HOUSE OF COMMONS PRECINCTS (DISORDER) (Hansard, 26 January 1955)

§ Mr. George Craddock (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why mounted police were used outside the Palace of Westminster last night with the result that constituents of the hon. Member for Bradford, South were unable to enter the Palace to see their Member.

§ Mr. Parkin
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Home Secretary replies, may I, with permission, ask your guidance on a matter concerning the interpretation of the Sessional Order which has to do with the dignity and reputation of this House?
Last night I had made an appointment to see at this House a deputation from a branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union which is affiliated to my Labour Party in Paddington. I discovered the Central Lobby to be fairly full—not as full as I have seen it—but St. Stephen's Hall was empty. When I went to the door of St. Stephen's Hall I arrived at a moment when mounted police were clearing the electors outside from the pavement, and I was hailed by a constituent and was able to get him into the House.
I came back to the Chamber and asked for assistance from the Chair, which the Chair, at that time, was not able to give. I went out again, to find that mounted police had cleared all the citizens from this side of the road and had got them over and pinned them against the railings. Various little incidents were going on; an elderly man was knocked down, a woman was being pushed against the railings, and so on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must say that very few of the interruptors opposite are in a position to contradict what I am saying-[Interruption]—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must now come to his point of order.

§ Mr. Parkin
My point of order is this: that I then went across to find—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My point of order must be based on my experiences, which I will try to make clear. I went across to the other side of the road, recognised one of my constituents and spoke to him.
166 I managed to gather together five of them and was bringing them over when I was ridden down by a mounted policeman—[Laughter.]

Hon. Members
What is funny about that?

§ Mr. Parkin
His remark, I think, in answer to me, was "Don't argue. Get these b…..s out of here.
Now, Sir, I am not making any personal complaint about the conduct of that officer, who was merely carrying out—with relish—the orders he had received; though I must say that it is not the sort of treatment to which we are accustomed from our own police who act under your authority through the Serjeant at Arms. There, there is quite a different adjective.
This is my point of order. There is a sudden shift of authority. I have no doubt that if your authority had been exercised out there in the same kindly, paternal way that it is exercised in our own Palace here, there would have been no trouble. The outside public sees in this—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order? "] I am asking whether a decision, for instance, that citizens shall not come to this House, with or without an appointment—it was said that no one could see an M.P. last night without an appointment, but an appointment did not make any difference—and apparently the decision was not yours, Mr. Speaker—means that the police are subject to a political "boss."
If that is so, it is a very serious thing for this country, because it calls in question which citizens can come to this House, and when and what kind of questions can be asked of Members of Parliament. The question, therefore, which I wish to ask you is whether, in interpreting the Sessional Order of this House to keep the streets around, and access to, the Palace of Westminster clear, the Commissioner of Police acts under your authority or uses his own discretion?

§ Mr. Speaker
So far as I can distinguish the question which the hon. Member has addressed to me, my answer, certainly, is that the Commissioner of Police acts under the instructions of this House in the Sessional Order, but the way in which he exercises his authority is a matter for him, subject to the control of the Home Office and the Secretary of State 167 for the Home Department. I have absolutely nothing to do with the police outside this House.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Further to that point of order. On the account of the matter which my hon. Friend has given—and which, I am sure, we would all accept—is there not clearly a breach of Privilege involving a Member of this House? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly; at least, I would submit that if it is the fact that a police officer actively interferes to prevent an hon. Member of this House from taking a small party of his constituents into the House, that is a clear interference with the execution by a Member of the House of Commons of his public obligations and prima facieis, therefore, a breach of Privilege.

§ Mr. Speaker
We must keep these things straight. A Question has been asked by Private Notice and an answer has not yet been given. After that has been concluded I shall have an opportunity to deal with the submission of the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given an answer to my hon. Friend's question on a point of order but, in my submission and with respect, you have left out a very grave matter; that is, that a Member of Parliament was not only interfered with in the course of his duty, but appears to have been knocked about by the police. It seems to me to be a very grave matter indeed. It seems to me that it is absolutely essential, for the protection of hon. Members and in the interests of the dignity and authority of this House, that a statement should now be made from the Chair on that point—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I was not guilty of any omission. The hon. Member who raised the point of order was careful to say that he made no personal complaint. Therefore, I did not deal with a nonexistent complaint. Major Lloyd-George.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George)
The answer to the Private Notice Question is as follows. In pursuance of the Sessional Order it is the duty of the police to take all necessary steps to keep free and open the passages through the streets leading to this House 168 and to prevent disorder in those passages.. Last night a crowd of persons congregated outside St. Stephen's Entrance and as congestion was caused and the crowd was becoming disorderly the police found it necessary to disperse it.

