HC Deb 14 July 1953 vol 517 cc1897-905
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a matter of procedure? I wish to bring before the House a matter which is, I believe, of tremendous national importance. As the House and you will be aware, today we have been presented, a matter of two and a half hours or so ago, with the Report of the tribunal set up to inquire into the trial and execution of Timothy John Evans for the murder of his child, and tomorrow morning John Halliday Christie is to be executed.

It seems to me that some way ought to be found for this House to discuss this Report before Christie, who is a vitally material witness, is executed. As you will be aware, I sought this morning to put down a Private Notice Question on this matter, which you in your wisdom rejected under the Standing Orders and the rules of the House. So far I have been unable to find any other way of raising the matter, but I feel, and I am sure that the whole House does, that it would be the wish of the country that we should discuss this Report and give it our approval or otherwise before this material witness is executed.

It is, I believe, within the power of this House to reject the findings of the Tribunal, and in fact to order another inquiry. If we do not discuss the White Paper until after the material witness is executed, what practical purpose will there be? Therefore, I seek your guidance as to the course I ought to adopt to bring this matter before the House before it is too late.

Mr. S. Silverman

Before you give your Ruling on this question, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make an observation which might perhaps be taken into account by you in considering what advice can be given. We all know that the rule is now established, whatever some of us may think about it, that the Home Secretary cannot be asked Questions, nor can there be any discussion here or any question of a Motion or a Question on the Order Paper, about the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy until after the event.

I submit that what is involved here is not the Prerogative of mercy. The suggestion is not being made that anything shall be done to influence the mind of the Home Secretary one way or the other as to whether the law shall take its course ultimately in this case or not. It is not the Prerogative of mercy with which we are now concerned. We are now concerned, not with whether the execution shall take place or not, but when. I submit that the question when it shall take place is not governed by the same considerations as those which apply to the quite different question whether it should take place at all.

What my hon. Friend has submitted—and there must be many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are with him strongly and emphatically—is the suggestion that there is a great deal that the House would still like to know about all these matters, especially after the Report which has now been made, and that we cannot know them if the second of the main actors, as well as the first, is put in the position in which his mouth is forever silenced. This must be a matter with which the House is entitled to deal. It is not a matter in which the Prerogative of mercy, a totally different matter, must apply.

Mr. Speaker

I had to refuse the Private Notice Question dealing with these matters from the hon. Member who raised this issue, because of the long-established practice of the House to which I had occasion to refer in January last. On that occasion I referred to a Ruling by my predecessor when he said: A capital sentence cannot be raised in Question or debate while the sentence is pending. After it has been executed, the Minister responsible may be criticised on the relevant Vote in Supply, or on the Adjournment. I have said that that is the practice of the House, and I cannot alter the practice of the House. I commented on that occasion: Neither can I."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 850.] According to the practice of the House, I felt obliged to rule out that matter. If hon. Members will look at the same volume of HANSARD they will see what the then Speaker, Colonel Clifton Brown, said on that occasion. He supported his Ruling by Rulings going back to 1887. There are many Rulings to the same effect.

To put it shortly, I think the practice of the House is this: it realises that these matters of the Prerogative of mercy, after a capital sentence has been passed, and Questions as to the postponement of an execution, are within the responsibility of the Home Secretary, which is a very heavy responsibility, and that he has all the facts relevant to his decision in this matter in his possession. He is liable to be criticised afterwards for what he does, but until the sentence is executed the rule of the House, as established by long practice, is that no Question can be addressed to him or to the House on the matter, and the matter cannot be raised either by Question or by debate. That is the practice of the House and I am bound by it as much as hon. Members. If the House desires on some future occasion to take this matter into consideration and change its practice, that is not a matter for me, but until that has been done by Resolution of the House I am bound by this practice.

Mr. Silverman

I submit that no decision of the House was ever taken at any time which deals with the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) has put before you. There is all the difference in the world between that matter and the House establishing by precedent and long practice—if indeed it has done so—the question of the Prerogative of mercy and its exercise as one within the discretion and responsibility of the Home Secretary, and subject to criticism only afterwards, if at all.

