HC Deb 20 June 1958 vol 589 cc1553-64

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

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Brockway.

Sir Charles Taylor (Eastbourne)

On a point of order. As, Mr. Speaker, there were only 40 Members who voted in the Division, is not the House automatically counted out?

Mr. Speaker

There was a total of 39 Members in the Lobbies, plus four Tellers, and plus myself, which raised the figure of Members present to more than 40.

3.3 p.m.

Mr. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

This is the third time that this subject, with my name attached, has been on the Order Paper for the Adjournment Motion. On the first occasion the House was counted out and on the second occasion there was a requirement of a regretted personal compulsion which prevented me from being in my place.

I should like to apologise publicly, as I have done personally, to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for having detained him on the two previous occasions when, I am sure, he had many other duties to perform. If I may, I should also like to extend that apology to the staff of the Home Office who find it necessary to be in the House on such an occasion.

I propose, first, to describe the incident out of which this issue arose and then to analyse the reply of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to a question which I put to him on the matter and which seems to me to raise much bigger issues.

During the weekend of 6th, 7th and 8th April there was a march to Aldermaston of many thousands of people who are opposed to the making, the storage and, obviously, the use of the hydrogen bomb. Those who organised the march arranged for three deputations to put the case of the Aldermaston marchers to the British Prime Minister at 10, Downing Street; to the American Ambassador and to the Ambassador of Soviet Russia. I was one of the deputation which, on the morning of 8th April, went to the Soviet Embassy. The deputation was composed of well-known and, I think, respected persons.

There was the Rev. Michael Scott, whose work, particularly on behalf of the African populations, is revered very widely. There was Mr. Hugh Brock, editor of Peace News, a paper which now has a wide circulation, and which is influential in its appeal for peace. There was Mrs. Sheila Jones, a physicist who actually worked at Oxford on the development of the atom bomb. There was Mr. Michael Randle, representing large numbers of the younger generation who took part in the march. There was myself.

When on that morning I came into Kensington Palace Gardens where the Soviet Embassy is situated, that distinguished avenue was almost empty. Except for the little group of the deputation who were waiting at the gate for me, two Press photographers, two uniformed policemen and one milk cart, I do not think that there was anyone in that street at all. I mention that because of some of the terms of the reply from the Secretary of State.

When we came out from the embassy, after our interview, there were present two senior officers of the Metropolitan Police; I am not positive about whether the two constables were still there. As we came out of the gate, we were asked to give our names and addresses to those two senior police officers. I never was one to hide my name—though recently I have been inclined to regret the fact that my address is so well known. I gave my name freely, as did the others. It was required of us, without any suggestion that this was a voluntary act on our part. But, after this, we had some discussion with the police officers, asking whether this was usual; asking whether this was compulsory. They said no, it was not compulsory, but this interrogation was carried out in certain cases and at certain embassies.

I wish to acknowledge that until the Secretary of State for the Home Department made his reply in the House of Commons, I took the view that this police questioning was due to the enthusiasm of an over-zealous police officer, and I was prepared to accept it as an example of that kind. But when I put my Question in the House and received the Answer from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I felt that such serious issues arose that I was justified in asking for the Adjournment debate for which I am now responsible.

I propose to read the Question and Answer so that they may be fully before the House. They appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 17th April, when I asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the members of a deputation from the Aldermaston marchers to the Soviet Ambassador on 8th April were asked to give their names to police officers on leaving the Embassy; Why they were only informed in subsequent discussion that they could decline to provide this information; and how far this is the practice in the case of visitors to embassies in general and to the Soviet Embassy in particular? The reply which I received from the Secretary of State for the Home Department was as follows: It is the practice of the police to ask for the names of members of deputations visiting certain embassies at which disturbances have occurred on previous occasions. I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that there was no implication of compulsion to give the information on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, and I am discussing the matter with the Commissioner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 32–3.] Why do I think that there are important implications in that Answer? First, the reply begins with the statement that It is the practice of the police … That shows clearly that this was not just the action of an over-zealous officer. It shows clearly that it was part of the customary behaviour of the police when deputations call upon certain embassies. It was not an isolated incident; it is part of normal police practice. I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for this practice on the part of the police. Is it the Commissioner of Police, or is it an instruction of the Home Office? Has the Home Office issued to the police instructions that they must interrogate deputations to embassies in this way?

