§ Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 16, to leave out subsection (3)—[Major Anstruther-Gray].
§ Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out, to the second "the" in line 16, stand part of the Clause:—
§ 8.21 p.m.
§ Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr)
I believe that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends were puzled and a little critical at my action in carrying on the debate about Scotland when last we were discussing this Bill in Committee. In fairness to myself I think that I should give my reasons.
First, I felt convinced that in any event we could not finish the Committee stage of the Bill before the agreed hour of midnight; and, secondly, that the case for excluding Scotland from the scope of the Bill had at that time not been properly examined. Therefore, in the few minutes during which I expect to occupy the attention of the Committee, I propose slightly to elaborate the remarks and arguments so reasonably and yet so persuasively advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray).
A little of what I am about to say will be known to hon. Members from Scotland, but I am now speaking to the great number of hon. Members who are English—or at least I shall be speaking to them when they have entered the Chamber—and who may not be cognisant of our peculiar Scottish laws in respect of murder. The English are a race for whom we have a high regard. They have many admirable qualities and are the first to recognise a mistake when it is pointed out to them in a genuine attempt to educate them into a more clarified view of the situation. It is to them, therefore, that I primarily address these remarks. I am hoping that, as they 133 come into the Chamber. I shall not have to repeat my remarks, because it may be too late if they read them in HANSARD tomorrow.
In Scotland, there has been evolved a penal system, or criminal code—or whatever is the correct term to apply to it—which is both lenient and deterrent. It is lenient in its analysis of murder and deterrent in its punishment for murder. The result is that in Scotland we are much more humane in judging the reasons for murder, yet, at the same time, we retain the supreme penalty when it appears proper and when the conscience of the public demands it. That this system has worked well is, I believe, obvious; in any case, I will show that to be true.
There are some rather interesting deductions to be drawn from the application of the system. As we heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, the death penalty was imposed, but not applied, in 11 cases during the seventeen years ending in 1945—the year is important. Two convictions were quashed on appeal and the remainder were commuted to life imprisonment. In other words, there were no actual hangings during those seventeen years. Then came the end of the war in which, inevitably, there were no restraints on killing. While that is obvious and natural in war-time, it is a state of affairs which cannot properly be accepted or tolerated in peacetime.
Now we find an interesting corollary to my argument. It is that during the year after the war, 1946, the supreme punishment had again to be applied. During that year the death penalty was actually carried out on three occasions. The years have passed since then, and, owing to the settling of social and economic conditions, the deterrent of death has not been needed to any great extent. In fact, it has not been needed at all in the last few years. The deduction from that is obvious. Our system works well. We have devised a method of dealing with the crime of murder which is humane and just. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian said, let us leave well alone and let us get on with it.
I must make a few further remarks about the speech which was made at the last meeting of this Committee by my 134 right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is not in his place at the moment. He told me that he could not be here because of another official engagement, so I hope that my words will be passed on to him by those whom I see sitting on the Government Front Bench.
I say, with great respect for my right hon. Friend and with considerable understanding of his attitude, that I wonder whether his speech was quite logical. We have heard that the Government do not like the Bill. The Home Secretary has made that very clear on several occasions. The Secretary of State for Scotland does not want the Bill, as he himself explained very fully to us on a previous occasion.
The people of Scotland, who are so badly represented by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, do not want the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh") I have taken he trouble during the past ten days to ascertain, so far as I could, the opinion of the man and woman in the street in Scotland, and I am convinced from my investigations that the people of Scotland do not want the Bill. Furthermore, I understand that a number of churches in Scotland have expressed a similar opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] In spite of these assertions, which everyone in the Committee believes to be true, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland advises us to accept the Bill for Scotland.
Surely there is something very illogical in the position that my right hon. Friend has taken up. On a previous occasion, and in defence of this explanation, my right hon. Friend said that the Government believed it would not be wise to enact a law which would enforce the death penalty in Scotland for a crime which, if committed in England, would not be so punishable. I then pointed out that there was a later Amendment to exclude Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill, and I understand that that Amendment has been accepted by the promoters of the Bill.
I asked my right hon. Friend why Scotland should be treated differently, and my right hon. Friend replied that Northern Ireland—
§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
May I explain to the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) why, in the 135 opinion of the promoters of the Bill, the cases of Scotland and Northern Ireland are different?
§ Mr. Silverman
While Scotland, with the consent of the hon. Baronet—[An HON. MEMBER: "He is not a Baronet "]—has not.
§ Sir T. Moore
The hon. Member must yet learn, even after his long experience in this Chamber, that other hon. Members like to make their own speeches, and have the intelligence to consider their own remarks and arguments, without the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
We will now come back to the point about which I was speaking when the hon. Gentleman, without any justification, interrupted me. I asked my right hon. Friend, "Why should Scotland be treated differently from Northern Ireland?" To this the Secretary of State for Scotland replied that Northern Ireland had to be treated differently, as it had a different constitution. I can only say that many misguided people in Scotland will be reinforced in their view that Scotland should have a form of self-government that would put them in that comfortable position of Northern Ireland of being able to decide these vital matters for themselves.
Before allowing this Amendment to be carried, the Government should carefully ponder upon the effect that it must inevitably have. Not everyone appreciates the difficulty in which the Government have been placed. We hear that it would be difficult to have two different penalties applied to the same crime within ten miles south and north of the Border. Some people have very strong views about this matter and will be inclined to say, "Why cannot we be allowed to give expression to our own feelings and to decide this matter for ourselves when it affects the life and death of every man, woman and child in Scotland?"
136 That is the attitude they are taking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Some hon. Members know nothing about Scotland. I think they might leave this question to more vocal hon. Members to express their views.
In our last debate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan), who, I am sorry to say, is not in his place today, used the plea that the Secretary of State should have second thoughts on this matter in view of the experience which he must and would gain in regard to the feelings of people in Scotland. I think that if my right hon. Friend were here tonight he probably would have those second thoughts and find himself eventually in the Lobby with those of us, Scottish, Welsh and English Members alike, who believe that Scotland should be left to carry on the system she has evolved and which she has found is suited to her character, her outlook and her traditions.
For that reason, I give my warm support to this Amendment and I hope it will be supported in the Lobby by all those who honestly believe that there is strength and justice in our case.
§ Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
It would be a great mistake if the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) were taken in any way as speaking for Scotland or the Scottish people. I think I can claim to know as much about the mind of the Scottish people as any of my colleagues from Scotland.
In my experience, and as far as my knowledge goes, Scotland has always been most reluctant, either in the form of juries, or in the form of judges, or in the form of counsel, to find any reason why a person should be hanged. The hon. Member for Ayr himself pointed out that for nearly eighteen years Scotland did not have one execution. He did not also point out that during all that period there was not the slightest protest from the public that people were not being hanged. I quite agree that when certain crimes take place public indignation is aroused and there may be a feeling of revenge, retaliation, or retribution on the part of the public, but by the time the trial comes never, in my recollection. has the public been 137 enthusiastic for carrying out in cold blood the ultimate penalty of the law.
I have not come to a decision easily on this question. When I was Secretary of State, just after the war, there were very difficult circumstances in Britain. As the hon. Member for Ayr said, people had come back from the war and many young persons had grown up with the idea that weapons were an auxiliary of juvenile crime. There was a form of gang warfare developing which necessarily had to be dealt with by almost similar means.
