HC Deb 12 February 1970 vol 795 cc1438-41
13. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

asked the Secretary of State for Home Department whethter he will waive any charges for police protection required by cricket clubs in connection with the summer tour of the South African cricket team.

14. Mr. Wall

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now obtain reports from chief constables on the action which will be taken to safeguard the rights and property of those who wish to play or watch cricket with the South Africans later this year.

27. Mr. Carlisle

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from chief constables on the steps they are taking to protect county cricket grounds from further attacks on them.

52. Mr. Winnick

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has now reached on the charges to be made for police protection for the cricket grounds in connection with the proposed South African tour.

Mr. Callaghan

Where a chief officer agrees to provide special police services at any premises or locality in his area, Section 15 of the Police Act, 1964, provides that charges are payable to the police authority on such scales as may be determined by that authority.

I explained this to the representatives of the cricket authorities who had a preliminary talk with me recently. They have informed me that they will communicate with me again, and I shall then consult the chief officers of police in whose areas matches will take place. It is too early to estimate police costs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In view of the vulnerability of cricket grounds and the fact that cricket matches take several days, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that to apply proportionate charges to those which he told me a moment ago were applied for rugger matches would make these cricket matches financially unviable? [Interruption.] Would not that state of affairs, even though it be applauded by his hon. Friends, amount to enabling people to get their way by force?

Mr. Callaghan

This tour clearly raises substantial difficulties, because many people are opposed to the playing of games against South Africa. The strain upon the police will, therefore, be very severe, and the diversion of police from other duties to which the House would want them to devote their time is also likely to be great. We must look at all these factors together. I would not regard it as my duty so to penalise individual clubs as to achieve a result by that means that I could not achieve by other means.

Mr. Wall

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, within the framework of British freedom and toleration, it is his duty to protect the rights of majorities? If the majority of citizens want to watch cricket matches, why should they have to pay extra to protect their rights?

Mr. Callaghan

It is my job to protect the rights of majorities and minorities; it is, indeed, to protect the rights of everyone. The sheer narrowness of the definition of law and order fails to recognise that in that concept there must also be the concept of freedom and liberty to be preserved, and it is this difficult balance that I shall try to preserve.

Mr. Carlisle

I am sure the Home Secretary will agree that the duty of the police is to prevent any reasonably apprehended breach of the peace and, if there is evidence of organised disruption, surely the police have a duty to maintain law and order as part of their public duty at public expense?

Mr. Callaghan

This has been a consistent rule and indeed football clubs—not only rugby clubs—have for many years paid the police for protection of this sort. We must have regard to that too. If the hon. Member was suggesting conspiracy, I am not a lawyer, but this is a most difficult subject and I would hesitate to give an answer to a supplementary question on it this afternoon.

If I am now given an opportunity, may I say that, whatever personal views anyone may hold about the cricket tour, it seems to me that it would be interfering drastically and severely with our rights as a people if a small minority decided to make it impossible to play a particular game. Everyone is entitled to express his view, but I do not believe that we shall further the cause of liberty in this country if some people set out violently to disrupt the games, and I shall certainly try to discourage anyone who attempts to do so.

Mr. Winnick

Is not the real difficulty the foolish decision by the M.C.C. to invite the South African cricketing team? Is not the South African decision on Arthur Ashe further proof of the rigid selection policy of the South African Government? There is no justification for this tour, and the M.C.C. should withdraw the invitation.

Mr. Callaghan

The case of Arthur Ashe confirms the regretful views which many of us have formed about this policy. I notice that Arthur Ashe went on to say that he would not deny to the United States the admission of South Africans who wished to play there. If he did so, he would feel that he was falling to the level of the South African Government and he had no desire to do that.

Mr. Lubbock

While utterly deploring the damage done on cricket pitches and the threats of violent action against this cricket tour by certain individuals, may I ask the Home Secretary if he is aware that large numbers of police will be needed to control demonstrations at cricket grounds, irrespective of whether they are peaceful or violent? Does he think it is justifiable for the taxpayer and the ratepayer to bear what will be a substantial burden, and will he therefore suggest to the cricket clubs that they should foot the whole bill?

Mr. Callaghan

They have asked to see me again, and I will discuss with them the general financial arrangements, although that is a matter for each police authority to settle on its own. I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about violent interference with games. I have never had any doubt that the Liberal Party would be as much opposed to such violence as anybody else.