§ Mr. George Craddock
In view of the unsatisfactory nature—

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Members desirous of taking their seats please come forward.
Later—

§ Mr. G. Thomas
On a point of order. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend, whom you called, Mr. Speaker, did not complete his question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and that we were dealing with a question of the Privilege of hon. Members of this House and the rights of the British public, and that you assured my hon. Friend that we would have an opportunity to put our questions after the Minister had made his statement, is it not unfortunate that, despite the fact that we rose to our feet, not one of us was allowed to press the Minister on the statement that he had made?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The taking by a Member of his seat is itself a question of Privilege and cannot be interrupted by any point of order. I understood the hon. Member who asked the supplementary question to say that he was going to raise the matter again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has never been my intention to prevent a question of Privilege being raised. It was simply because there was this first point of Privilege, namely, the admission of a Member, which had to come first. Now that that has been done, I call the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to make his statement on Privilege.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary point of order to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas)? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) gave notice to ask a question by Private Notice which you, Mr. Speaker, permitted, and, by so permitting, agreed that it was a matter of more than 169 ordinary importance. One question was put—the original Question—to which the Home Secretary gave an answer, and no supplementary question was put at all. My hon. Friend was on his feet to put one and apparently changed his mind and sat down without putting it, or without making any declaration of what his intention might be.
At that point, my hon. Friend and myself were both on our feet, intending—certainly in my case, and I believe in his —to put a supplementary question, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, especially in a matter of great importance such as this, that it is a great pity if questions to the Home Secretary should appear to be stifled, especially from the Chair.

§ Mr. Speaker
It would certainly be a very regrettable thing if such an impression was created. I was told—I could not myself hear, I admit, for the noise—that the hon. Member had said that he would raise this matter on the Adjournment.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I ask the hon. Member if he did so.

§ Mr. George Craddock
I did not say that, Sir. I was saying this: "In view of the unsatisfactory nature," having regard to the fact that I spent an hour outside, I know precisely what took place. [HON. MEMBERS:" Oh!"] I am entitled to see my constituents.

§ Mr. Speaker
The House is putting the Chair in a very difficult position when, having asked the hon. Member. as I am entitled to do, what he did say, the House then prevents me from hearing him again. I do ask the House to maintain silence while the hon. Member answers my question. My question was: Did the hon. Member give notice that he was going to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

§ Mr. Craddock
No, Sir. What I said was "In view of the unsatisfactory nature," and then there was a noise on the other side of the House.

§ Mr. G. Thomas
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, as it is now perfectly clear that my hon. Friend hesitated and did not give notice, you will permit a question to the Minister on the statement that he made to the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is a rather difficult situation. I certainly did hear the first part of the hon. Member's notice, and he 170 now tells me that he did not, in fact, give notice that he was going to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I must accept his word absolutely, and in view of that, if there is a supplementary question that can be asked, I shall be prepared to allow that to be done.

§ Mr. Bevan
Is it not perfectly clear that what is at issue here is whether the police so carried out their duties and the Sessional Order as to interfere with the Privilege of a Member of the House? That is what is at issue at the moment. I understand, from what the Home Secretary has said, that he has limited his report to what he has been told by the police authorities, but a great deal more information has been provided this afternoon by hon. Members who were immediately involved. Does he not, therefore, consider that he would have to re-examine what the police have reported to him in the light of these statements?
I respectfully submit to hon. Members who have had longer experience in this House than I have, that there was not an unusually large attendance by deputation last night, outside or inside the House, I have seen far larger.

§ Mr. Speaker
There is no Question before the House. What I have allowed is a supplementary question to the answer given by the Home Secretary, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself to that.