The Answer of the Secretary of State continues: It is the practice of the police to ask for the names of members of deputations visiting certain embassies"— Certain embassies? Why this discrimination? What is the reason for saying that a deputation which goes to one embassy shall be questioned and that a deputation which goes to another embassy shall not? Is this questioning limited to the embassies of the Communist countries? If it is wider than that, may we hear from the Joint Under-Secretary how far this practice extends? Why should there be any discrimination between any embassy which represents a Government with whom we are in normal friendly relations and any other embassy?

The Answer proceeds: . at which disturbances have occurred on previous occasions. The implication there is that disturbances might occur again, or, particularly, that disturbances might have occurred on the occasion which I have described. On that peaceful spring morning in Kensington Palace Gardens, when the road was empty except for the five members of the deputation, the police officers and a milk cart, was there any justification for interrogating the members of the deputation on the ground that a disturbance was likely to occur?

The Answer proceeded to say that there was no implication of compulsion. Some of the members of the deputation had had public experience and were not likely to be intimidated by the police. In the normal course of events, if a British citizen is approached by a police officer and asked to give his name and address it is assumed that the police officer has the authority to require it. I say emphatically it was not until after the names and addresses had been noted and the official proceedings with the police had concluded, that, in an informal discussion with those police officers, that it was suggested at all to us that there was no compulsion for those names and addresses to be given.

Lastly, I draw attention to the concluding words of the Answer, "I am discussing the matter with the Commissioner". The Secretary of State for the Home Department has not told me since 17th April, when he gave that Answer, what the result of the discussion has been. I am, therefore, asking the Joint Under-Secretary of State, this afternoon, that in his reply he shall report to me the result of that discussion with the Commissioner by the Secretary of State, on a subject which has now been on the Order Paper on three occasions.

I do not think that any interpretation of what I have described, other than the one I am now going to give, could be accepted by reasonable men. Can anyone doubt the real reason for this interrogation? Does anyone seriously believe that the police feared a disturbance on that occasion? Does anyone really believe that in that empty street it was thought that there would be an attack upon the members of the deputation, that the embassy required protection, or that the prestige of the British Government required to be protected because an incident might occur outside the embassy of a foreign Power? I have only to mention this possibility for us to dismiss it as utterly ridiculous, and as something for which no argument could be urged.

I suggest that the real reason why the police asked for the names and addresses of the members of that deputation and of deputations going to foreign embassies on other occasions, is that the police wish to record the names and addresses of those who are regarded as a little outside the "Establishment," the nonconformists of our society: the pacifists, the Socialists who do not always voice the views of a Front Bench, persons such as those who regard the hydrogen bomb as a crime against life now and the life of coming generations. I have no doubt that the police already have bulky dossiers of the Rev. Michael Scott, and Mr. Hugh Brock, as I know they have of myself. I am afraid that Mrs. Sheila Jones and Mr. Michael Randle may now be added to the file of Scotland Yard.

On the occasion of this Adjournment debate I want to protest against the attention which is paid to men and women in this country who may stand for a cause which appears to be unpopular at a particular period, but who go about their protest in a perfectly legal, constitutional and normal political way.

The Under-Secretary will not convince me that if this deputation had been from a chamber of commerce, from the Convocation of the Church of England, the Trades Union Congress, or had even represented the Opposition Front Bench, the police authorities would have required names and addresses when the deputation met at the embassy. The reason for this interrogation was that these people were regarded as people who stood for views in society which are not accepted by Her Majesty's Government, not necessarily accepted by Her Majesty's Opposition, and which are regarded—as they are in the first stages, but never in the last stages—as lonely voices in a society which does not accept them.

I say to the Under-Secretary that this is a characteristic of the police State. It is a beginning of the police State. It is typical of the kind of thing which we condemn in Communist countries. Many of us love liberty, many of us regard freedom as the basis of democracy. For that reason, I make no apology for raising this issue in the House and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give a reassuring answer.

3.29 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

I am glad the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has raised this matter this afternoon, for we all need to be vigilant about safeguarding the rights of people who go about their normal ways. I am, however, most surprised at some of the exaggerated views which he has put forward and with which I shall try to deal.

In reply to his Question about the result of discussions between my right hon. Friend and the Commissioner of Police, what I shall be saying this afternoon is the result of those discussions, and I shall answer the hon. Member very fully indeed. Although we have a need to be vigilant about safeguarding the rights of ordinary people to go about their lawful ways, the Government of this country, and indeed of any civilised country, has a duty to protect foreign diplomatic missions from any embarrassment, disorder or hostile act. Those missions have a right to expect such protection, and, of course, our own missions abroad expect that protection abroad.

Unfortunately, disturbances and disorders do take place at embassies and consulates here and abroad. We read of them in the newspapers. Sometimes they take place here. Recently, I remember reading of a demonstration in Copenhagen which will be known to the hon. Member if he has read his newspapers this week.

