§ 23. Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has approved an order to apply Section 3 (3) of the Public Order Act, 1936, prohibiting all public processions for three months in East London, when the intended Fascist demonstration could have been prevented by the operation of Section 3 (1) of the Act by the Commissioner of Police without the ban being extended to all political and trade union processions.
§ Mr. EdeSubsection (1) of Section 3 of the Public Order Act, 1936, confers no power on the Commissioner of Police to prevent the holding of any demonstration. I consented to the making of an Order under Subsection (3), being satisfied with the reasons given by the Commissioner, that serious public disorder would occur if the procession of the Union Movement were allowed to take place in this area, and that his powers under Subsection (1) were insufficient for the preservation of the peace.
§ Mr. PiratinIs the Home Secretary aware that Subsection (3)—and I hold the Act in my hand—says that only when the Chief Commissioner is not satisfied that Subsection (1) would be effectual should he introduce or ask for the operation of Subsection (3); and, as Subsection (1) has never been tried by the Chief Commissioner, why impose this ban on all organisations merely in order to protect Mosley's Fascists?
§ Mr. EdeThat was not the idea. I also hold the Act in my hand. In my opinion it would have been quite wrong of the Commissioner of Police to run the risk that would have been involved to the lives and limbs of His Majesty's subjects by relying only on Subsection (1) in this case. What occurred when Subsection (3) was in operation is, I think, ample proof of his wisdom in not relying on Subsection (1).
§ Mr. McGovernIs the Home Secretary aware that a large number of people in this country think that both Mosley's Fascists and the Moscow Fascists should be treated in the same way?
§ Mr. EdeAs far as I am concerned, and as far as the Commissioner of Police is concerned, all people are equal in the eyes of the law.
§ Sir Ronald RossIs it not one of the first and most important functions of the right hon. Gentleman's office to take all proper steps to prevent a breach of the peace and danger to life and limb by such an event?
§ Mr. HouseHaving regard to the violence that occurred at the Fascist demonstration last Saturday, would the Minister not think it wise to prohibit future open-air demonstrations by Fascists?
§ Mr. EdeI have no power to prohibit meetings or demonstrations. I am making an announcement later about the steps that I am proposing to take.
§ 27. Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foot police, mounted police and police motor cyclists were allocated to protect Sir Oswald Mosley's demonstration on 1st May.
§ Mr. EdeTwo hundred and ninety-seven foot police, 48 mounted police, 72 police in tenders and a wireless van, and six motor cycle orderlies were engaged on 1st May in carrying out the police duty of preserving order on the occasion in question. There were also 411 police in reserve, some of whom were used for a short time.
§ Mr. PiratinIs the Home Secretary aware that the figures he has just given must astound the House—nearly 1,000 police being used on May Day in order to protect the Mosley Fascists—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and is he further aware—and I regret that, unfortunately, the earlier Questions were not asked—of the way in which the police conducted themselves on that day, not preventing the Fascists from their action but rather beating up ordinary civilians on the streets.
§ Mr. PiratinIt is a fact.
§ Mr. PiratinWhat chance have they got?
§ Mr. EdeI am quite sure that, if the description given by the hon. Member were warranted by the facts a number of policemen would have been prosecuted. I will not make any further references to the legal proceedings pending, because some of the cases are still sub judice. These police officers were not employed to protect Sir Oswald Mosley or anyone else: they were used in order to ensure that a breach of the peace should be prevented, as far as it was within their power to do so.
§ Earl WintertonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with the exception of the Communist Party, the whole House is behind him in resenting the monstrous and untrue charge made against the police by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin)? Typically Moscow.
§ Mr. GallacherNonsense.
§ Mr. Sydney SilvermanCan my right hon. Friend say whether the figures really do amount to almost 1,000 and, if so, what ratio that bears to the number of people in Mosley's procession?
§ Mr. EdeThe figures I gave were not those in connection with the procession; they were in connection with the meeting held before the procession. I have not added them up, but I think they are slightly under 800.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not believe that we should advertise this business any further.
§ The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. H. HYND:
§ 24. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report from the Commissioner of Police about the Fascist demonstration in Central Hackney last Saturday; and whether he has any statement to make about the possibility of future incidents of this kind.
§ At the end of Questions—
§ Mr. EdeI thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to answer Question No. 24.
The answer is, "Yes, Sir." After considering the Commissioner's report and a further submission by him I have consented to his making an Order under Section 3 (3) of the Public Order, Act, 1936, prohibiting the holding of all public processions of a political character in the Metropolitan Police District, for a period of three months from midnight tonight. I have reason to believe that further processions are in contemplation by political factions and I am satisfied that in view of the present depleted state of the police, it is necessary to impose this prohibition if serious public disorder is to be avoided.
§ Mr. Eric FletcherWhile welcoming the statement which the Home Secretary has made, may I ask him whether, in view of the provocative Fascist meeting in 1433 Islington last Saturday, and the terror caused to a number of local inhabitants, he will also give instructions to the Commissioner of Police to direct meetings to be moved from the streets into parks or open spaces where they will be less likely to cause annoyance and complications to law-abiding citizens?
§ Mr. EdeI have no power to give such advice to the Commissioner of Police; neither has he power to enforce it if I gave him the advice.
§ Dr. Haden GuestIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the procession of Sir Oswald Mosley, when passing Holloway Prison, stopped and Mosley gave the Fascist salute? [An HON. MEMBER: "Very funny."] Possibly the hon. Member does not know that he was in prison there. Was not this action intended to be provocative, and should not every step be taken to prevent its recurrence?
§ Mr. EdeFor the next three months he will not be able to go in procession, either inside or outside Holloway.
§ Mr. PiratinWould not the Home Secretary be better advised to take steps to introduce legislation to ban Fascist activities completely, as has been requested in this House on more than one occasion? Further, can he justify the banning of all political processions of any kind in London—held perhaps even by the Conservative Party—in order to state that he is protecting the people of London from the Fascist menace?
§ Mr. EdeYes, after what happened last Saturday, I think there is every ground for making this further Order extending the period and the area covered.
§ Mr. PiratinWill the right hon. Gentleman reply to my first point, the complete banning of Fascist activities?
§ Mr. EdeI am not prepared to introduce any legislation banning, or making more difficult, free speech in any regions in this country.
§ Lieut.-Commander BraithwaiteFor the guidance of the House, can the Home Secretary tell us how many persons proceeding in company constitute a procession?
§ Mrs. Jean MannIs my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of parents throughout Great Britain, whose children made the supreme sacrifice in the last war in the fight against Fascism, are completely bewildered that this thing should be allowed to rise up again in London?
§ Mr. EdeAs I understood it, the last war was fought for the right of freedom of expression, among other things, and I am quite certain that mere suppression will not defeat this or any other movement. Let its arguments be stated, and let those who think them false refute them.
§ Mr. Warbey rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerWhy advertise this matter further? We have had a great many questions.