It would have been impossible to have left policemen entirely at the mercy of gang warfare. If it ever developed they would have to have been able to protect themselves. Nobody is in any doubt about that, but this Bill does not prevent that. In such cases where they have to face armed gangsters, the police are armed, and, presumably, in such cases they will still be armed, even after this Bill passes.
Whatever may be the merits of the main argument, the Royal Commission which was appointed by the Government of which I was a member went into the matter very carefully. I must say that I cannot find any way out of the logic of its conclusions. They were that, even if it were possible to find some way of getting definitions of murder such as we have in Scotland, or of reducing the numbers to the figures to which we have reduced them in Scotland, the resulting number becomes so infinitesimal that it is not justifiable in any commonsense view to retain capital punishment for what remains.
I believe that there is no argument against that. Indeed, in Scotland, it was proved that though capital punishment was practically abolished in those eighteen years, the number of murders did not increase. Curiously enough, I do not take the view that capital punishment is not a deterrent. I think that if any punishment is a deterrent, surely capital punishment must be a deterrent, but the point is that the abolition of a deterrent does not provide any stimulation or provocation for people to commit murder for the fun of it. It is not, therefore, logical to say that the mere fact that we abolish the deterrent will automatically provoke people to commit murder. The facts revealed in every country the statistics of 138 which the Royal Commission examined proved that it does not provoke people to commit more murders.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, therefore, asking that in Scotland, where he boasts that we have been more humane towards murderers and assassins up to now, instead of being more humane, we should be less humane than in England and Wales. I am quite sure that he would not expect the Scottish people to be more severe in their punishments than the people south of the Border. So far as I know, the judges and the legal profession in Scotland are almost unanimously against the death penalty. Certainly, the younger ones are. There may be some of the veterans who take a different view, but I should say that the great majority of the younger ones are against the death penalty.
Moreover, when we were in office, we examined the question whether we could get some sort of definition that would deal with the kind of person for whom there were no mitigating circumstances. No lawyers whom we could find ever discovered any method by which we could get a definition sufficiently clear as not to leave a tremendous responsibility either upon the judges or on the juries.
§ Sir T. Moore
The people of Scotland found that, too. They have discovered a method of dealing with it, have they not, as I tried to point out?
§ Mr. Woodburn
If we ask the legal profession, we are told that they have found a method by which sympathy can be exercised and leniency shown without any strict legal definition. In other words, it is left to the common sense of juries, and what has happened in every case, by the common sense of the juries and the judges, is that wherever they could find an excuse for not imposing the capital sentence, they have done so. Therefore, that contradicts entirely the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the Scottish people want to hang all murderers, or anything of that kind.
It is admitted that, as a deterrent, Scotland put it on the shelf, and it was there on the shelf to be brought down if necessary. All that is happening with this Bill is that it is being put further back on the shelf, or, rather, is being put into a cupboard and locked away. If Parliament ever finds it necessary to reverse its 139 decision, automatically the Measure will be repealed, and it will come back. That could be done in the matter of a few days, without any of the dreadful circumstances anticipated by those who fear this Bill. On the evidence of the Royal Commission, that is not likely to take place.
In my view, and even since I changed my view, the attitude of the public of Scotland has greatly changed, though maybe I am saying that because I myself have changed my own mind. From the actual inquiries which I have made, it appears that large numbers of people now take the view that the time has come when this experiment should be tried. I think myself that there is no risk, because, after all, there have been no capital sentences in Scotland in recent days, and I cannot see that there is any greater risk in future than there was in Scotland in suspending it for those eighteen years. If it is suspended by Parliament for the whole of Great Britain, events will show whether there is any danger. If there is sufficient danger to justify hon. Members asking Parliament to review its opinion, Parliament can do so.
Every reform which has been passed has been passed against the fears of people that it would bring great disasters. Whether it was a question of taking women out of the mines or preventing children from acting as chimney sweeps—all these reforms were opposed because people feared they would bring economic ruin or disaster to the country. We must admit that these fears were proved groundless.
I have come to the conviction that the time has arrived when we ought to abolish this penalty. In Scotland, on average there has been one hanging every two-and-a-half years over the last thirty years. The Royal Commission pointed out that if we exempt those whom everyone wants to exempt from capital punishment, the number remaining will be infinitesimal. We are, therefore, retaining this horrible retribution, which everybody abhors, for the sake of one or two murders.
I have had to deal with one or two of these people and, looking back, I must say that I do not think the country would have been ruined had their lives been spared. It is true that the Secretary of 140 State for Scotland and the Home Secretary at that time could find no mitigating circumstances to allow the law to be set aside, but I cannot think of a case in which, had the court exercised the leniency it was able to exercise in other cases, the public would have suffered any disquiet or there would have been any disaster to the country.
I therefore hope that the House will not accede to the hon. Member's arguments and I hope that he himself will not pursue this matter as if it were a football match in which he has to beat his opponents. This is a matter in which we are trying to make some progress in a civilised way towards improving our legal system.
I think that people's conduct has steadily grown better and better. The dangers of the war have passed, and I believe that the standard of conduct has reached a stage at which we can dispense with this type of punishment and be ready to go forward, as the Church of Scotland says, towards the redemption of the people rather than their extinction.
§ Lady Tweedsmuir (Aberdeen, South)
The right hon. Member for East Stirling-shire (Mr. Woodburn) has based his argument on the theme that Scotland is reluctant to hang, and I can think of no one in Scotland who would not be moved by the act of hanging. But those who support the Amendment recall only too clearly many brutal and sickening murders of our time. I support the Amendment because I believe that Scotland neither wants nor needs the abolition of the death penalty.
I should like to say at the start that I think those who support the Amendment find themselves in the midst of two conflicting views in the Committee. On the one hand there are hon. Members, mostly on the benches opposite, who support the system of nationalisation, and therefore it is not surprising to us that they should want Scotland to be dragged at England's heels. On the other hand, I find many of my English colleagues disinclined to support the Amendment for very different reasons—because they have a certain impatience with Scottish ways, which is particularly evident on Tuesdays when we have Scottish Questions. I only hope that my English colleagues will not vote against the Amendment on the grounds rather oddly given by an English colleague of mine who said he would not 141 support the Amendment because he did not want Scotland to have privileges other than those of England and Wales.
I feel that there might well be considerable support for this Amendment if there really were a free vote on this issue. I do question whether there is a free vote. [interruption.] When the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke previously on this Amendment, he expressed his own and the Government's sympathy with the logic of our argument but said that he could not support it by his vote. Therefore, I only trust that Ministers will not have been asked to abstain on this issue but that they will be allowed, as they have been on every other occasion so far, to vote as they will on a Private Member's Bill.
Both the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire and the Secretary of State denied this Amendment. The Secretary of State said that the degree of moral guilt was identical on both sides of the Border. While that is true, the crime of murder is treated differently on the two sides of the Border. Differences in the law relating to murder have already been quoted by my two hon. Friends who moved and supported the Amendment on the last occasion. They said that the four main differences are that in Scotland there is the law of diminished responsibility; that there is no law of constructive malice; that suicide or attempted suicide is not a criminal offence in Scotland, and that the law relating to prosecution is more flexible. The result is to achieve a state which, I submit to the Committee, meets the desires of a great number of my hon. Friends who do not wish to support the extreme view held by either side.
