HC Deb 23 February 1956 vol 549 cc574-81
The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a short statement.

The Government have considered what course should be followed in the light of the decision taken by the House, on a free vote, on Thursday last on the question of capital punishment. We have decided to find time for a Second Reading of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill which has already been introduced into this House by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). This would be on a free vote. It would not, in our view, be appropriate for the Government themselves to bring forward a Measure which they have so recently advised the House against.

The necessary arrangements will be made with the hon. Member through the usual channels.

Mr. Gaitskell

While there will be general agreement that the further legislation contemplated on this subject should be debated on a free vote, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that many of us feel that in view of the decisive vote of the House, and the remarks of the Prime Minister after the debate on capital punishment, it would not have been inappropriate for the Government to have followed the lead of the House in this matter, and sponsored a Measure designed to carry out the intentions of the House?

The Prime Minister

I understand, and the whole House does, that there are many difficult considerations that have to be weighed in this matter. Actually, what I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, did not at all indicate, if I may say so with respect, that the Government bound themselves to introduce legislation.

May I repeat the words, since the House would, perhaps, like to have them: The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Government will give full weight at once to a decision taken by this House on a free vote….'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2664.] That means what we are doing. The Government have tried hard to work out a fair arrangement. We offer two things. The first is that there should be time for the Bill, which will be taken out of our time. The second is that there should be a free vote on the stages of the Bill. I think that both those are fair offers in the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Gaitskell

While in no way withdrawing from the comments I have just made—there is a difference of opinion between us—may I ask the Prime Minister when he expects to find time for my hon. Friend's Bill to be given its Second Reading?

The Prime Minister

That can certainly be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Gaitskell

Can we be assured that the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House?

The Prime Minister

Yes. I have considered that and the Government take the view that, because of the very grave seriousness of the matter, the Committee stage should be taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. H. Morrison

Does the Prime Minister not recall that in the course of the debate last week, having referred to the free vote, I said: I hope we can be assured by the Leader of the House, in the course of his reply, that the Government will act"— I emphasise the word "act"— upon the decision of the House, whichever way the decision is taken, just as we, if the decision goes the way we do not want, must put up with it as the decision of the House, and accept it for the time being"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2578.] In reply, the Lord Privy Seal said: I would say at once in answer to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), himself an ex-Home Secretary, that when we have a free vote, we naturally expect to base our actions, if perhaps after necessary further deliberation, on the decision of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2643.] I submit to the Prime Minister that my word "act" and the word "actions," of the Lord Privy Seal, presume positive Government action, and that merely giving facilities to a Private Member's Bill, desirable as that is if it had happened otherwise, is a very different matter. This is a subject of legislative importance of the utmost gravity, and, therefore, is it not rather irresponsible of the Government, if I may say so with respect, to want this to be handled as a Private Member's Bill instead of being handled as between responsible Ministers?

The Prime Minister

I do not think if I may say so, that the right hon. Gentleman's aspersions are justified. It is not as though this were a Bill which had no authority behind it. It is a Private Member's Bill not only in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who has spent a lifetime on this, but a former Home Secretary's name is on the back of it and also that of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), as well as the names of hon. Members on this side of the House—a rather unusual constellation, if I may say so, all in support of the Bill.

I should have thought that, in all the circumstances, one has to realise that there are many points of view in a matter of this kind, and that it is a fair proposal to make to the House that we should offer the two things that I have offered. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to be clear about that. We offer, first, time for the Bill both on Second Reading and, of course, after Second Reading, should it be passed, on the later stages of the Bill; and, secondly, at each stage we offer a free vote. I do not think that more can be asked of a Government. We certainly cannot contemplate introducing legislation in a sense contrary to our own expression of view.

Mr. S. Silverman

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the considerations which make the Bill which bears my name not in the ordinary sense a Private Member's Bill were just the considerations which I urged upon him as long ago as last December, when I asked then for facilities, as, indeed, did 230 other hon. Members of the House, for a Second Reading, and when he thought at that time that it would be inappropriate to deal with the matter in that way?

May I ask him to bear in mind the precedent of 1948, when the Government of that day were exactly in the position in which his Government are now, namely, that they had advised the House against the contemplated reform, but, having offered that advice, conceded a free vote to the on the basis that this was a subject proper to be dealt with in that way, and then loyally accepted the decision of the House and adopted the remaining stages as a Government Measure?