Mr. Brockway

And appreciated.

Mr. Renton

No doubt appreciated by him.

To prevent such incidents or to take such action as may be needed in respect of them, precautions have to be taken, and they necessarily have to be taken by our police, whose function it is to give protection. The steps which have to be taken by the police vary with the circumstances.

The hon. Member inquired about the practice of the police of asking for names and addresses, and it seemed to me that by implication he also asked about the authority for it. A police officer on duty has, by long tradition, custom, and precedent, always a right to ask for the name and address of a citizen, but the citizen has never been under compulsion to answer the question unless the policeman makes it perfectly clear that he is trying to detect a crime which has been committed, or to obtain witnesses of a crime, or to arrest somebody, or to prevent the immediate commission of another crime. Broadly speaking, therefore, except in those circumstances the citizen is under no compulsion to give his name and address. I greatly appreciate the fact that the hon. Member and his colleagues gave the police their names and addresses without any hesitation, and, if I may say so, I think that it was to their credit that they did so.

What about the practice which prevails in the Metropolitan Police, in cases where the police have this duty of protecting foreign missions in London? As was said in Answer to the Parliamentary Question to which the hon. Member referred, the police follow that practice. The hon. Member asked whether that practice was the result of any instructions given either by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or by the Commissioner of Police. The answer is, "No." There have been no instructions given to that effect. The position is that the senior police officer on the spot, who often will be of the rank of inspector or sergeant, has a discretion, and it is in the exercise of that discretion that the practice has grown up. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.

Mr. Brockway

If the case is that this is done to prevent a disturbance outside an embassy in order that the ambassador may be protected, how can it be a possible justification when the deputation was invited to go to the embassy, when there were only five in it and when otherwise the street was empty? How can that be a possible justification and reason for the action?

Mr. Renton

As I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have anticipated, I shall deal with that. As I have said, I shall answer him fairly fully and, if he will bear with me, I shall deal with that and other points.

It has been the practice in this country for a great many years, and in other countries, too, to post a police officer for special duty outside any embassy or consulate that has been the scene of disturbances or incidents in the fairly recent past, or whenever there are reasonable grounds for believing that a disturbance might arise and that the embassy might need protection. Sometimes, of course, embassies specifically request that there shall be a police officer posted nearby. I do not say that that arose in this particular case. So far as I know, it certainly did not. It was not likely to have done.

In any of the circumstances that I have mentioned in which it is necessary to post a police officer, the degree of attention to be given to the headquarters of the diplomatic mission must vary according to the estimate which the Commissioner of Police forms of the circumstances at the time. Sometimes it will be necessary merely to post one police officer with, perhaps, access to a telephone. At other times, it will be necessary to bring in quite an amount of police support. That occasionally does happen although, I am glad to say, very rarely.

If one or two police officers are posted, they have to keep a watch on all visitors to the embassy and on other people in the neighbourhood, to detect any potential trouble maker and, if possible, to prevent any undesirable conduct or demonstration. Embassies, of course, have many visitors, the vast majority of whom are going about perfectly legitimate business with the Embassy or making normal social calls, but there is always the possibility, which has to be foreseen, that among those peaceful and law-abiding visitors there may be someone with a grievance, an agitator, or merely a crank, whose purpose might be questionable.

The police, as in many other delicate tasks which they have to perform, must have freedom to act as the situation requires. As I say, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis has issued no standing instructions as to the taking of names and addresses, nor has he attempted to prescribe in advance the action to be taken in particular circumstances; and the circumstances vary so much that it would not be feasible to lay down standing instructions.

This practice in the Metropolitan Police District of asking for names and addresses, which has, as I say, prevailed for many years, has prevailed particularly with regard to the attendance at embassies of deputations to present petitions or for other purposes. It is a reasonable safeguard, because sometimes the embassies do not know that these deputations are coming. They wonder whether or not they should let them in, and sometimes, if the names and addresses have been taken, the police can even facilitate the entry of a deputation to an embassy—

Mr. Brockway

But these were taken after we went.

Mr. Renton

These were taken afterwards, I quite agree. In the case of the deputation from the Aldermaston marchers to the Soviet Embassy, there was a departure from the normal practice in that the names and addresses were not sought until after the deputation had left the embassy. But there was nothing sinister in this. It was simply due to the fact that, when the deputation arrived, the police officer on the spot thought that it was inopportune for him to make his inquiries at that stage. He may have been right or wrong. He used his judgment in that way and he had an absolute right to exercise his discretion about when he would check names and addresses.

