HL Deb 26 January 1966 vol 272 cc80-3

2.51 p.m.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government which of the following versions of the conduct of the Special Branch police officers at the rowdy meeting in the Ambassador Hotel in Salisbury, Rhodesia, organised by three Labour M.P.s is accurate, having regard to the fact that they are completely contradictory:

(1) The Prime Minister, as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 14th January: This demonstration of unreasonable intolerance combined with the obvious political instruction which had been given to the Special Branch to remain passive";

(2) Mr. Rowland, M.P., as reported in the same newspaper on 15th January: But in no time some Special Branch police officers emerged from nowhere and I was quickly surrounded and given perfectly adequate protection"; and if neither version is accurate, what is the correct one.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK)

My Lords, the contradiction is only apparent. The Special Branch remained passive, presumably under instructions, until after the M.P.s were attacked, at which point they surrounded them and gave them adequate protection.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

My Lords, I suppose that it would be polite of me to thank the noble Lord for the reply to my Question. It was not very illuminating and rather what I expected. May I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that the Rhodesia Herald, a paper in Rhodesia which is opposed to the Smith (I think you call it) rebellious Government, reported Mr. Rowland as saying: Very quickly members of the Rhodesian Special Branch moved up, and other Rhodesians round about shouted Leave him alone' and moved in to protect me. Does not the noble Lord think it quite possible that somebody who was on the spot at the time would know more about it than somebody who at that particular moment was either in Lagos or on his way back from Lagos?

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord has quoted is quite right. Mr. Rowland was anxious to minimise the effect of the disturbance, and expressed appreciation for the assistance which had been given. But before that assistance was given, according to another man who was on the spot, the reporter of the Daily Telegraph, it is said that For an hour and three-quarters the M.P.s tried hard to make themselves heard through an almost continuous uproar. Howls of 'Communist', 'Liars', 'Stupid nits', and 'You are yellow', drowned appeals for order. I should not have thought that that was particularly tolerant behaviour.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

I am not quite clear what the noble Lord has said. Would he please say quite explicitly whether he is agreeing that there was obvious political instruction given to the Special Branch to remain passive?

LORD BESWICK

I have not used the word "obvious"; I used the word "presumably". I said that if the Special Branch did remain inactive through that time, presumably it was because they had instructions to remain inactive.

LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL

May I ask another question? I know that the noble Lord did not use the word "obvious". But according to a report in the paper the Prime Minister did use the word "obvious". What I am asking is, does the noble Lord agree that that was so?

LORD BESWICK

I have no doubt that the noble Lord is endeavouring to be helpful and to produce an atmosphere of conciliation. I think I can best help him in his endeavour by not replying further to that question.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? The noble Lord said that they remained passive before the M.P.s were molested. Can he tell us what activities they were supposed to be engaged in before anybody was molested?

LORD BESWICK

I did indicate, I think, in the report from the Daily Telegraph, from which I quoted, that there was a great movement of this crowded audience towards the platform. There were these shouts. The whole proceeding was said by the Deputy Minister of Information to be illegal. Nevertheless, the Special Branch took no action.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he can tell me this? He will agree, I think, that the remark admittedly made by the Prime Minister is defamatory of the acting Government, the illegal Government of Rhodesia. Can he say whether the Prime Minister made any inquiry from these M.P.s before he uttered this defamatory statement?

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I do not know about the comment being defamatory. It is possible that there may be different standards of behaviour as between different people, and over what they consider to be reasonable behaviour. Personally, I would agree with the Prime Minister that if a gathering of people attacked a visitor from another country and poured beer over his head, that was unreasonable and intolerant.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister, who is very clearheaded, realises that what the Prime Minister has admittedly said had nothing to do with the general conduct of the meeting but related to instructions which he said had been given to the Special Branch. That allegation is defamatory of those about whom he was speaking and whom he wishes to induce to adopt a more reasonable frame of mind. What I am now asking the Minister to say is this: before the Prime Minister made this defamatory statement, had he, or had he not, asked these M.P.s what took place?

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I do not accept in the least that this was a defamatory statement. I should have said it was a proper comment on reports available to the Prime Minister at the time.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it is rather an unwarrantable reflection on three Labour M.P.s to state, according to the wording of this Question, that they organised a rowdy meeting? Surely the meeting was organised from the highest motives and it was quite beyond their control that it happened to turn into a somewhat rowdy meeting afterwards?

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I think, from what I am able to gather, that the real trouble is that it was not an organised meeting at all. The three M.P.s had been asked to give their opinions on certain points, and they had so many inquiries that it was suggested that the people should come to the hotel where the M.P.s could speak to them together. I think that the M.P.s' motives were entirely honourable. It was unfortunate that this proper method of exchanging of points of view developed in the way it did.

BARONESS HORSBRUGH

My Lords, is it not a fact that in this country, and probably in many others, the police do not take any part in a meeting which is merely rowdy, or if people are screaming? They may go on screaming for an hour, as some of us may know; but the police come in only if there is physical violence.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I think this is perfectly true. It is probable that I have had as much experience of public meetings in this country as the noble Lady. I should have thought that probably the uproar there was greater than that which one encounters at any meeting in this country, except those organised by the Fascists. I should have thought it might have been expected that the Special Branch police, if they wished to damp down the enthusiasm of the Rhodesians, might have intervened a little earlier.