§ Mr. S. Silverman(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the case of the six persons now serving a sentence of two months' imprisonment in default of entering into recognisances to be of good behaviour; and whether he will make a statement.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)As I informed the House yesterday, it is open to these persons to appeal under the 1659 Magistrates Courts (Appeals from Binding-Over Orders) Act, 1956. Despite the fact that an appeal is available for these persons, and the obvious difficulty of making a statement about this case, I remember that hon. Members yesterday raised the question of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.
I must tell the House that, on the information at present before me, I am not aware of any special considerations which would justify me in making a recommendation to Her Majesty.
§ Mr. SilvermanDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise that to keep these people in prison, especially at such a time, is repugnant to the whole spirit of a free society? Is it not perfectly clear that no charge was ever brought against these people, that they were not convicted of any offence, that they have committed no offence, that the leaflets which they distributed were perfectly lawful leaflets and that the meeting which they wished to call was a perfectly lawful assembly?
Is it not absolutely intolerable that this ancient mediaeval Statute should be called in aid to prevent free, lawful, law-abiding and responsible citizens from exercising the civil liberties which these terrible weapons presumably are intended to defend?
§ Mr. ButlerI realise the difficulties, but these persons can secure their release at any time by obeying the order of the court, and they would be perfectly at liberty to do so. Alternatively, they have the right to appeal.
§ Mr. SilvermanDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the order of the court was made precisely to prevent them from exercising the perfectly lawful rights which they have and that it is an abuse of the courts and of the process of the courts that such—it is neither a prosecution nor a charge— proceedings should be brought in cases of this kind? Was not the original Statute meant to deal with rogues and vagabonds? Is it really suggested that these people are rogues and vagabonds?
§ Mr. ButlerI am informed—and I cannot interfere with the administration of justice—that the order of the courtequired these six persons to give sureties of£100 for twelve months to be of good 1660 behaviour, to keep the peace, and, in particular, not to take part in or to encourage any breach of the peace, with particular regard to establishments dealing with nuclear warfare.
§ Mr. EdeIs not the purpose of the Statute under which these persons have been prosecuted the preservation of the Queen's peace? I understand from what was said yesterday that the prosecution originated with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for the preservation of the Queen's peace. Was there any consultation between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Home Office before the prosecution was launched?
§ Mr. ButlerI have no information which will enable me to answer that question.
§ Mr. DoughtyIs it not the case that these people were convicted—
§ Mr. SilvermanNo, they were not.
§ Mr. Doughty—of committing acts encouraging violence—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."—and of publishing documents to encourage acts of violence—
§ Mr. SilvermanNo, they were not.
§ Mr. Doughty—and encouraging others to acts of violence, and there was evidence that they intended to continue those acts, and that the very usual and proper process was followed of binding them over to find sureties to keep the peace in the future?
Mr. LewisWhen I first raised this question yesterday I went to great lengths to explain to the House that the leaflet which has been circulated—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman may only ask a question. I cannot allow him to make a speech.
Mr. LewisMay I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the leaflet particularly emphasised that there should be no violence, that these people should not cause any disturbance and that if the police tried in any way to assert the right of law they themselves should succumb to the law? If these people had been found guilty of any offence, surely the only offence was to say that those who were going to demonstrate should take no action in direct 1661 conflict with the law? Therefore, why should not the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, exercise his prerogative to allow these people to be released at least for the Christmas period, or at least until we meet again in January, so that we can debate the matter?
§ Mr. ButlerI cannot intervene or upset the order of the court. I have studied very carefully whether the Royal Prerogative would apply in these cases. It would apply only if there were very special circumstances. I have not at present before me any special circumstances which would, in my opinion, justify me in making a recommendation to Her Majesty. Subject to not receiving any further information or special circumstances, I could not alter my present decision.
§ Mr. BurdenMay I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether it is not a fact that, in the past, in similar circumstances these people have forced entry into military establishments and had to be removed by the police by force, in very unfortunate circumstances? Secondly, is it not a fact that the leaflet which has resulted in their coming before the courts and being asked to give recognisances is worded in precisely the same way and would be liable to create circumstances similar to those which have appertained in the past?
§ Mr. ButlerI must leave the decision and the judgment to the courts. I am aware of previous incidents. In this case, I must go by what the court decided.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerI should like to follow up the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows, and can tell us, whether or not he had consultations with the Director of Public Prosecutions? Surely he must know the answer to that question?
§ Mr. ButlerAs far as I am aware, there was no such consultation. I did not give any very definite answer, because I myself had had no contact with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I received notice of this only late last night. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the answer is in the negative.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
1662§ Mr. SpeakerI would point out that I have the interests of other hon. Members today much in mind. Clearly, we cannot debate this matter by question and answer.
§ Mr. SilvermanI realise, of course, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot ask leave under Standing Order No. 9 to move the Adjournment of the House, because the rest of today's proceedings are, in any case, debates on the Adjournment, and, therefore, that procedure would scarcely be appropriate. However, having regard to the fact that the rest of the day is devoted to debates on the Adjournment, and that by a custom of the House the selection of subjects for the debates on the Adjournment rests with you, may I suggest to you that there is enough interest, enough importance and enough urgency in this matter to justify a short debate on it this afternoon?
§ Mr. SpeakerI make a selection in advance to help the House. Now there will be extremely little time to debate the subjects which have already been selected. In those circumstances, I can give no warranty at all that there will be time for any addition to the list of matters already notified for discussion on the Adjournment.
§ Mr. OramIf an hon. Member who has a subject for discussion on the Adjournment which you have chosen, Mr. Speaker, is willing to withdraw, would that time be available for a short debate on this subject?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt would depend, I suppose, on some consideration of the position of the Minister concerned in the matter, whether the circumstances were such as to allow him sufficient time to equip himself with knowledge so that he could reply. Should those circumstances arise, I would prefer to consider them when they did and not on a hypothetical basis now.
§ Mr. SilvermanFurther to what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, about taking into consideration, as is only right, the position of the Minister concerned, may I remind you that only a few moments ago the Home Secretary said that, as at present advised, with his present state of information, he saw no special reasons for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative? I suggest that it might very well 1663 be that if we had a little more time than is available to us in supplementary questions arising out of a Private Notice Question we might be able to provide the right hon. Gentleman with such reasons.
While I appreciate that there is some unfairness involved in respect of hon. Members who have subjects for discussion which have already been selected, it is true that this matter was raised so late in the week that it would not have been possible to put it to you earlier when the selection of subjects was made. I submit that this is the kind of emergency when some elasticity in the arrangements for the last day of the Session might be appropriate, and I again suggest to you that it might be advisable, that the House might prefer, to have a short debate, lasting perhaps half an hour, on this very important matter.
§ Mr. ButlerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might help here. It is unusual, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will know, for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to be invoked during the period when an appeal lies. It is unusual because if we were to do that it would make considerable difficulties in other cases. The Royal Prerogative has occasionally been exercised during the period of appeal. The period of appeal lies for 14 days in this case, and the six persons involved have the opportunity of appeal and the opportunity of obeying the order of the court.
In the circumstances, I do not believe that I can add very much, but I am available, subject to the limitations that I have mentioned—namely, the period of appeal—to listen to any special circumstances, and I am certainly available to any hon. Member who wishes to put special circumstances before me. However. I very much doubt whether I can 1664 add very much more today, at this Dispatch Box, for the reasons which I have given.