Sometimes, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it can be very helpful to the police and to the embassy to have the names and addresses of people as they leave. It could happen—I do not say that this could possibly have arisen in the case of the deputation which the hon. Gentleman accompanied—that people whose names and addresses had not been taken beforehand had got into the embassy perhaps not even noticed by the police and not expected by the embassy people. The embassy people would then complain to our own authorities, and would have a right to complain, if the deputation had created a disturbance inside.

Although the circumstances are very exceptional in which the police ask for names and addresses as people are leaving an embassy, nevertheless it is justifiable in certain circumstances and can be very helpful as a protection to the embassy. I want to make it clear, however, and to emphasise, that there is no question whatever of the procedure which I have described being peculiar to the Russian Embassy or peculiar to embassies on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Similar measures would be taken at, for example, the United States, the French or any other embassy if the circumstances should so require.

Mr. Brockway

But they were not taken.

Mr. Renton

How does the hon. Gentleman know about that?

Mr. Brockway

There was a deputation of an exactly similar kind to the American Embassy and the police did not ask the members of that deputation to give their names and addresses.

Mr. Renton

That may well mean either that there had been no recent incidents at the United States Embassy and no reason to have a police officer posted, or it may be—I do not know whether it is so or not—that there was a police officer posted there, or several, and that in the exercise of their discretion which I mentioned earlier the police did not consider it necessary to take the names of the Aldermaston marchers' deputation. For all I know, the police may even have been warned by the embassy officials.

This is essentially a matter for the police in the exercise of their discretion. The Home Secretary is determined that our duty to give proper protection to representatives of other countries shall be properly discharged, and the arrangements which the Commissioner of Police makes for that purpose have his general approval. As I say, there are no standing instructions attempting to guide individual police officers as to what they shall do in this circumstance or that, but the general arrangements as to the posting of police officers, to be there should the need arise for the embassy to be protected, have my right hon. Friend's general approval. There is nothing in the incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred to alter my right hon. Friend's view that it would be undesirable to lay down general rules on this subject.

I think that the only other point which I need mention is this. If those arrangements which are made from time to time for the protection of embassies, generally at the request of the embassies, were to break down, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would be among the first to protest. There is not the slightest question, as he suggested, of the police being desirous of taking people's names because they were outside what he was pleased to call the "Establishment." There is not the slightest question of that, and it would be an injustice to the police officer concerned to suggest that it was so. He was doing his duty as he thought best.

I will conclude by emphasising two points which I have already mentioned. First, the taking of names of people leaving an embassy is most exceptional. Secondly, there is no question whatever of the procedure which I have mentioned being confined to the Russian Embassy. It applies to other embassies as circumstances require.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

The procedure of taking the names of people leaving an embassy is not only exceptional; it is indefensible. The Minister knows that very well. Of course, we are responsible for the safety of ambassadors who come here. Nothing could be more reasonable. Indeed, it is part of the necessary procedure of providing security and protection to people who come as our guests or who are entitled to our protection for the police at the embassy to inquire the names and business of those who go there. Nobody would dream of objecting to that.

To say, however, that, when people have been received, it is necessary to take their names in case there should be a subsequent complaint from the embassy or the embassy would want to know who they are is an entirely different matter. Embassies keep a visitors book, of course. When one calls at an embassy, one's name is taken inside. When people have gone on a deputation to an embassy and they come out, and they are not, as my hon. Friend says, on the "Establishment", they tend to be regarded as what has been contemptuously referred to as trouble-raisers or agitators. Every reformer has been. Everybody who has ideas is. It is a process of intimidation and nothing else, and it is thoroughly lamentable. The Minister knows that.

One can understand perfectly well how this sort of thing happens. There is a policeman there, a bit excited, with a lot of people about. He missed them going in and he thought he had better take their names as they came out. That is all there is to it. It is quite understandable. But, when something like this happens, which is plainly indefensible, why cannot the Minister come to the House and say, "I am very sorry. There was a slip. It will not happen again"? It would make for so much better feeling between the agitators and the police, between the ordinary man and the Government.

When the big man in authority has the bigness to say, "I am sorry. I slipped up here", not only is the offence forgiven but it is more than forgiven. Nine times out of ten feelings between the citizen and the Department which had the grace to apologise are far better afterwards than if no offence had ever occurred to apologise about. I wish that Departments would realise this.

Mr. Renton

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) did not hear the whole of the debate, and I am not sure that he heard all my speech. I pointed out that there could obviously be circumstances in which it might be helpful to the embassy for the police to have taken the names of people as they came out.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Four o'clock.