HC Deb 12 March 1970 vol 797 cc1548-50
24. Mr. Strauss

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the recent seizure by the police of pictures from a London shop and the film from the Open Space Theatre were carried out with his authorisation.

Mr. Callaghan

These are matters for the police, not for me.

Mr. Strauss

But, since my right hon. Friend has responsibility for the police, does he not consider it ridiculous that the Metropolitan Police, who are understaffed and overworked with the increasing crime problems on their hands, should send a force of 32 constables to a small experimental theatre, which receives an Arts Council grant, to seize a film which had been suggested to it for showing by the Secretary of the British Board of Film Censors, and seize the projector and the screen? Can he at least assure us that this was a regrettable and isolated incident and does not mean that there will be a repressive "Mrs. Grundy" campaign to restrict this sort of thing in London?

Mr. Callaghan

The police must enforce the law as it now is. Two well publicised cases can hardly be regarded as a campaign. But I want the House to recognise, as many hon. Members do from their correspondence, that there is a great deal of concern in the country at the moment about the amount of pornography which is being sent unsolicited through the post—[HON. MEMBERS: "This was not pornography."] Because of this, the police are getting many more complaints than they have had in the past, and they must respond to those complaints.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

But would not the police be much better employed checking the disgusting hard core of pornography and activities like those of the Julian Press than pouncing upon an experimental arts theatre?

Mr. Callaghan

I am not drawing distinctions between the two, because it is not my place to comment upon the individual cases which may be, are or have been in front of the Director of Public Prosecutions. What I am saying is that this is a social matter, that there is a great deal of pornography about which is causing a great deal of concern to many people in this country, and that it is the general desire of the average person in this country that it should stop.

Mr. Michael Foot

Does my right hon. Friend not recognise that there is a serious question of civil liberties involved in this matter, that some people have had their property taken away by the police and their perfectly legitimate activities interfered with by the police, and that the Home Secretary, instead of answering the question, has referred vaguely to questions of pornography? Does he not think that that justifies the demand for an independent inquiry, so that we may really see what was the cause of what happened on that occasion?

Mr. Callaghan

I have said to my hon. Friend on two occasions that this matter is before the courts—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not."]—and that therefore I do not intend to comment on it—

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary is under a misapprehension in saying that this matter is before the courts. As I understand it, the Director of Public Prosecutions has said that no prosecution is to take place.

Mr. Callaghan

I apologise. My hon. Friend is right: this case was before the courts, but it is not now before the courts. Therefore, it would be possible for me to comment on the individual actions of the police. Broadly speaking, I want the House to know that I shall support the police when they act in response to complaints from the public in investigating these matters. It may be that, on occasions, they will make mistakes of judgment, but I know perfectly well that the country as a whole is extremely alarmed by what is going on in these fields.

Mr. Michael Foot

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