Lord Cooper, former Lord Justice General of Scotland, has said that in Scotland:We have practically now reached the position where only intentional killing is murder.The degree of moral guilt, therefore, is treated differently north of the Border and, therefore, Scottish law already justifies different penalties for the same crime.
One does understand the Government's position, but if they really feel that they cannot see a different system north and south of the Border, I suggest that they should allow Government time for a Scottish Member to introduce a Private Member's Bill of this nature.
§ Mr. Woodburn
I gather that the argument of the hon. Lady is that Scotland up till now has had a far better system than have England and Wales. I agree with that. Presumably, therefore, England and Wales are trying to improve themselves in order at least to reach our high standard. That being so, I do not understand how the hon. Lady can describe that as trailing Scotland at England's tail. England is trying to reach Scotland's standard and will now pass it. Why should we stay behind if England tries to pass that standard?
§ Lady Tweedsmuir
It is interesting to find the right hon. Gentleman, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, so anxious that the whole of the Scottish law system should be disregarded and that, in this Bill, which is primarily related to England and Wales, the whole Scottish system should be forgotten. I hope that his constituents will duly remember that at the next Election.
If the Government really do feel themselves in a difficult position, I think they should give Government time for a Scottish Member to introduce a Private Member's Bill relating solely to Scotland. I say this because there have been, and are now, a very great many precedents for Scotland having her own legislation on matters of major importance. I put it to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, that this should be considered between now and the Report stage, even if it does involve another Bill being put before the Scottish Grand Committee. We should then have the chance to test out purely Scottish opinion. It is true that each Member can express only his or her view as to what is the state of public opinion. It is not our practice here to have a referendum on this question, as is going to be the case in New Zealand, where, incidentally, there was a sharp rise in the murder rate after abolition and the capital sentence was reintroduced.
I am myself not one who usually quotes the Gallup poll, but I think those who do quote the Gallup poll when it is in their favour should equally quote it when it is against them. I have not myself seen any Gallup poll in this country on the question of public opinion on the death penalty which has shown a majority support in favour of abolition. Nor have 143 I yet heard any hon. Member who supports abolition claim that either he or she is in tune with public opinion. Hon. Members, in fact, have no mandate from the people to abolish an accepted safeguard for the law-abiding people of this country.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire said that it all comes back to the central question whether capital punishment is a deterrent. I thought he was frank enough, but also illogical enough, to say that, while he accepted that the death penalty is a deterrent, nevertheless he could not see why it should not be abolished. I thought that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), who I do not see in his place at the moment, but who spoke on the last occasion, had some logic in his argument, because he sought to prove by Scots figures that the death penalty was not a deterrent, in that the highest number of murders occurred at the time when there were the lowest number of reprieves.
To take the other side of the story, when after seventeen years when all convicted murderers were reprieved there were three executions in 1946, the Royal Commission said:Police witnesses were unanimously of the opinion that these three executions had a considerable effect on criminals in the City of Glasgow.That evidence was supported by that given by Lord Cooper which was quoted in the last debate by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan).
I think that, taking these two sides of the question, we must admit once again that the statistics and evidence before the Royal Commission on the subject of the deterrent are so conflicting that we have to make up our own minds here in this Committee what action should be taken. Therefore, I submit to the Committee that since this Bill first started its Committee stage, something very important has happened.
This Committee has already acceded, on one Amendment, the principle that capital punishment can be a deterrent. This Committee has shown by votes in the Lobby that doubt exists, and I submit, therefore, that because doubt exists that is an added reason why it should not be 144 assumed that what is good for England and Wales is automatically right for Scotland.
Indeed, with respect to my English colleagues, I suggest that much benefit would accrue if the law in England and Wales were brought into line with that in Scotland, because we would then have reached the stage all over the country whereby murder by normal human beings only is punishable by death—although what is a normal human being is open to question. We are all said to be normal here, but I sometimes believe that the public think us a bit queer at times.
If this Amendment is not accepted, I believe that the majority of public opinion in Scotland will invoke once again the old Scots prayer which says:God bless the Houses of Parliament and over-rule their deliberations—for the people's good".
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
I am very glad to have an opportunity of speaking on this Bill. I would like to inform the House that in 1948 on the Criminal Justice Bill I voted for the retention of the death penalty. My reason for so doing was based very much upon my experience in Scotland. In Scotland we had the law of diminished responsibility. We had a disregard for the M'Naghten Rules. In Scotland we paid very great heed to our juries' recommendations to mercy, and in Scotland we had eighteen years without a hanging. At the same time—if it were a deterrent —we had on the Statute Book the provision for the death penalty. I thought we got the best of both worlds.
I have followed this matter almost case by case since then, because I had great qualms of conscience about my vote on that occasion. I felt that my vote was anti-Christian, that it was an Old Testament vote and not a New Testament vote. When I feel like that, I keep examining the question. I am very glad now to redeem my vote of the past, and I am very sorry to hear the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) say that Scotland neither wants nor needs the abolition of the death penalty.
The hon. Lady has only just come from the Assembly. She was there and she was on that occasion more than the charming ornament she usually is when she appears anywhere; she was taking 145 an active part in the deliberations of the great Assembly of 3,000 clergymen of the Church of Scotland. She was one of the speakers. Yet she comes to this Committee and says that Scotland neither wants nor needs abolition of the death penalty. For whom is she speaking—the Church of Scotland or the Tory Party?
§ Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray (Berwick and East Lothian)
Is the hon. Lady aware of the views of the Free Church of Scotland about the death penalty? In fact, the Free Church sent a letter, from the Public Questions Committee, to say that they are disturbed at the progress in the House of Commons of a Private Member's Bill for the abolition or suspension of capital punishment. They urge the Government—
§ Major Anstruther-Gray
I am speaking to the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). She has been in the House a long time, and she has been good enough to allow me to intervene.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Lady has given way, but the intervention now is amounting to an argument
§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. If the hon. Lady in possession of the Committee does not give way, then the noble Lady cannot intervene.
§ Lady Tweedsmuir
On a point of order. May I not intervene, Sir Rhys, even though I was named by the hon. Lady?
§ The Deputy-Chairman
If the hon. Lady does not give way, that is still true. The noble Lady has another opportunity in Committee.
§ Major Anstruther-Gray
On a point of order. The hon. Lady has said that my opening remarks were out of order. Sir Rhys, with all respect, you did not point that out to the Committee.
§ Mrs. Mann
I was not referring to the rules of the House when I said "out of order" The hon. and gallant Member asked if I knew what was the attitude of the Free Church, and he then proceeded to read at length. I am a member of the Free Church of Scotland and he actually was referring to the Wee Free Church. Because it is rightly or probably wrongly held in very much contempt, he refused to give the accurate definition and to say that it was the Wee Free Church of Scotland he was quoting.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have already pointed out to the noble Lady that if the hon. Lady in possession of the Committee will not give way, she must not intervene.
