HC Deb 21 March 1946 vol 420 cc2145-54

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Benson (Chesterfield)

I wish to raise the question of the recent ordinance in Trinidad reimposing the penalty of corporal punishment. I do so because this is merely the latest example of a number of recent extensions of this extraordinarily undesirable form of punishment in our Colonial Empire. This extension is all the more disturbing because, as I would have HON. MEMBERS remember, this country is the only country in Europe which still retains corporal punishment, and the British Empire is the only Colonial Empire which still finds it necessary to flog natives. This extension took place at the beginning of this year.

It is true that in Trinidad, as all over the world, the war resulted in a sharp increase in the rate of crime. In Trinidad it was complicated by the establishment of American bases and an influx of easy money. The Government of Trinidad met the situation, as it ought to have been met, by stepping up the efficiency of their police force and by expanding its numbers and improving its technique. In 1944, as a result, there was a considerable drop in the incidence of crime. Unfortunately, in 1945 there was an increase once again in the global figures of offences of violence. I want to emphasise the fact that this increase was in the global figures, and it was on this increase in the global figures that the demand for the right to flog was made and was granted by the Colonial Secretary.

When we turn to the detailed categories of crime we find some rather contradictory and curious results. Prior to the imposition of flogging, as a result of the increased efficiency of the police force, robbery with violence between 1943 and 1945 had come down by 50 per cent., larceny had come down by 60 per cent., and a rather curious category known as assaults akin to hooliganism also decreased by 50 per cent. It is true that what is known as woundings had gone up very seriously—more than double. Woundings, so far as I can gather, are gang fights between natives. There was also a sharp and serious increase in assaults on the police. But, in view of the fact that robbery, larceny and assault -as a whole had dropped practically to 50 per cent., and it was only in respect of these two other offences—woundings and assaults on the police—that there had been an increase—an increase of 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. in the latter— the demand for the right to flog was unjustifiable, and certainly the Colonial Secretary had no right whatever to consent to it. There might have been some excuse for the Colonial Secretary if there was any evidence that corporal punishment was likely to be more effective than ordinary imprisonment, but the whole of the evidence that we have, is against it.

I would remind HON. MEMBERS that it was only in 1937 that we had a departmental committee examination into the whole of the 75 years' experience in which the "cat" has been used in this country, and, as a result of that careful examination, the departmental committee came to the conclusion that they could not find the slightest evidence from the figures to show that corporal punishment had been any more effective than ordinary imprisonment. So far as this country is concerned, corporal punishment certainly stands condemned on its record. It may be said that it is more effective with regard to natives. What are the facts there? As I mentioned previously, this Trinidad extension is only one of a number. In May, 1945, corporal punishment was imposed on Kenya for house breaking and burglary. The figures that we have for the period from May, 1945, to February this year show that, despite the imposition of flogging in Kenya, the incidence of those particular crimes which are floggable has increased by 10 per cent.

Let me turn to Jamaica, which is fairly close to Trinidad and where circumstances are very parallel. In July, 1942, under two separate ordinances, corporal punishment was imposed for crimes of violence and for another crime known as praedial larceny. I wish to compare the incidence of crime after August with the incidence before August. The figures for Jamaica that have been provided to the Colonial Office seem to suggest that there has been a drop following upon the imposition of corporal punishment, but, to anybody who examines those figures, and who is accustomed to handling criminal statistics, it is obvious at the first glance that these figures are compiled with the utmost carelessness, that they are very in-accurate and incomplete, and that, so far as the evidence is concerned, they are not worth the paper they are written on. With regard to praedial larceny, for which offence by far the largest number of floggings were imposed, the Colonial Office itself queried the figures and asked for a more careful compilation. Eventually they got the revised figures which were very greatly modified and altered from the original ones supplied. I think we can take the praedial larceny statistics as reasonably reliable. What are the facts? In two years and 10 months under the praedial larceny ordinance they whipped 671 persons. If ever whipping and corporal punishment were tried out it was under this ordinance of Jamaica in 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what praedial larceny is, because some HON. MEMBERS do not know?

Mr. Benson

Praedial larceny is the name given to the theft of growing crops. It has led to an enormous amount of damage and is undoubtedly a very serious crime. For that offence, in two years and 10 months they whipped 671 persons. What was the effect of that? We have the monthly figures. In 1942, when the whipping started, they were whipping 15 per month. In 1945 they were whipping 28 per month. The convictions in 1942, for the first five months after corporal punishment was imposed, were 60 per month. After two years and 10 months of whipping, after 671 persons had been whipped, the convictions had increased from 60 per month to 77 per month. In view of all this evidence of the complete futility of corporal punishment, in view of the fact that we are the only Empire that attempts to keep order among natives by the whip and by the birch, in view of the fact that France, Belgium, and Holland have not tolerated this form of punishment for over a generation, the Colonial Secretary was entirely unjustified in granting the demand of Trinidad for the extension of corporal punishment.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. John Paton (Norwich)

