HC Deb 07 December 1961 vol 650 cc1534-8

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

59. Mr. G. BROWN

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that an organisation known as the Committee of 100 is planning to demonstrate at Wethersfield and other places on Saturday, 9th December, with the declared intention of disrupting the prison and police forces; in view of the fact that these proposals threaten to lead to a breakdown of law and order, what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 59.

My right hon. Friend has been informed of the intention of this body to obstruct the entrance to a United States Air Force headquarters, to attempt to enter two airfields occupied by United States forces, and to hold demonstrations which may involve breaches of the law in Cardiff, Bristol, York and Manchester. He understands that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has authorised the taking of all necessary steps, in consultation with the police and the United States Air Force, to prevent unauthorised entry upon the airfields; and he has no doubt that in the other areas any necessary action will be taken by the chief officers of police concerned.

My right hon. Friend would like to take the opportunity of pointing out that these airfields are prohibited places within the meaning of the Official Secrets Acts, and that under Section 1 of the Act of 1911 any person who, for any purposes prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, approaches, or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any such prohibited place, is guilty of a felony. It is important that there should be no failure on the part of those planning the demonstrations to appreciate the gravity of the offences for which those participating in them may render themselves liable to be prosecuted.

Mr. Brown

Is the Minister aware that, while there is plenty of room for argument about the merits of this case, and while no one wishes to prevent people from taking every lawful opportunity to demonstrate their feelings—as far as I am concerned, if they want to sit in Trafalgar Square they can sit there as long as they wish—infiltrating into an airfield under modern conditions is a highly dangerous operation, highly dangerous to other people as well as to those doing it?

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that a declared intention to disrupt the forces of law and order—the police and the prison officials—cannot be permitted in a modern democratic State? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman therefore ensure that, in order that we support the police who have to carry out this operation, plans are laid well in advance to make sure that the forces of law and order are operative from the very beginning?

Mr. Renton

I greatly appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said It is for the reasons that he has mentioned that we have taken these precautions, which we are quite sure will be effective.

Mr. Wilkins

May, I first, make it quite clear that I am not a supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? May I ask the Minister of State how he comes to embrace in his reply the position in Bristol, where there is no airfield, and where, according to today's Press reports, or yesterday's newspapers received today in London, the C.N.D. demonstrators have given an undertaking that their procession will be of an orderly character? They do not wish to disrupt in any way the life of the city and they have simply sought permission to hold a public meeting after their procession.

That is the extent of the threat, if that is what it is called, in what these people propose to do. I am concerned with the preservation of civil liberties and the right of people to hold a peaceful demonstration if they so wish. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to say why this is linked with the proposal of sit-down or passive resistance at airfields.

Mr. Renton

Those who are planning these operations have referred to their intention to stage demonstrations in Bristol as well as in the other cities that I mentioned. It is the responsibility of the chief officer of police in each of those cities to ensure that law and order is upheld.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is reported in some sections of the Press that the demonstrators, or some of them, at these airfields are actually paid by the Committee of 100? Can he confirm that?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Minister is not responsible for these observations in the Press.

Mr. Shinwell

Is part of the Government's plan to prevent disorder to search people's homes and, in the process of searching them, to refuse to allow people to telephone their solicitor?

Mr. Renton

Any question concerning application for a search warrant is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The question of the steps to be taken by the police in obtaining search warrants, and so on, is part of the ordinary process of maintaining law and order.

Mr. Fletcher

Does not the Minister think that, in the interests of law and order, if premises are searched the sooner people have an opportunity of taking legal advice about the position the better?

Mr. Renton

Yes, and I do not think that anyone has been prevented from taking legal advice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. Member is referring to the complaint which has been made by Mr. Dixon, according to my information a fellow resident whose room had already been searched visited the room of Mr. Dixon while it was being searched and asked if he could use the telephone. The police inspector who was present said that he would prefer him to wait until the search had been completed, which was in five or six minutes. Of course, it is open to Mr. Dixon to make any complaint to the Commissioner of Police in accordance with Statute, but I see no ground for action on my part.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. All that the Question was about was the maintenance of law and order in these particular circumstances and not all these sort of things.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. The Minister of State has referred to the Government's plan to prevent disorder. Obviously, part of the plan, which was referred to yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who sought to raise the matter by asking for the Adjournment of the House, refers to interference with the liberties of the subject. What I want to ascertain from the Minister of State, or from the Attorney-General, whoever is responsible, is why anybody was prevented from using the telephone to discuss the matter with a solicitor or anybody else. What right have the Government to interfere with the liberties of the subject?

Mr. Speaker

This is not a question to the Attorney-General. It is a question to the Secretary of State by the Home Department, which is being answered by the Minister of State.

Mrs. Hart

Is the Minister aware that it is open to him to institute charges against anyone who breaks the peace on Saturday under other enactments than the Official Secrets Act? Is it not as grave as possible an interference with civil liberties that the Official Secrets Act should be invoked?

Mr. Renton

May I enlighten the hon. Lady? It is not for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to institute charges against anybody, because he is not a prosecuting authority. The prosecuting authorities are the chief officers of police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mrs. Hart

Is the Minister aware that according to a precedent in 1924, the then Attorney-General told the House that it was the responsibility of the executive Government to consider the public interest in any prosecutions of this kind that were made?

Mr. Renton

I have stated the constitutional position as it is and as it has been for many years. If there is a so-called authority to the contrary effect, I would naturally, bearing in mind that it is so many years ago, wish to have an opportunity of considering it. In any event, I would have thought that the right person to consider such a matter was my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Gaitskell. Business Question.

Mrs. Hart

On a point of order. May I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment?