HL Deb 27 January 1972 vol 327 cc417-8

3.19 p.m.

LORD AVEBURY:

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 on what authority an officer of the Metropolitan Police asked the Vice-Chairman of the I.L.E.A. Further and Higher Education Sub-committee for the names of students on a deputation to County Hall, and the names on a petition presented by those students.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)

My Lords, while I can well appreciate the noble Lord's concern in putting this Question, the only answer I can give on the specific point he raises is that a police officer does not require specific authority for making inquiries which he regards as relevant to his police duties.

LORD AVEBURY:

My Lords, could the noble Lord explain to us how the names of the students on this demonstration, asked of the Vice-Chairman of the I.L.E.A., could possibly be of any relevance whatsoever to the inquiries the police might have been undertaking? Is he also aware that this is not an isolated instance, because when I was in a demonstration at the Chinese Embassy on the occasion of the tenth anniversay of Amnesty International I personally was asked my name by the responsible police officer on the spot? Since it appears that this is becoming a general practice of the Metropolitan Police, could not instructions be issued by the Home Office to see that names are requested only when essential for the furtherance of police inquiries?

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, the Home Secretary does not consider that the police on this occasion exercised their discretion wrongly. The police were concerned with taking precautions which might guard against the commission of an offence, in this case a possible breach of the peace. It must be remembered that a number of demonstrations were planned for the day in question and that on earlier occasions there had been disorder at County Hall during demonstrations. Happily, on this occasion nothing untoward happened; but the fact that this turned out to be so does not mean that the police were wrong to take precautions.

LORD AVEBURY:

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to make it clear that there is no obligation on the Vice-Chairman of I.L.E.A. or on any person concerned at demonstrations to give his name to an officer of the Metropolitan Police unless he is being charged with some offence?

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I can re-state the position. While the police will often need to ask questions while taking precautions to guard against the commission of an offence, every individual has a corresponding right to refuse to answer—which is what happened in this case.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, can the noble Lord explain how taking names in advance contributes to preventing an offence? Does he really suggest that this is proper police procedure'? I realise that he is in some difficulty and is coping manfully; but this is a matter which I am sure concerns all noble Lords.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, this is a tricky area: on that we can all agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It is right that Parliament should be vigilant to see that police officers, or any other public servants, do not exceed their proper functions. There was nothing sinister in the request made by the police officer. The police needed to obtain as much information as possible on what was likely to happen. On this day a number of demonstrations were planned throughout London, and the names of persons taking a leading part in the demonstrations could have been useful to the police in this connection.