§ Mrs. Mann
I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) cannot take it. May I be allowed to get on with my speech? If I give way to the noble Lady, I must give way to three or four. Probably she wants me to give way because she is afraid of what is coming.
I did say that the noble Lady was at this gathering of the Church Assembly of Scotland, and I wondered—I will allow the noble Lady to intervene after I have finished with her—if she saw what had happened yesterday at the Church Assembly, when there was an addendum, moved by the Reverend R. J. Wilson, asking the Assembly tobelieve it to be the duty of the State to put to death some murderers.That was before the entire Church of Scotland. In moving the rejection, the Very Reverend Dr. Charles L. Warr said:I cannot see personally how there can be any room for compromise like this between the abolitionists and the retentionists. The death 147 penalty is right or it is wrong; for the Christian, in my view, it is a complete repudiation of the redemptive purpose of the Gospel, a denial of the sanctity of human personality, and a denial of the infinite value of the human soul in the sight of its Maker.
§ Lady Tweedsmuir
I thank the hon. Lady for at last giving way. May I say to her, first, for the purpose of accuracy, that I realise that she is a member of the Wee Free Church, but I thought that she would not like it to be on record in HANSARD that I attended and spoke at one of the main Assembly meetings of the Church of Scotland, because she will be aware that that is an all-male Assembly and I would have no right to speak there. I did, in fact, address a gathering connected with the Women's Mission, which is quite different.
Secondly, regarding the resolution which the hon. Lady has put before the Committee as having been debated in the Assembly—
§ The Deputy-Chairman
The noble Lady is making a personal explanation. [An HON. MEMBER: "She has finished."] If the personal explanation is completed, the object of the intervention has ended.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
If the noble Lady wants to enter upon an argument, she will have an opportunity probably later.
§ Lady Tweedsmuir
I understand that the hon. Lady had given way for the express purpose of my replying to her remark about the resolution before the Assembly. I took advantage to give a personal explanation also, but the hon. Lady gave way so that I might reply to her.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
The object of art intervention always is either to make clear an ambiguity or to make a personal explanation. The noble Lady has made the personal explanation. The next part, I understand, is argument.
§ Mrs. Mann
It should be clearly understood that the Assembly was composed 148 of clergymen. Whilst there may be two or, at most, three women in Scotland who are members of the clergy, I thought it would be understood that I did not for one moment flatter the hon. Lady in that she got intervening in that Assembly. She took part in the deliberations during the week in certain of the functions. That is what I hoped I had made clear. Probably to that end it serves the noble Lady's purpose, because it detracts from very noble words uttered yesterday in the Assembly. The addendum that was put before the Assembly was defeated heavily. Only a dozen members voted for it.
§ Mrs. Mann
In seconding Dr. Warr, the Rev. Ian Gray, of Perth, described hanging asa barbaric practice and an insult to human dignityand said:We cannot carry out capital punishment because it is taking away the possibility of changing a human.I am quite certain that we are all familiar with the words
And while the lamp holds out to burn The vilest sinner may return.Scotland has always been in advance of England in this respect. I have already mentioned that a strong recommendation by a jury in Scotland inevitably meant a reprieve. Someone will now remind me of one case when it did not so mean a reprieve, but that will prove to be the one exception. We learn that when the Royal Commission reported on this subject and suggested that a jury's recommendation to mercy might be given some heed, it had been received with indignation. Yet who with any experience of court life would not pay very strong attention to those who sit throughout the whole proceedings, who hear the case, who see the prisoner, who can note his demeanour and who hear and see much more than any newspaper perhaps has space for or can publish, even if it has the desire?
In Scotland, when we find ourselves in disagreement with the findings of a judge or a sheriff, when we are wise, we conclude, "He was in court, and we were not." It makes all the difference. I speak as a magistrate, and I say it makes all the difference whether one was not in court. 149 or whether one was in court throughout the proceedings, and able to see every facet and every angle of the case. Therefore, in Scotland we give heed to a jury's recommendation to mercy. I have noticed that in England such recommendations to mercy have time and again been ridden over roughshod, and I have been shocked.
In Scotland we have observed the law of diminished responsibility. Now what are we promised? That even if the Bill is rejected England may come into line with Scotland and allow the defence of diminished responsibility and thus avert hanging. England ought to be ashamed of herself that in all these years she has not given heed to diminished responsibility. It is all very well parrot-like to echo the phrase about being tied to the heels of England. I notice that some people like it when it suits them but not when it does not suit them. In Scotland we are very much more advanced. An Amendment like this would pull us back. Usually we go on from height to height, and that is what I should like to see us continuing to do, and I should like to see us in Scotland now go the whole way in stopping hanging.
As things are, a dreadful onus is placed on one man. The responsibility for making a decision about a murderer rests on one man. We have of late seen that one man change his mind. This could be true at any time of any Home Secretary, but we in this Chamber have heard the Home Secretary declare that on the very day before a murderer was to be hanged further information came to hand and in consequence the Home Secretary reprieved the criminal at the eleventh hour. Only the week before he had refused to reprieve him. One cannot help wondering at the possibility of that information coming a day late. One cannot help wondering whether further information has arrived after a hanging.
There was a time when it was thought murderesses should hang, but the hanging of Ruth Ellis shocked the whole nation, and not only because she was a woman, but because we have regard to special causes of emotional stress. The judiciary recognises the special position of pregnant women, and gives special heed to the condition of women for a time, nine months or a year, after pregnancy, and that because of the emotional conflict to which women are subject at that time. There have been cases, and 150 the case of Ruth Ellis was one, in which I might have said, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Quite a number of women could have said so, too.
Then there was the Evans case. There have been so many cases dependent not on the court decision but on the decision of one man. I know that the holder of the office of Home Secretary changes from time to time, but I think it wrong that he should have such a terrific responsibility on his shoulders. I sympathise with any Home Secretary, because it is a terrific responsibility of which he alone knows. I want Scotland to follow England in this Bill. I want us to wipe this stain off the Statute Book.
§ Sir Roland Jennings (Sheffield, Hallam)
Would the hon. Lady amend that speech if she had had a child of her own murdered? I am perfectly certain that she would not have made it. It is absolute nonsense.
§ Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet)
I will answer that question in the course of my speech.
I rise to take part in this debate because it is, curiously enough, the one with which I have been most closely concerned. 1n February, 1955, I put up proposals, in a letter to The Times and, thereafter, to the Home Secretary, inviting the Government to amend the law of murder and to bring it into conformity with the law of Scotland. I had from the Lord Advocate the greatest possible assistance and guidance.
In giving attention to this subject, the Committee will remember that when we produced what later became known as the Heald committee's report on the reform of the law of murder there was contained in it to a large extent recommendations as to the reform of the law of murder to bring it into conformity with the law in Scotland. That is the answer 151 to the interjection of those who asked me why I, as an Irish-Welshman representing a Kent constituency in England, rose to speak on Scottish law—and I am not a Scottish lawyer.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
The hon. Gentleman would not have been here if he were. They do not elect them in Scotland.
§ Mr. Rees-Davies
Having been very closely associated with the study of this topic—[Interruption.] I wonder whether this sort of "wee free" debate might cease, so that I can get on with what I want to say.
It is my sincere belief that even if this Bill were to reach the Statute Book to create abolition for England and Wales, none the less out of the logic of the argument, which I hope I can put before the Committee, it should not include Scotland. Let me say why. I entirely concede that in most legislation England, Wales and Scotland should go hand in hand together and that in the ordinary course of events the legislation which applies to one applies to the other; but in the case of the law of murder the circumstances are utterly different, as anyone with the real knowledge of the law and its working will know.
First, there are fundamental differences in all the principles involved, and it is by taking these principles collectively that we see that the law of Scotland is so different from the English law of murder that the penalty in itself might well be different. We start in page 278, with Recommendation No. 40 of the Royal Commission's recommendations. There it says:The scope of the law of murder in Scotland is satisfactory and no amendment is needed.That is a remarkable statement. It is made by the Royal Commission after a profound study of the facts, and applies to no other country in the world. In fact, Scotland has a lower murder rate than any other country. It is 2.5 per cent. per 100,000 of the population, which is abnormally low. At one time the murder rate for England was twice that figure.
There is a very good reason why the murder rate in Scotland is lower, and why there has been no call for the abolition of the death penalty there I am sure that one thing is quite clear and can 152 be confirmed by the Lord Advocate, namely, that in Scotland in recent years there has been no substantial hue and cry for the abolition of the death penalty. Therefore, for Scotland, there is no case, in that no Howard League or other great propaganda has been put out. I have been told by the Scottish Home Department that that is a fact. There is no propaganda call for this Bill in Scotland.
Furthermore, in Scotland there has been no cause célèbre during the last twenty years which has focused the attention of the public upon the necessity for abolishing the death penalty. We must face realities in matters of legislation. The House does not sit to pass legislation where there is no public demand. There is a public demand in England. Whether or not it is a majority demand, there is undoubtedly a very strong one. But there is none in Scotland. The reason is that the laws of the two countries are utterly dissimilar. It has been the failure of this Government, the previous Government, and, in fact, all Governments, to recognise the very satisfactory law of Scotland which has led the House into the impasse in which it now finds itself.
§ Mr. Woodburn
I agree that if all the law of England were the same as that of Scotland the agitation for the Bill would naturally not have been so great, but in distinguishing between the law of Scotland and that of England is not the hon. Gentleman dealing with irrelevancies? The differences between the two sets of law are antecedent to the conviction for murder. After the conviction for murder the law of Scotland and of England is exactly the same, namely, the death penalty. The Bill deals only with what happens after a conviction for murder and not before. The differences exist as regards the trial and the jury, but there is no difference in the penalty. That remains the same in England and in Scotland.
§ Mr. Rees-Davies
If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough not to anticipate my speech he will see exactly how the argument unfolds in regard to those who have to deal with the law of murder. The right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, anticipating the whole burden of my argument. I am saying that the law of Scotland has been stated to be satisfactory.
153 The second relevant fact which we have to consider is in what respect the law is different. In page 276 of its Report the Royal Commission states that the Scottish laws of insanity and of responsibility require no change, but the English laws in both respects do require to be changed. Furthermore, in Scotland there is—as has already been indicated by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) in her admirable and extremely accurate analysis of the facts—no offence in respect of suicide in Scotland as there is in England.
None the less, no change is recommended by the Royal Commission to bring Scotland into line with England. No change is recommended in the case of insanity to bring Scotland into line with England. In the case of a prosecution where there is insanity, a court in Scotland is entitled to raise the plea of insanity, whereas in England that is not so. But the Royal Commission makes no recommendation to bring Scotland into line with England. In every single one of these cases—and I could mention others—the recommendations are clear that the Scottish law should remain the same, but that the English law should be amended. In most cases, the Commission argued that English law should be amended to bring it into conformity with Scotland.
Now I wish to come to what is the heart of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman. It is that the reason why we have had this hue and cry and this trouble in the cases in England—I know all the cases which have been alluded to and I do not desire to allude to them again unless it is necessary—in each one, whether it be the Bentley case, the Ellis case, or others, in almost every single one, had the Scottish law applied, there would never have been the hue and cry that there was. That is to say, if we had had the Scottish law effectively working in this country, we should have removed these causes célèbres. They would never have been a cause célèbre.
Let me give one example, the case of Mrs. Ellis. Why was it that the Ellis case caused so much worry? The reason was that Mrs. Ellis never had a trial, and that always worries the public. When her case came on, the plea of provocation was not open, as the law of 154 England stands. There was no question of her being innocent and, therefore, the judge had to direct that this lady was guilty. The result was that every member of the public in England proceeded to try her and to decide whether she ought to hang or not. They came to the conclusion either that she should hang or that she should not.
If we apply the far more humane and admirable laws of Scotland to that or any other case, we find that quite different considerations apply and we find that she would have had a fair trial. A jury would have decided the case, and once the jury had decided the case, the public conscience would have been satisfied. That is the reason why we are in this difficult situation in which we find ourselves today.
There are two clear opinions in the Committee on this question, but there is also a third. There are people who are out for retention in all cases all the time. There are others including the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), the promoter of the Bill, who are avowed abolitionists. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne wishes the principle of abolition to be applied whether it relates to a member of the Armed Forces or a case of treason or to whatever it relates.
The hon. Gentleman has been very fair in saying so. I belong to neither one nor the other of these sides. I take the view that what this country should have done 12 months ago was to reform the law of murder. Had it been reformed, properly reformed, we should not have had this public hue and cry. Had we not had that hue and cry, we should have had a law substantially along the lines of Scotland. Then there would have been no public demand.
I am quite sincere and clear about what I want. I am out to defeat this Bill. I hope that if it is not defeated in this Chamber it will be defeated in another place. I hope that Scotland will be excluded, because I want Scotland to be excluded. Scotland is my precedent for the whole reform of the law of murder and, therefore, it is essential that Scotland should be excluded from the scope of this Bill; because we have a Government pledged to introduce legislation which will bring the law into line with the law of Scotland. So. if Scotland does not go out—
§ Mr. Rees-Davies
I do not follow the intervention of the hon. Gentleman, but I do follow the argument that in Scotland very few executions take place. I agree with the right hon. Member for Woodburn and Clackmannan—[Laughter.] Well, it is an even better name than "Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire," if that is possible.
It is quite a formidable argument to say, "There have been so few executions; let us get rid of them all." It really does not hold water, because when the particularly brutal murder occurs it causes a violent upsurge of the public conscience in favour of the death penalty. That is why the Committee accepted the Amendment in regard to prison warders and why it went to within a few votes in the case of the armed robber. Hon. Members realise that there are cases in which the death penalty should be retained.
Scottish law is different in five main respects, utterly different, from ours. It will still remain different if we pass the Bill. Why should we not leave the sixth main difference, if the other five are operating satisfactorily? If it is the Government's intention to change the law of England and Wales, why should we interfere with Scottish law when there is no mandate, no cause célèbre and no hue and cry? Let us remember that the Crown Advocate and the Lord Justice-
§ General, giving evidence to the Royal Commission, said not only that the law of Scotland was satisfactory but also favoured the retention of the death penalty. That is in page 133 of the Commission's Report. In paragraph 383, the Crown Advocate indicated that Scottish law was satisfactory and that there was no reason for changing it. So did the legal and medical testimony, and the evidence of all the other witnesses from Scotland.
