right hon. Friend fully realises the anxiety which is felt, and is in consultation about the possibilities of further action, and while he would certainly maintain that a constant vigilance about the activities of any movements of this kind is necessary, yet we would be unduly flattering Sir Oswald Mosley if we thought his activity today and his alleged recovery of political importance since his unfortunate experiences during the war justified the Home Secretary in taking any precipitate or ill-advised action which might possibly hit the liberty not only of Sir Oswald Mosley but of other more deserving citizens.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

I think we can all feel some sympathy with the able and sincere Under-Secretary of State in putting forward a series of arguments with which I cannot believe he has the faintest sympathy himself. The main thing which emerges is that there ought to be more powers, a point which cannot be discussed on the Adjournment; but it does also emerge quite clearly that there exist powers which should be exercised. This ancient Statute should be called upon to take Sir Oswald Mosley or some of these other people before the magistrate and bind them over. It may be a little distasteful to have to use it but you do get a bit smelly handling muck. The Statute has been used without hesitation in the past on more progressive elements and it should be used on the others. If you did not bring in more than one-tenth of the evidence we have got about the visits to Ridley Road, I am sure any magistrate would bind these people over without a moment's hesitation.

With regard to the possibility of using the Duncan and Jones powers, which are in effect that when people who seem quite harmless might cause a lot of trouble through other people resenting their meeting and opposing it, the reasonable and proper way is to close down the meeting. It does not much matter whether you close it down half an hour or half a day before. I want to object to the assumption made by the hon. Member that it is a question of distinguishing between undesirable and desirable political opinions. What we want the police and everybody else to distinguish between is, on the one hand, the most abominable manifestation which has ever disgraced mankind and on the other—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Fourteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.