§ 5. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the outcome of his consideration of arrangements concerning public meetings and marches, with particular reference to those by racialist organisations.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI am continuing to consider the law on public order. The law on incitement to racial hatred has only recently been strengthened, but I am also considering its adequacy in the light of recent events.
§ Mr. AllaunBut since incitement to racial hatred is illegal, will the Home Secretary, without further inaction, ban all marches and public meetings by the National Front, which admits that it is a racialist party, or by any other racialist organisation?
§ Mr. ReesThe question of incitement is a matter for the law, and there were many discussions on this during the passage of the Criminal Law Act, which amended the Public Order Act. As Home Secretary, I shall never be in the position that I was in in Northern Ireland—I grant, in a different context—of saying that I will ban a march on a subjective evaluation on my part, however much I detest the views of the people who are going to march. The best way is to do that through the process of law.
§ Mr. Alan ClarkLeaving aside all the humbug about racialism, will the Home Secretary tell the House how many members of the so-called Socialist, so-called Workers' Party have been charged with violence against the police, and how many members of the National Front have been charged with violence against the police? If he does not have those figures in his brief—the Home Office is not too keen 893 about producing figures that it does not like—perhaps he will hazard a guess on the distinction and ratio.
§ Mr. ReesThe hon. Gentleman is extremely foolish in his latter remarks, but, taking his views for what they are worth, the policy of the National Front—and he would know a great deal about that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman studies the matter and is always talking about it. He knows a great deal about it. Of course the National Front's policy is not to attack the police. Having said that, however, I hold not the slightest brief for the Socialist Workers' Party. It has nothing to do with anything that I believe in.
§ Mr. AbseWould it not be a contribution to preventing people from attending racialist meetings if the Home Secretary were to consider amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act so that it would be known to the general public that those who organise these meetings—like Tyndal and Webster—are people with criminal records who have served sentences of imprisonment for acts of violence? Would it not be wise to alter the law so that people understand how many people in the National Front are ex-convicts?
§ Mr. ReesJust as in the case of the SWP, I am picketed frequently by the National Front, and a funny bunch of people they are when one sees them at close quarters. I am having a look at the question of amending the law to see whether anything can be done.
§ Mr. LawrenceDoes not the Home Secretary consider that there is an urgent case for simplifying the law on public order and codifying it so that everybody knows exactly what it is?
§ Mr. ReesI bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the law, but I understand that the Public Order Act is codified. I have talked to chief constables about aspects of the Act concerning, for example, matters of notification, on which, much as there may be a case for change, there is no major problem. The problem is mainly on the matter of incitement that my hon. Friend the Memlearned Member for Burton (Mr. If I have misunderstood the hon. and ber for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) raised. 894 Lawrence) on the question of codification, I shall willingly look at the matter.