§ In the face of all that, I entirely understand the generalisation of the Setcretary of State for Scotland that the law of England should become the law of Scotland if the House of Commons votes for abolition, but for the special reason that the laws of the two countries are so different and the law of Scotland is of such a satisfactory nature it would be a retrogressive act to allow the Amendment to be carried.
§ I reiterate the argument of my hon. Friend the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) that, even if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland feels obliged to abstain, that does not mean that the Home Secretary and other members of the Government are obliged to abstain. If they do, that may give hon. Gentlemen opposite a higher majority than the Committee would desire in this matter and might have an unfortunate effect in Scotland. where, I believe, there is no warrant for this change.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 151.
|Donnelly, D. L.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Reeves, J.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwoh)||King, Dr. H. M.||Reid, William|
|Dye, S.||Kirk, P. M.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Lawson, C. M.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Edelman, M.||Ledger, R. J.||Ross, William|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Hoyle, C.|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Lewis, Arthur||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Llewellyn, D. T.||Short, E. W.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Logan, D. G.||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Fienburgh, W.||MacColl, J. E.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Finch, H. J.||McGhee, H. G.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Forman, J. C.||McGovern, J.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Fort, R.||Mctnnes, J.||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||McLeavy, Frank||Snow, J. W.|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Madden, Martin||Sparks, J. A.|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mahon, Simon||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Gower, H. R.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Stones, W. (Cousett)|
|Green, A.||Mathew, R.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Maude, Angus||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Mellish, R. J.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Grey, C. F.||Messer, Sir F.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mitchison, G. R.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Taylor, John (West Lothians;|
|Grimond, J.||Mort, D. L.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Gurden, Harold||Moss, R.||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda. W.)|
|Hale, Leslie||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Hannan, W.||Oliver, G. H.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Hastings, S.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Hayman, F. H.||Oswald, T.||Timmons, J.|
|Healey, Denis||Owen, W. J.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Holmes, Horace||Padley, W. E.||Viant, S. P.|
|Holt, A. F.||Paget, R. T.||Vickers, Miss J. H.|
|Howell, Denis (All Saints)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Wade, D. W.|
|Hoy, J. H.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pargiter, G. A.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Parker, J.||West, D. G.|
|Hunter, A, E.||Parkin, B. T.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Hyntl, H. (Accrington)||Paton, John||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Irving, S. (Dartford)||Pearson, A.||Wigg, George|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Peyton, J. W. W.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Willey, Frederick|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St.Pnos.S.)||Pitman, I. J.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Popplewell, E.||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Probert, A. R.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Proctor, W. T.||Woof, R. E.|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Pryde, D. J.||Yates, V. (Ladywaild)|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K|
|Joseph, Sir Keith||Ramsden, J. E.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Keegan, D.||Randall, H. E.|
|Kenyon, C.||Rankin, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Kershaw, J. A.||Redhead, E. C.||Mr. K. Robinson and Mr. Hyde|
|Aitken, W. T.||Campbell, Sir David||Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdale)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Channon, H.||Freeth, D. K.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Chichester-Clark, R.||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Gammans, Sir David|
|Ashton, H.||Cole, Norman||George, J. C. (Pollok)|
|Atkins, H. E.||Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Gibson-Watt, D.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.||Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Glover, D.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Gooch, E. G.|
|Banks, Col. C.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Barber, Anthony||Crouch, R. F.||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)|
|Barlow, Sir John||Cunningham, Knox||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)|
|Barter, John||Currie, C. B. H.||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Dance, J. C. G.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA.||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Doughty, C. J. A.||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Black, C. W.||Drayson, C. B.||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||du Cann, E. D. L.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)|
|Boyd, T. C.||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Erroll, F. J.||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Farey Jones, F. W.||Hobson, C. R.|
|Bryan, P.||Finlay, Graeme||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Fisher, Nigel||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.|
|Horobin, Sir Ian||Lucas, P. B. (Brantford & Chiswick)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||MoKibbin, A. J.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Howard, John (Test)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Hudson, W. F. A. (Hull, N.)||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)|
|Hughes, Hallett, Vice-AdmIral J.||Maitland, Hon. Patrlok (Lanark)||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Speir, F. M.|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Marshall, Douglas||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Hurd, A. F.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Hutchison, Sir lan Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Moody, A. S.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Hutchison, Sir James (ScotStoun)||Moore, Sir Thomas||Studholme, H. G.|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Heave, Airey||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Nicholls, Harmar||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Nugent, C. F. H.||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Oakshott, H. D.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot||Osborne, C.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Kaberry, D,||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Partridge E.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Kerr, H. W.||Pitt, Miss E. M.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Kimball, M.||Pott, H. P.||Williams, F. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Lagden, G. W.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Raikes, Sir Victor||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Redmayne, M.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Leburn, W. G.||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, 8.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Longden, Gilbert||Russell, F. S.||Captain Duncan and|
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.||Major Anstrutber-Gray.|
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from "Scotland" to second "for" in line 18.
There are a good many bad things about this Bill, and one particularly bad thing is the drafting of this subsection. It has apparently not occurred to the hon. Gentleman who is the promoter of the Bill that penal servitude was abolished in Scotland in 1949, and it may well be that on that account he may feel able to accept the Amendment. I think it is unfortunate that this subsection should be included in the Bill in the form in which it has been drafted.
The hon. Member would himself agree that penal servitude was abolished in Scotland by Section 16 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. By that Act it was made clear that the court could impose a sentence not exceeding the maximum term of penal servitude which would have been imposed before—that is to say, a sentence of imprisonment. In England and Wales the same thing was done by Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.
It seems quite clear that this Bill has been on the stocks for a long time. The hon. Member will probably agree that this Clause is a hangover from the 1948 Bill, and I think he will agree that the drafting of the Bill in this respect is extremely bad. I do not want to make any reference to imprisonment for life 160 and to what may be the consequences of the Bill, but I think the hon. Member would agree that it is necessary to bring this matter up to date. Although he wishes to impress upon the rest of the community his abolitionist views, he should at least make the matter accurate and up to date as far as this Clause is concerned.
§ Mr. Silverman
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) is perfectly right. The Bill was drafted on the basis of the Clause which was added by the House of Commons on a free vote in 1948. By that Act penal servitude was abolished in England, but that amendment of the law did not apply to Scotland and the Clause as it was drafted in 1948 was therefore correct. It is perfectly true that in 1949 the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act was passed in which penal servitude was also abolished in Scotland.
The words which the hon. Member proposes to leave out were therefore necessary in 1948 but are not merely redundant but are mistaken words to apply in the circumstances of 1956. I will therefore advise the Committee to accept the Amendment to leave these words out.
§ Mr. J. E. S. Simon: (Middlesbrough, West)
This is a most remarkable thing. It suggests to the Committee what we have all suspected—that no real consideration has been given to Scottish opinion on this Bill at any time after I948. If Scottish opinion had been canvassed on this matter it would have been 161 quite impossible for the Bill to have arrived at the House with this slovenly and out-of-date drafting.
In 1948, this Clause was drafted and since then a tremendous public campaign has been waged, with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) as its principal protagonist. The organs of public opinion have been whipped up to take part in this great effort of propaganda.[An HON. MEMBER; "Including the Sunday Express"] Weekly newspapers have been enlisted and Sunday newspapers have been enlisted.
