HC Deb 27 April 1966 vol 727 cc702-3
45. Mr. O'Malley

asked the Attorney-General whether he will make a statement in relation to the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions that no criminal proceedings should be instituted in respect of the events at the British Motor Corporation Works at Cowley on 4th March, 1966.

46. Mr. Walden

asked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning the alleged intimidation of certain workers at the British Motor Corporation at Cowley on 4th March, 1966.

The Attorney-General

The Director of Public Prosecutions consulted the Law Officers about his decision in this case. We all took the view that although the evidence obtained by the police did disclose a prima facie case that certain of the employees were intimidated by being, put in fear of personal violence, nevertheless there was insufficient evidence to justify proceedings against any identified individual. The preponderance of evidence showed that the shop stewards were not a party to that intimidation. Had there been sufficient evidence against any individual the Director would have instituted proceedings.

Mr. O'Malley

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his Answer makes it quite clear that the shop stewards who held the so-called workers' court were in no way acting contrary to the criminal law, and, secondly, that the manner in which this issue was raised by the Opposition was a dirty and unworthy smear against the whole of the trade union movement?

The Attorney-General

As I have said, the preponderance of the evidence suggested that the shop stewards were in fact trying to pacify the workers at this meeting, and were not acting in any intimidatory fashion.

Mr. Walden

Does the Attorney-General agree that if, in a similar incident, there were sufficient evidence against any individual, a prosecution could, and would, be instituted?

The Attorney-General

If there is ever evidence of intimidation and threats leading to the putting of persons in fear of personal violence, of course proceedings will be taken.

Sir J. Hobson

As the Attorney-General has admitted that there was intimidation in this case, and as it is the case that men who had refused to join an unofficial strike, and had refused to go on strike in breach of a procedure agreement which was binding on them and their union, had to pay money as a result of their intimidation, what do the Government intend to do about such situations for the future?

The Attorney-General

A prima facie case of intimidation was disclosed by the evidence obtained by the police, but that is as far as the evidence went. In the view of the Director and of myself, there was insufficient evidence to justify the taking of proceedings against any identified individual. With respect, the other matters do not seem to arise from the Question.