I do not propose to detain the House long in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). In my view, the decision that has been taken by the Colonial Office in consenting to the reintroduction—because it is the reintroduction—of flogging in Trinidad is a deplorable thing. Corporal punishment was abolished in Trinidad in 1941. Its reintroduction has come about as a result of the fact that there has been, as my hon. Friend has said, a very considerable increase in the volume of crimes, and particularly the volume of crimes involving personal violence. That, of course, is undoubtedly true. The increase in the volume of crimes involving personal violence is, without any question, due to the impact upon the people of the Island of Trinidad of the influx of large numbers of American troops, free spending, free drinking, lusty young men from the United States. That is an impact the consequences of which one can imagine in an island like Trinidad, when we know so much about the consequences of a similar impact upon our own population in very many areas here in Great Britain. The increase in the volume of crime in Trinidad as a result of that kind of influence is not a new phenomenon. In fact, in every country of the whole world in which the impact of the war has been felt, there has been a similar manifestation—an increase in the volume of crime, and an increase in the volume of violent crime. It is only in the Island of Trinidad, however, that the authorities are attempting to deal with this phenomenon by the bad old process of trying to flay the skin off the backs of the culprits.

From a study of the many columns of reports of the debates in the Legislative Council of Trinidad when this Bill was under discussion, I believe that this decision very largely came about because the Attorney-General in Trinidad—a relatively new appointment, since the former abolition of corporal punishment—held the view that this punishment was deterrent in its effect and was likely to check that increased volume of crime. He justified his belief in these words, and I invite the House to note the significance of what he said: We can produce no statistics, but I maintain myself, and I sincerely believe, that the threat of corporal punishment is a deterrent. In other words, the Attorney-General had not a shred of evidence, no facts, on which to support his belief. It was a mere opinion, a mere prejudice, and yet it was on his initiative that this retrograde step was taken in Trinidad. It is true that he was able to call to his support expressions of opinion by organised bodies and prominent individuals in the Island who were demanding this very thing, just as similar people demand the same kind of thing in our own country in similar circumstances, but there were also, on the other side, opposing the reintroduction of corporal punishment, bodies of organised opinion—including the municipal council of Port of Spain—which strongly opposed the reintroduction of this punishment. Therefore, it was not a question of a unanimous public opinion in the Island demanding the reintroduction of corporal punishment, but a divided public opinion, in which responsible bodies like the Municipal Council of Port of Spain, in far closer contact with the people than was the Attorney-General, took an entirely opposite point of view.

I would like to quote a passage from a letter from a friend of mine, a man of very great experience in the West Indies, who was himself a judge in the West Indies and had therefore had experience of the effects of punishment of this kind. This is what he writes to me: I was a judicial officer in three West Indian Colonies, Barbados, Trinidad, and British Honduras, and I never made use of power to order flogging unless I was compelled to do so by law. During World War No. 1 sugar planters in Barbados were compelled to plant a minimum of their land in food crops for consumption in the Colony, and they succeeded in getting Government to pass a law making flogging a compulsory punishment for larceny of any of those crops, i.e., praedial larceny. I found that it had no deterrent effect whatever. On several occasions 1 convicted the same person of praedial larceny and had to order him to be flogged sometimes before the wounds on his back had healed completely from the previous flogging. I suggest that in the face of testimony of that kind from a judge of his experience, there can be no possible argument to suggest that this form of barbarity is in fact an effective deterrent. I deplore the fact that this Government of ours, a Labour Government, should have been so false to the humanitarian traditions of the Socialist movement of which it is representative to have consented to a step of this kind. How can anybody imagine that if you have gota coloured man brutalised by evil conditions of life in an island like Trinidad you can make him less brutal by flogging the skin oft his back? Is that going to be suggested? Is that the argument? How is it possible to maintain that this is in any sense a deterrent in face of the vast mass of evidence which proves exactly the contrary?

I would ask my hon. Friend who is to reply to take steps at the earliest possible moment, and to give this House the assurance that he will take them, to see that this decision is revoked, and to see to it that this is not allowed to be used as an example to be followed in other Colonies where barbarous-minded officials of the same type might wish to introduce this particular form of punishment. I hope that in what he has to say to the House, he will give the assurance, at least, that this is admittedly an unfortunate lapse on the part of the Government and does not represent in any sense their policy.