§ Mr. Bevan
That is exactly what I was putting in point of fact. The argument is being advanced here that the police carried out their duties in a way to interfere with the privileges of hon. Members, and my first question to the Home Secretary is this: will he not, in the light of these statements, investigate the whole matter and make a further report to the House? My second question, having regard to what I have been saying, is: does he not consider his report to be rather peremptory and inadequate in the circumstances? Important questions are involved. Thirdly, I put it to him, with all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that it has always been understood that in civil demonstrations in London the employment of mounted police invariably exacerbates the crowd. That has been submitted on many occasions in this House. Will not the Home Secretary, 171 therefore, make representations that in such circumstances mounted police ought not to be used?

§ Mr. Paget
May I put a point of order, before that question is answered? My right hon. Friend having said that the point at issue is whether the police duties were carried out in a manner which conflicted with the privileges of Members of this House, is it not for the Committee of Privileges, and not for a Minister of the Crown, to investigate them?

§ Mr. Speaker
No submission has yet been completely made to me upon the question of Privilege. We are at present dealing with supplementary questions, and I hope that we may soon pass to any other issue that is raised.

§ Major Lloyd-George
On the first supplementary question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which concerned the interference with the privileges of Members wishing to see their constituents, I would only say that that is the very reason why the police took the action which they did. The privilege of constituents seeing their Members was almost completely stopped by a deliberately organised attempt to make that impossible—[Interruption]. I have very good information upon this matter. Incidentally, I have eyes as well as other hon. Members, and I saw a good deal myself. Between 2.30 and 6.30 the queue numbered only about 400, and consisted mostly of people from the provinces. They were very well looked after, and completely organised, even to the extent of being told how they were to lobby hon. Members. Even their children could be looked after.
There were sandwichmen in the streets, distributing leaflets asking people to come here. The queue, which between 2.30 and 6.30 p.m., numbered about 400, increased after 6.30 to about 4,000, and consisted mostly of Londoners. At 7.45 p.m. the police officer in charge did what I think it was his duty to do. He warned the crowd—which was getting a bit noisy and slightly disorderly; singing songs, and so forth—[Interruption.] I think that as far as we are concerned we have better manners than to do it here. At any rate, the crowd was getting disorderly, according to his judgment, and he did what was quite right by broadcasting the fact that, in his view, they were making a disturbance in an area prohibited by Sessional 172 Order of this House, and he begged them to disperse. Later, the crowd became noisier, and he made another appeal over the broadcast system, again referring to the Sessional Order and saying that if the people in the crowd did not disperse he would have to disperse them.
I think that the police action was perfectly justified. The officer in charge was acting under an Order of this House. If the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) had difficulty in getting here, I am surprised. I am sure that if he had made himself known he would have got through. His difficulty in seeing his constituents was caused by the deliberate action of people who set out to create that difficulty.

§ Sir Frank Medlicott
Is it not a fact that the police were last night engaged in the overriding task—[Laughter.]—in the essential task of protecting the privileges of this House as a whole? Is it not, therefore, advisable that the greatest care should be exercised in the making of accusations against them in individual matters? The clearing of the streets around the House has traditionally been a matter of vital importance, and we should support the police in doing what is their rightful duty.

§ Mr. G. Thomas
Whilst bearing in mind the fact that those responsible for keeping order last night had a most unpleasant and unenviable task, and appreciating the part which the London police play in helping the general public, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that the riding of those horses into the middle of the crowd served to provoke disorder rather than prevent it? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire again into what happened outside this House, as it was very disturbing for everyone to see what was happening?

§ Major Lloyd-George
The whole operation of controlling this substantial crowd—for it was a substantial crowd—from 7.50 to 8.20 p.m. could not have been done more quietly. and it was done most effectively.

§ Captain Waterhouse
Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that I happened to be leaving the House at precisely 8.15 p.m. and noticed that the traffic was then held up all around Parliament Square and down Whitehall that the mounted police moved quite slowly from 173 this House across to the Square, and that if it had not been for their action it would have been quite impossible to have gained access to or to have left this House at all?

Mr. Norman Smith
Is it not the Minister's intention to proceed against persons who, seeking to intimidate hon. Members, deliberately organised a mass demonstration yesterday upon the precincts of the Palace of Westminster?

