DISTURBANCES, STRAND (Hansard, 20 January 1969)

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)
Three demonstrations were organised on 12th January, and about 5,000 people assembled between 2 and 3 o'clock at Hyde Park and went peacefully to Downing Street where a petition was presented, and some of the crowd dispersed. The others moved on to Rhodesia House and attempted to break into the building but were prevented by the police. At about 5 o'clock, a large group broke away in the direction of South Africa House. The pre-arranged police guard of South Africa House had, unfortunately, been diverted. The crowd broke windows, and one man succeeded in getting into the building.
This was a deliberate attempt to turn a peaceful demonstration into a violent confrontation with the police. In the event, 32 demonstrators were arrested, and the courts are now dealing with them.
It was a mistake to divert the prearranged guard from South Africa House to near Charing Cross station in order to deal with a disturbance there, but, as the House will appreciate, these executive 45 decisions need to be taken quickly on the spot and they cannot always be right.

§ Mr. Hogg
Can the Home Secretary deal with two aspects of this matter which disturb me? The first is that, even on the assumption that an executive decision was made mistakenly, ought there not to have been more than one policeman left to protect South Africa House that afternoon?
The second is, ought not the Home Secretary now to be taking advice from his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General about the prevention of riot and unlawful assembly by indictment for those offences and not simply for summary offences which would be limited to those who are actually guilty of committing them? Was not this a riot, was it not an unlawful assembly, and was it not an affray?

§ Mr. Callaghan
I do not think that I should answer the last three questions, but, as regards the first. South Africa House was unprotected for a matter of minutes. It was a mistake made on the spot. The Commissioner has acknowledged it, and I think that none of us should push the point too far, because such mistakes can happen.
It is obvious that South Africa House should not have been left unprotected at any time during that afternoon, but there was a failure of communications. That was the reason for it. In view of the magnificent tactics of the police and the way in which they behaved, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not want to pursue that.
As to his second question, I am entirely out of sympathy with these Sunday afternoon revolutionaries. The Commissioner is in no doubt about my view that, because they allege that they are taking part in political protests, they are no more above the law than anyone else, and the police should have no inhibitions about arresting and bringing before the courts those whom they think proper.
I would remind the House that there are substantial penalties for offences such as assaulting the police, possessing offensive weapons and threatening behaviour. The courts can impose them. If they take a serious view of them, they can impose punishments, monetary or otherwise, which will cool the ardour of 46 offenders. I believe that that is the best way to handle the matter.

§ Mr. Whitaker
In view of the fact that Parliament has constituted itself the lawful Government in Rhodesia and that this has been confirmed by the Privy Council, is not the Union Jack the rightful flag for Rhodesia? Therefore, by what authority did the Metropolitan Police attempt to remove it from Rhodesia House?

§ Mr. Callaghan
I do not think that it would be useful to argue about that matter, and I do not propose to answer it today.

§ Mr. Sharples
While joining with the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of the police in this very difficult position, does he not agree that the indications are that the demonstration was planned in advance as an assault upon these two buildings? Will he not consider the suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), that the form of prosecution in cases of this kind should be different so that offenders can be brought before higher courts?

§ Mr. Callaghan
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and not for me. My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard what has been said, and I shall consult him about these matters, just as I keep in touch with the Commissioner about them.

§ Mr. John Lee
Can we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that no one has been prosecuted for entering Rhodesia House, in view of the illegal character of the present incumbents? In future, will he consider withdrawing police protection from the present occupants of that building, who are privy to an act of treason?

§ Mr. Callaghan
The answer to the first question is that no one has been charged. The answer to the second question is, "No, Sir."

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
In view of the fact that the protection of foreign embassies—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not an embassy."]—is a basic duty of every civilised country, in respect of these 47 buildings and others which have been attacked recently will he not make permanent provision for their protection? In the circumstances, will he not also pay tribute to the extreme gallantry and devotion to duty of the single police sergeant who defended South Africa House?

§ Mr. Callaghan
The protection of buildings, whether they are foreign buildings or those belonging to the natives of these islands, is a matter about which the police are constantly concerned and need no special instructions from me.
As regards the gallantry of those who took part, like the right hon. Gentleman, I was impressed by the behaviour of the police sergeant, but I would not wish to single him out, nor would he wish to be singled out, from any of his colleagues who were engaged on duties of a more or less similar nature.

§ Mr. Pardoe
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he was warned by my hon. Friends that the presence of the illegal régime's flag on Rhodesia House was likely to cause a breach of the peace? Was not the presence of that flag in part provocation for the riots which occurred?

§ Mr. Callaghan
It is not for me to comment on these matters.

§ Mr. Winnick
While all forms of street violence are to be deplored, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the flying of the illegal flag on Rhodesia House was deliberately provocative and meant to cause the maximum amount of embarrassment at the time of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?

§ Mr. Callaghan
These questions have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and no doubt he is answering them.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Private Notice Question. Mr. Stodart.