9.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones)

I think my hon. Friends will appreciate my own personal difficulty in replying to this Debate. I think, too, that we all deplore the indisposition of the Secretary of State, and that he himself is not here to meet some of the criticisms which have been made. He would like me to say for him that he has no misgivings, so far as my hon. Friends are concerned, about their raising this question on the Adjournment tonight. It is for me to try to explain to the House the difficulties he was in when he was asked to agree to the legislation which has been complained about. The request was made to him to authorise such legislation in Trinidad soon after he took office. He, naturally, was most reluctant to give such endorsement, and he referred the matter back to Trinidad. The authorities in Trinidad almost unanimously, if not unanimously, represented that the situation there was such that some such action as that for which they had asked was imperative. Not satisfied with the reply from Trinidad, my right hon. Friend sought the advice of the Governor on his visit to London, discussed the problem again with the Governor, and refused to concede the request of the authorities out there. He indicated that if on the Governor's return to Trinidad the opinion was widely held that it was imperative that such legislation should be introduced, then he would reconsider his attitude in the matter. Unfortunately, pressure was continuously applied on the Governor's return. The view was unanimously represented to him that some such legislation ought to be adopted. With the greatest hesitation and reluctance my right hon. Friend agreed that such legislation as is complained about should be introduced.

But he made it clear that as far as he was concerned this legislation should be removed from the Statute Book at the earliest opportunity. He suggested that the legislation should be for a period of two years; that reports should be furnished at the end of each six months; and that if no action had been taken in regard to the future of this legislation by the end of 18 months, he should then have the opportunity of bringing the whole question into review. Moreover, he did insist on certain limitations in regard to the operation of the punishment. He made it clear that magistrates courts could not impose this type of punishment. It must be imposed by the Supreme Court. He suggested that the number of crimes for which these punishments could operate must be strictly limited, and these were chiefly crimes of robbery with violence, offences involving violence likely to cause grievous bodily harm, rape and crimes of that kind. The legislation was subsequently passed by the Legislative Council. It is true that it was not unanimously carried, but there was a pretty big majority in its favour, and, as far as the elected members of the Council were concerned, the majority were in favour of such legislation.

My hon. Friend has given the House the facts behind the introduction of this legislation. It is quite true that for a period the Trinidad Government attempted to avoid the introduction of these drastic measures. In 1942, they adopted a whole series of regulations which were designed to make it more difficult for the commission of crimes, by tightening up liquor and taxi licences, the supervision of dance halls, placing regulations on the amount of liquor, and control in regard to the type of sentences which magistrates could pass. Unfortunately, instead of crimes diminishing, although the results of these new regulations were beneficial in the sense that the number of crimes of violence decreased, after a while the number of crimes of violence increased.

Mr. Benson

Is it not a fact that it was only some crimes of violence which in creased, and that robbery with violence, hooliganism and larceny all remained down?

Mr. Creech Jones

Yes, Sir, but the local authorities were alarmed to the extent that they felt it was inevitable that this kind of punishment and these powers should be granted to the courts. It is not, as I have said, my duty to justify this legislation; I merely want to explain the facts. As the question of the general policy of the Colonial Office has been raised, I want to make it clear that for a number of years Colonial Secretaries of State have made it their purpose to decrease or diminish this kind of punishment in all parts of the Colonial Empire. The Secretary of State himself has been considering, as soon as circumstances permit, issuing a further circular as a directive to Governors for the purpose of bringing this type of punishment still further under control. At the same time, he is trying to pursue a social and economic policy for the purpose of preventing the causes of crime, rather than attaching over emphasis to the punishment of crimes when they arise. It is that side which I want to emphasise, and stress what the Colonial Office is doing. There is a Colonial Penal Sub-Committee now scrutinising all the reports which are received. This is an advisory board, which is examining penal methods and treatment of crime and management of prisons in all parts of the Colonial Empire. Already, a vigorous policy is under way for the extension of welfare work by the appointment of probation officers, the treatment of juvenile delinquency, the provision of children's courts, the establishment of approved schools, the creation of youth centres, and many other practical and constructive measures. Experience has taught us in our own country that when we want to eliminate crime we attempt to remove the occasion for it. It is a question of removing ignorance by improving the educational and intellectual advantages of the normal people, and generally creating better economic and social conditions.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, West)

How does corporal punishment fit in with all that?

Mr. Creech Jones

I am trying to point out that the Colonial Office, at the present time, is pursuing a constructive social policy. In the pursuit of that policy of the elimination of crime, the occasion of crime becomes less and less. At the same time, steps are being taken in the courts to overhaul the whole question of the treatment of crime, to abolish corporal punishment so far as juveniles are concerned, and to reduce it into narrower limits so far as adults are concerned.

As the result of this policy, I hope that not only will occasional crime become less, but the treatment of delinquency will be in much more constructive terms, and the kind of punishment complained of completely eliminated. I have the utmost sympathy with the point of view which has been expressed by the two HON. MEMBERS, and I can assure them that what they have said will be carefully studied by the Secretary of State.

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order made upon 16th August.

Adjourned at Thirteen Minutes to Ten o'Clock.