§ Mr. S. Silverman
On a point of order. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has moved what he spoke of as a drafting Amendment and I have offered to accept his drafting Amendment. In no circumstance does an argument directed to any campaign in the country about other matters remain in order.
§ The Chairman
I thought that the hon. Member was giving his reasons for the Amendment. It will be realised that this is only the third speech on the Amendment.
§ Mr. Woodburn
Further to that point of order, Sir Charles. Is it not the case that whenever a Bill comes before this House the Government, and every hon. Member who drafts the Bill, have to admit that things have been overlooked and must be corrected? There would otherwise be no point in having a Committee stage. Is this argument in order at all?
§ Mr. Simon
I was interrupted—and I do not complain of the interruption at all—in the middle of a sentence. I was saying that it seems a most remarkable thing that with all this tremendous campaign in the country, one found many people, friends of oneself, who normally have a firm hold on reality, swept away—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—subjected almost to a process of brain-washing, so that during the early stages of this Bill and in the previous discussions all argument was jettisoned and one got the extraordinary state of affairs in which hon. Members on both sides could get up and give it as their opinion that the Royal Commission had come to the conclusion that capital punishment was no deterrent.
That was the effect of this tremendous campaign and shows its astonishing success. Yet with all that, Scottish opinion had not been sufficiently consulted for the promoters and supporters of the Bill to see that in 1949 the Scottish law had been altered. Quite obviously this Bill has been lying in the files of the campaign committee year after year. Death has taken place on the roads, death has taken place in China to the extent of millions of lives, and still this campaign relating to capital punishment goes on churning out its propaganda without anyone noticing that this Clause is drafted in a completely anachronistic way.
§ Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)
In that case, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think it extraordinary that the Government are giving time for such a Bill?
§ Mr. Simon
Many of us find it very strange, but when one considers how badly this Bill is drafted, as it now appears, it is necessary that a good deal of time should be given to putting it right.
I do not want to detain the Commitee unduly, but I do suggest that it is a most extraordinary thing, and one would have expected the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to offer some apologies to the Committee that the Bill should be presented in this form. He has at any rate shown an element of contrition at the last moment in accepting the Amendment, and I am glad that it is from this side, and from my hon. Friend, that an improvement of the Bill has come about.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Rees-Davies
This Amendment is one of importance because it is another one which deals with the question of the inclusion and exclusion of Scotland. This Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) to assist the promoter of the Bill. The promoter is assisted by bringing Scotland into line with England, and it was a great kindness on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon to show up the bad draftsmanship of the Bill and to draft it properly in order to carry out its intention.
However, I do not want to carry out the promoter's intention. Whilst I have entirely the same views on the death penalty as my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment, I arrive at the reverse conclusion, for this reason. If this Amendment were accepted it would mean that England would be brought into line with Scotland, but, as I said in a previous speech a short while ago, I do not want to see England brought into line with Scotland; I ultimately want to see Scotland bring England into line with Scottish practice.
The whole purport of my argument has been that I want to retain any anachronism in the English law of murder until it can be properly amended. This is just one of those anachronisms. If the Bill remains in its present form, it will mean that there will be a difference between Scotland and England, and that is what I want to see. I therefore do not want to encourage the acceptance of this Amendment.
The promoter of the Bill, whose cunning and dexterity in the handling of the Bill has been very considerable, rose to his feet and hurriedly said, "Oh, yes, I will accept this Amendment" I do not blame him. I expected that he would do so because he had failed in this case to show that he had really not excluded Scotland properly, and therefore he was in a difficulty. But it is not the only time that he has failed in this matter. The Committee will remember that on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill no consideration had been given as to whether the Armed Forces came within the Bill or not. We still have not heard about that, and we are still awaiting, no doubt on the Report stage, the necessary Amendments to include them. It will 164 be remembered that the House was advised by the Attorney-General that the better view was that they were not within the Bill.
On this occasion we have exactly the same position arising. Here the promoter of the Bill thought that in this matter the penalty under this Amendment was the same for England as for Scotland. But he was wrongly advised. In fact, he overlooked the important matter. and it is a matter of principle. In 1948 there was the Criminal Justice Act of England and in 1949 there was the Criminal Justice Act of Scotland. Therefore, we have got two quite different occasions upon which different penalties were being dealt with. We have got the same argument arising on this Amendment as we had arising in the previous case to exclude Scotland. This is yet another of the differences between the law of England and the law of Scotland. There is the question of penal servitude which had to be brought into line.
What I urge on the Committee is this. Those of us who were in favour of Scotland being excluded should, although it is anachronistic, seek to retain this anachronism because it will be yet a further opportunity of showing emphatically that we do not want England and Scotland to be brought into conformity by accepting this Amendment.
Those are some of the reasons—and, no doubt, there are other Members who will advance other reasons—for rejecting this Amendment, although moved in the best spirit, with the friendliest intentions and with a terminological exactitude for the law that one would expect from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), whose law in this matter is impeccable. They have done something which I am sure they never intended to do, namely, to assist the promoter of the Bill to remove an anachronism which ought never to have been contained in the Bill in the first place, but which, once we have got it there, we need to retain in order to defeat the Bill for a totally different purpose. For those, among other reasons, I hope that we will not encourage the promoter by accepting this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
§ The Chairman
I propose to put the Question on this Clause under Standing Order 45, without any further debate.
§ Mr. Simon
On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I draw your attention to the terms of Standing Order 45? It says:If, during the consideration of a bill in a committee of the whole House, the chairman is of opinion that the principle of a clause and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, he may, after the last amendment selected has been disposed of, state that he is of this opinion and shall then forthwith put the question, 'That the clause (or the clause as amended) stand part of the bill'.I gather that it was under that Standing Order that you were proposing to put the Question straight away.
§ The Chairman
I can deal with only one at a time. If the hon. Member will wait a moment, I will give him a chance.
§ Mr. Simon
May I finish this point of order? I was saying that the principle of the Clause was discussed on Second Reading, but that during the course of the Committee stage an Amendment has been moved and accepted which excepts from the Clause a certain class of murder, namely, murder committed while a sentence of life imprisonment is already being served. That is a most important exception. In my respectful submission, it strikes at the very principle and basis of this Clause. It is an exception to the principle of the Clause itself, and strikes at the very root of most of the arguments, which were arguments relating to deterrence, urged in support of the Bill and the Clause on Second Reading.
As I understood them, the arguments were that capital punishment can never be a deterrent, and it was on that basis, as I understood, that the House passed the Second Reading of the Bill. The Committee having now made an exception of this sort to this Clause, it is quite apparent that the Committee came to the conclusion 166 that, at any rate in one type of murder, capital punishment was a deterrent.
In those circumstances, I suggest, with very great respect, Sir Charles, that the principle of the Clause as amended, and particularly matters arising thereon, has not been sufficiently discussed. With very great respect, I ask you to reconsider your Ruling, and to rule that the Clause should be debated on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
§ The Chairman
As a matter of fact, the point of the last Amendment, which was accepted, upon which I gather the argument is based—
§ The Chairman
Order. I can deal with only one point of order at a time. I must ask the hon. Member to wait a moment.