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) mentioned a matter of Privilege. An unusual position has arisen, because the question was originally raised by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), who was careful to say in his submission to me that he had no personal complaint. It was upon that that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne wished to raise the issue of Privilege.
I feel that the question of Privilege is a very serious matter and one not to be lightly invoked by this House if it is to maintain its full force. Therefore, having heard only a partial account from the hon. Member for Paddington, North of what happened to him, I am unable to make up my mind whether he thinks that he was deliberately molested when he was trying to reach the House—which would undoubtedly be a prima facie breach of Privilege—or whether he considers himself to have been a victim of the disorderly conditions that were prevailing outside. I should like to hear from him whether he considers that what happened to him amounted to a breach of Privilege.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Before my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—I shall wait. Before my hon. Friend answers, might I make it perfectly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of Privilege which I wish to submit to you in due course is not confined to the complaint which has been made by my hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Speaker
In that case, I need not trouble the hon. Member for Paddington, North.

§ Mr. Silverman
I should like, respectfully, to say, first, how completely I 174 humbly agree with what you have said, Mr. Speaker, about not raising questions of Privilege lightly. Privilege is the heaviest weapon that the House of Commons can use, and ought not to he used except in matters of the gravest urgency. Having regard to what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I submit that it is impossible for anyone to suppose—and I am putting it very strongly, advisedly—that a prima facie case of breach of Privilege has not been made out. If the situation was entirely as the Home Secretary described it, that would be an end of the matter, but he gave us that description only at a later stage in the discussion—rather too late a stage, if I may respectfully say so.
What he said was clearly based upon reports made to him by the persons against whom complaint is made. That is not to say that they may not be right; it is to say that they cannot be regarded as judicial pronouncements at this stage —nor can the remarks of the "Daily Worker" or anybody else. If my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) is correct in what he has said, namely, that there was an organised attempt by any body to prevent constituents from arriving at the House to see their Members, it would clearly be a breach of Privilege. If my hon. Friend's account turns out on investigation to be a better and truer account than that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, it is conceded that it would show a prima facie case of breach of Privilege.
What I am submitting is that where questions of Privilege, some on one side and some on the other, are so clearly raised by so many hon. Members, it would be quite wrong for anybody to decide at this moment that no case had been made out or that a case had been made out, and that, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, completely fulfils the definition of a prima facie case. The matters that have been raised on all sides are so clear that it does seem that there is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege which the House, in its own best interests, would do well to refer to the Committee of Privileges, so that the matters can be properly considered, with all the evidence made available to the Committee.

§ Mr. Paget
May I make this very short submission, Sir? It is clear that the ordinary working of this House was interfered with by somebody last night. We do not know by whom, but we have a Committee whose job it is to investigate that, and my submission is that, when the workings of this House are interfered with, it is not necessary to specify by whom. That is for the Committee of Privileges to investigate.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not the duty of Mr. Speaker at any time to say whether a breach of Privilege has occurred or not. He is only asked to give his opinion whether a prima facie case exists or not. The guardian of the privileges of this House is the House of Commons itself. To found even a prima facie case of breach of Privilege, there must be a definite complaint of breach of Privilege. I have heard none such. That would not close the matter. It has been raised at the earliest possible moment. If the matter is crystallised, and if facts are brought to my notice of any definite act constituting a breach of the Privileges of this House, the House will be ready to consider it, but, at the present moment, no such definite complaint has been made to me. Therefore, I rule that there is no prima facie case of breach of Privilege. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue this matter on the present evidence, his remedy is to put down a Motion for the consideration of the House.

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have ruled on the matter of Privilege. Is this another point of order?

§ Mr. Turner-Samuels
I understand that you have ruled that there was no prima facie case of breach of Privilege, among other matters, and that you based your ruling on the fact that no complaint had been made, Sir. May I point out that a statement of fact was made by my hon. Friend that he had been seriously interfered with as a Member of Parliament? It seems to me, with respect, that in those circumstances no complaint is necessary, because the very fact that a Member of Parliament has been interfered with should in itself be sufficient to raise a prima facie case of Privilege.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have listened to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, 176 but I adhere to my opinion. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) wished to ask a question on business. Although it is irregular, I will allow him to do so now.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
I wish to ask a Question about business. Yesterday, the Leader of the House was good enough to say that the Government proposed to take tomorrow the two Motions to appoint the Estimates Committee and the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, through what I may describe as the unusual channels, that day is not convenient to some of us, and I therefore ask him whether he would consider deferring the consideration of these two Motions from tomorrow for another few days?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I did receive representations by those most concerned in the matter, and, in view of that, it is not proposed to take these two Motions tomorrow. They will have to be taken next week, because we must get them dealt with; but I shall be making the usual statement on business tomorrow.