This is not that question, but a totally different question, a question not of whether the execution shall take place, but whether it shall take place tomorrow and in circumstances which have no bearing whatever upon the merits of the man or the case involved but upon a quite different case of another person which it is now unfortunately in order to discuss. This must be a totally different matter from the question of bringing pressure to bear, Parliamentary or otherwise, upon the Home Secretary as to what advice he will give about the Prerogative of mercy.

That is a matter on which he has decided in this case. We cannot discuss it, unfortunately, until afterwards. What we are concerned with today is not that question at all but only whether there can be such an interval of time as will enable the House to discuss matters which cause the deepest anxiety and misgivings about the administration of justice. Nobody expects the administration of justice to be infallible, but it is integrity which matters, and that is involved here. I submit, I hope with respect and no little confidence, that all the previous decisions and precedents relate exclusively to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy, which is not involved at all in the matter which my hon. Friend wishes to raise.

Mr. Benn

May I submit three very brief points to you, Mr. Speaker? The first is that the rule of the House about the capital sentence is, as you pointed out, that it can be discussed only after the sentence has been carried out. It has also been ruled in the past, when a Motion has been made to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 9, that the Adjournment cannot be made until all the information is available. I submit, first, that as the White Paper has been published only this afternoon it is this afternoon that is the earliest opportunity of discussing the case of a man upon whom sentence of death has been already carried out. This is the earliest moment that this House has been able to discuss the sentence of death carried out on the man Evans.

My second submission is one in which I support my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), that no question arises about the Prerogative of mercy in the case of the man Christie, whereas in the Ruling which you quoted on 27th January there was a specific reference to the question of the Prerogative of mercy. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, you will recall, in his Ruling used these words: My remarks were, therefore, directed to the question of the Prerogative of mercy in the case of persons under sentence of death."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 2180–1.] The other Ruling which you quoted, that of Mr. Speaker Whitley, used the words: … I must make it quite clear that no question of the Adjournment can arise on the subject of the advice tendered to His Majesty by a Home Secretary with regard to a reprieve. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1922; Vol. 155, c. 205.] My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne said that in this case we are considering an administrative matter, the date of execution, which is wholly within the province of the Home Secretary's responsibility and does not bear on any advice which he may give to the Crown.

I submit that the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) would be fully met if a debate were held this afternoon on the findings of the tribunal in that then there would be no necessity to postpone the execution, because the House would have reached some sort of conclusion, however unsatisfactory, before the hour of execution which is already fixed.

Mr. Hector Hughes

May I respectfully make another submission to you, Mr. Speaker? I submit, with respect, that the real question that you have to consider now is whether this House is to be deprived of a very important witness in connection with the discussion which is about to take place. Presumably this House will be given an opportunity of discussing the Report which has been placed in our hands today. It may well be that the House may come to a certain decision about that Report which will involve a reconsideration of the Report and possibly a reconsideration of the evidence which has been given to the gentleman who reported; or some other course may be taken. It may well be that this House may find it necessary to advise that further evidence be taken. That may be the evidence of the man who is due to be executed tomorrow.

With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the real question that you have to consider in this case is not the question of any interference with the Royal Prerogative, but the question whether this House is to be deprived of a witness who, in the event, may turn out to be an essential witness in further consideration of the matter which the House will have to discuss when the Report comes before us.

Mr. Speaker

I have listened with the greatest care to all that has been said by the three hon. Members who have spoken, and I had all these considerations thoroughly in view before I gave the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers). In my view, there is no difference which justifies me in departing from the practice of the House on this occasion. All the considerations which have been urged must be supposed to have been in the mind of the Home Secretary in exercising his discretion in this matter and therefore I say, and must say, that the rule and the practice of the House forbid me to admit a Question on this matter at this stage.

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9: To call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the necessity of the House to have an opportunity to discuss the Report of the tribunal appointed to inquire into the trial of Timothy John Evans before the execution of J. H. Christie.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9: To call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the necessity of the House to have an opportunity to discuss the Report of the tribunal appointed to inquire into the trial of Timothy John Evans before the execution of J. H. Christie. There again, I find that that is entirely covered by authority. This is, in fact, an attempt to move for the discussion, upon the Adjournment of the House, of a capital sentence which is pending, before the execution. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that that is not allowable by the Rules. I also point out that the House is going to resolve itself into Committee of Supply and that in Committee of Supply matters of various sorts can be raised, and that this could be raised if it were so desired. But it is not a matter on which I could accept a Motion under the Standing Order because it does not apply to that Standing Order.