§ Mr. Simon
I am sorry to hold up the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment to which my argument was directed was the Amendment which excepted from the operation of the Clause murders committed by any person who was serving an existing sentence of life imprisonment. It is that, in my submission, which strikes at the very root of this Clause, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will at any rate agree with me on that.
§ Mr. Simon
The hon. Gentleman may say that now, but from his argument when that Clause was debated it was a very different story that we heard. What he said then was that any of those Amendments struck at the root and principle of the Bill. It is because the acceptance of that Amendment by the Committee means that the Committee rejected, at any rate for one class of murder, the argument that capital punishment is no deterrent that I suggest that this amended Clause should now be debated.
§ The Chairman
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Really, what the 167 hon. and learned Member would like is for Standing Order No. 45 to be altered, and that if a Clause has been amended it should not apply. Is not that the point?
§ Mr. Simon
Again, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I rely on the terms of the Standing Order itself.…that the principle of a clause and any matters arising thereon…The principle of the Clause unamended was discussed, but an utterly new principle arose in view of the Amendment, and it is because of that that I ask you, Sir Charles, to say that the matter should be debated.
§ The Chairman:
If the hon. and learned Gentleman had read on a little further he would have seen that it is a matter of opinion. The words are, "he is of this opinion."
§ Mr. Butler
I am extremely grateful for the Ruling which you have given, Sir Charles. I rose on a point of order to ask whether it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to question your Ruling on the interpretation of Standing Orders
§ The Chairman
It is perfectly in order to question my Ruling. I have no doubt I make mistakes, but when I am wrong I am always willing to reverse my decision, but I have no intention of doing so this time.
§ Mr. Rees-Davies
I appreciate the point which you make, Sir Charles, about the question of opinion. There was one matter which arose in the course of the Committee stage on this in addition to the point already taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon). It was the whole question of the principle as to whether the Armed Forces were within or without the ambit of this Bill. That was not only argued at great length, but entirely different views were expressed as to the ambiguity as to whether it was within the Bill or without the Bill. Eventually that was taken on a Division when a great part of the House did not know whether it was in or out.
With great respect, it is a very important question to clear up on Clause 1 in 168 order to find out really what will happen with regard to the Armed Forces. It seems to me that that is the sort of matter which arose in the course of the Committee stage, and I can say without fear of contradiction that there was not one word about the Armed Forces on the Second Reading. It therefore only arose for discussion when it reached the Committee stage. It only arose on the Amendment which I moved. There was a great deal of debate and a lot of ambiguity, and in the end we never got the result clear. We got a Division with a small majority with a great deal of ambiguity.
If there is to be discussion on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," I presume that the sort of occasion when the matter would arise would be concerning an important Amendment which had not been able to be fully cleared up in the course of the discussion. When there is an important question of principle, like the matter of the Armed Forces, as to whether they should be in or outside the Bill, that would be a matter, I should have thought, which would arise for discussion on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I wanted to ask a good many questions of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), the promoter of the Bill, about his intentions. That would seem to be in order, particularly as the Question is, presumably, susceptible to a Division. Before passing the Clause, one ought to have that opportunity to find out the intentions of the promoter in that matter. I suggest, therefore, that that furthers the point which has already been taken by my hon. and learned Friend when dealing with the other matter of the new principle arising on the Bill.
§ The Chairman
Whatever the promoter of the Bill thinks, on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," we can discuss only what is in the Clause. One man's opinion is about as bad as another's.
Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 163.
|Division No. 194.]||AYES||[10.16 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Parker, J.|
|Albu, A. H.||Grimond, J.||Parkin, B. T.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Gurden, Harold||Paton, John|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Hale, Leslie||Pearson, A.|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Hannan, W.||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Hastings, S.||Pitman, I. J.|
|Baird, J.||Hayman, F, H.||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Balfour, A.||Healey, Denis||Popplewell, E.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Holmes, Horace||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Holt, A. F.||Probert, A. R.|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Howell, Denis (All Saints)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Hoy, J. H.||Pryde, D J.|
|Benson, G.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Beswick, F.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Randall, H. E.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Hunter, A. E.||Rankin, John|
|Blackburn, F.||Hyde, Montgomery||Redhead, E. C.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Reid, William|
|Blyton, W. R.||Irving, S. (Dartford)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Boardman, H.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Jeger, George (Goole)||Ross, William|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St.Pnos,S)||Royle, C.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Short, E. W.|
|Burke, W. A.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech( Wakefield)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Champion, A. J.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Clunie, J.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Snow, J. W.|
|Coldrick, W.||Joseph, Sir Keith||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cole, Norman||Keegan, D.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Kenyon, C.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Kershaw, J. A.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||King, Dr. H. M.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Lawson, G. M.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Ledger, R. J.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lewis, Arthur||Teeling, W.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Llewellyn, D. T.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Deer, G.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Delargy, H. J.||MacColl, J. E.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Dodds, N. N.||McGhee, H. G.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Donnelly, D. L.||McGovern, J.||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||McInnes, J.||Timmons, J.|
|Dye, S.||McLeavy, Frank||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Vickers, Miss J. H.|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Madden, Martin||Wade, D. W.|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly)||Mahon, Simon||Warbey, W. N.|
|Edwards, Robert (Bliston)||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Weitzman, D.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Mathew, R.||West, D. G.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Maude, Angus||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Mellish, R. J.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mikardo, Ian||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Fienburgh, W.||Mitchison, G. R.||Wigg, George|
|Finch, H. J.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Forman, J. C.||Moss, R.||Willey, Frederick|
|Fort. R.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Woolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Oliver, G. H.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Oswald, T.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Gower, H. R.||Owen, W. J.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Green, A.||Padley, W. E.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Paget, K. T.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Zilliaous, K.|
|Grey, C. F.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Pargiter, C. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. K. Robinson and Mr. Kirk|
|Agnew, Cmdr P. G.||Baldwin, A. E.||Bossom, Sir A. C.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Banks, Col. C.||Boyd, T. C.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Barber, Anthony||Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Barlow, Sir John||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Barter, John||Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Bidgood, J. C.||Brooman-White, R. C.|
|Ashton, H.||Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Bryan, P.|
|Atkins, H. E.||Bishop, F. P.||Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.|
|Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Blank, C. W.||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Howard, John (Test)||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)|
|Campbell, Sir David||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Partridge, E.|
|Channon, H.||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Hurd, A. R.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)||Raikes, Sir Victor|
|Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Redmayne, M.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Crouch, R. F.||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Cunningham, Knox||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Kaberry, D.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Kimball, M.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lagden, G. W.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Lambton, Viscount||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Leburn, W. G.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Studholme, H. G.|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Freeth, D. K.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||McKibbin, A. J.||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)|
|Gammans, Sir David||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Gibson-Watt, D.||Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley)||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Glover, D.||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Marshall, Douglas||Vosper, D. F.|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Moody, A. S.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Moore, Sir Thomas||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Heave, Airey||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Nicholls, Harmer||Woollam, John Victor|
|Hobson, C. R.||Nugent, G. R. H.|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Horobin, Sir Ian||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)||Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre and|
|Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Osborne, C.||Sir R. Grimston.|
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.