Security bill

Press, 27 October 1977, Page 20

Security bill

Sir, — Mr Rosenberg says that the Council of Civil Liberties stands for freedom of association, including trades unions. Does he mean his council is actively opposed to the closed shop? I cannot recall the council saying so. Having been in the House when the gallery was cleared during the S.I.S. debate I was disgusted at the behaviour of a section of the public who did not know the meaning of “no”. The Speaker tried hard to get their co-operation but their playway education got the better of them. The press, Hansard and M.P.s’ passes continued to give plenty of coverage to those interested, so free-

dom was not denied as has been suggested. I listened to three Labour speeches after broadcasting went off the air. Not one constructive amendment came from any of them; which was surprising, as we have been told of ail the representations they have received. — Yours, etc., M. GREENE. October 25, 1977.

Sir, — W. Rosenberg, Canterbury Civil Liberties Council, asserts that Sir Guy Powles “has expressed his fundamental disagreement” with the security bill. However, in “The Press” (October 13) Sir Guy states his views more moderately. True, he points out that certain of the bill’s provisions differ from his recommendations, one or two importantly, but perusal of his report convinces me that it differs much more fundamentally from the Civil Liberties Council’s position than from the bill. Sir Guy rejects the council’s submission opposing the existence of the 5.1.5., finding that it is necessary (pp. 21-23) and is justified "in keeping under close scrutiny the activities of organisations (and their members) which pursue political doctrines calling for the revolutionary overthrow of the State”; also, “informing itself about organisations that exist separately but have fallen under a substantial de-

gree of subversive influence” (p. 28). Apparently the council would “fundamentally disagree” with these conclusions. — Yours, etc. HELEN HERVEY October 26. 1977.