Mr. S. Silverman

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9: To call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the imminent execution of John Halliday Christie before the House has the opportunity of discussing the Evans Report. In submitting that to you, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully say that the intention is not in any way to discuss the capital sentence upon John Halliday Christie? What we desire to discuss is the Report of Mr. Scott Henderson on his inquiry into the execution of Timothy John Evans, which would certainly be in order.

What we are saying, with respect, is that that discussion ought to take place while Christie is alive and not afterwards, for obvious reasons. The objection that the House must not discuss a capital sentence which is pending, I submit with respect, does not apply to this Motion. Nobody intends to discuss that, nobody wishes to discuss that at this moment. What we wish to discuss is not the capital sentence upon Christie but the execution of the capital sentence upon Evans, in the light of Mr. Scott Henderson's Report.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9: To call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the imminent execution of John Halliday Christie before the House has the opportunity of discussing the Evans Report. As a matter of fact, if the hon. Member refers to the Standing Orders he will find that only one Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 can be made in one day. But quite apart from that, what I have said previously covers this question. There must always be many reasons which could be urged, if the matters were permissible, for postponing the execution of a man who has been found guilty of murder. There must often be many such reasons, and this is just another. I am afraid that I must adhere to my decision.

Mr. Bowles

May I respectfully make another submission to you, Mr. Speaker? Would you be prepared to accept the first Motion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Roberts) asked leave to move, if the last three or four words referring to the execution of Christie were deleted? I submit respectfully that this rule applies only to a Motion for the Adjournment of today's business from seven o'clock to 10 o'clock, or whatever the hours may be, and if my hon. Friend were to delete from the Motion any reference to discussion of the Report "before the execution of J. H. Christie," surely it would be in order, because then it would make no reference whatever to the forthcoming execution.

Mr. Speaker

If all reference to Christie were omitted and it were merely a Motion on the Adjournment to discuss the Report on Evans, I could not find that within the Standing Order because that by itself could be discussed at any time.

Mr. Silverman

Is it not the case that it is not infrequent when the House finds itself in difficulty about the formulation of the Motion asking for the Adjournment that a number of hon. Members try their hand at a formulation which would be within the Standing Orders? That is not in conflict with the rule that there can be only one such Motion on one day.

With regard to my form of Motion, I submit, with respect, first, that no question of the capital sentence upon Christie is involved; secondly, that the question of the Evans Report is of public importance; and thirdly, that what makes the discussion of it urgent is the danger that, unless something happens today, by this time tomorrow a vital witness will have been removed. With respect, that seems to me to be a combination of all the essential factors which make a Motion of this kind important and to be in no way in conflict with the decisions of the House and its precedents relative to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy.

The reasons the Prerogative of mercy must not be debated in this way are known to us all, but none of them applies in the remotest degree, or in any sense whatever, to a proposition that a discussion on another matter which is in order ought to be expedited before a vital witness is removed and silenced. The execution can take place later. Nothing will be prejudiced and nothing lost.

Mr. Speaker

I have great sympathy with what hon. Members have urged. I wish I could find it within my conscience to agree with them, but alas, I cannot, having given the matter every consideration.

Mr. Lewis

There is another point upon which I should like your advice, Mr. Speaker. Having heard and accepted your Ruling on the question of moving the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, am I right in assuming that on many occasions in the past, in the interests either of the House or of the public, or in cases where the Government have felt that it would be advantageous to do so, it has been the custom for the Government Chief Whip to rise, on his own volition, and ask for permission to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss an issue?

Would it be in order if the Government Chief Whip, realising the importance of this matter, rose and moved the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the Report which has now been issued? Am I not right in assuming that that can be done without any reference to Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Speaker

In answer to the hon. Member, so far as I am concerned, that question is at present hypothetical. If such a Motion were moved, I should have to make up my mind about it.

Mr. Lewis

I wanted your advice whether or not it would be in order for the Government Chief Whip to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss this Report.

Mr. Speaker

There is no doubt that it would be, but it has not been moved.