May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman thinks that precedent not a suitable one to follow on this occasion, Assuming that the House, on the procedure that he recommends to it, remains of the opinion that it expressed last Thursday and passes the Second Reading and the further stages of the Bill, may I ask what then would be the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the Measure in pursuing any matters which have to be pursued thereafter with another place?

The Prime Minister

I think that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in the first of his supplementary questions. Originally, he did ask, "Cannot this Bill be put ahead of the other Private Members' Bills?" and I explained, to use a colloquialism, that it was not right to jump the queue. We them agreed to grant to the House the opportunity for a debate. It took the opportunity for a debate and expressed itself in a certain way. That being so, the Government say that the Bill is entitled to jump the queue again—in other words, to be taken before the other Bill and to be given time and a free vote.

As for what another place may do in hypothetical circumstances, I would say that there never has been a Government—and I am certainly not going to be the first—which tried to attempt to answer questions of that kind at this stage.

Mr. Simon

Since there was widespread agreement that, quite apart from the question of capital punishment, the law of murder needed amendment, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government propose to bring in legislation on that subject, or whether it should be sought to deal with that on the Bill of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)?

The Prime Minister

It is quite true that we did have some proposals of our own, but, as my right hon. and gallant Friend explained at the time, they are extremely complicated in character and require very careful working out. I would not suggest that they should form part, so far as it lies with us, of the legislation now contemplated in the hon. Gentleman's Bill.

Mr. Shinwell

The right hon. Gentleman has informed the House that on Second Reading of my hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill there will be a free vote. Can we be assured that there will really be a free vote, and that the Government, in view of their declared opinion, already expressed, will not bring pressure to bear on their supporters to change the decision?

The Prime Minister

I think that the right hon. Gentleman, as an old Parliamentarian, ought not quite to have made that suggestion, in the light of what happened only last week.

Mr. Gaitskell

Can we be assured that the Government, on this occasion, will not advise the House against my hon. Friend's Measure? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am asking the Prime Minister a question. May I further ask him whether members of the Government will be free to vote for the Bill?

The Prime Minister

I think that the right hon. Gentleman really must, in all fairness, leave the Government's position on this to the Government to pronounce. I have made a suggestion to the House which I frankly believe is a fair and just one in the circumstances. Members of the Government will no doubt have their own opinions and no doubt a Government spokesman will speak, as he did the other day when the House, on a free vote, decided against us. Maybe it will so decide at every stage. The two terms which we offer to the House and beyond which we cannot go, because they are fair and reasonable, are a free vote and time to get on with the Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement really is not in accordance with what not only the House but the public generally took to be the meaning of his statement after the recent debate on capital punishment? May I say to him, in all friendliness—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not a party issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If it is a party issue the Conservative Party is very divided on it, anyhow. However, it is not a party issue. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman, in all friendliness, that we deeply regret that he should not have accepted the decision of the House in the way in which we supposed he had done when he made his statement after the debate?

The Prime Minister

I quite accept that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to make any party capital—nor, indeed, do I—but if he will read the terms of what I said very carefully he will see that there is nothing whatever in them remotely suggesting that the Government would bring in legislation. It would not, I say quite frankly, be a possible position for any Government, I should have thought, nor, were I one of those who wish this change to be made—if I may speak for them—would I desire the Government to do so, to take action of this kind against what they have declared to be their own opinion. What we are doing is to leave the House free to continue to express its own view freely on this at every stage. I should have thought that that was just, and by that I stand.

Captain Waterhouse

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement that he has just made will accord completely with the majority of the feeling on this side of the House and, I believe, with the vast majority of the feeling in the country as a whole? We all consider that he has fully carried out his honourable pledge.

Mr. H. Morrison

Might I put to the Prime Minister for his consideration, and without being finally dogmatic about it—I follow his idea that there should be a free vote on Second Reading and that that vote will settle the principle of the Bill; it was, of course, settled last week—that legislation, which ought to be tidy and orderly, may not be at its best if, when we reach the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, decisions are made on the basis of free voting? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] With some experience of legislation, I beg hon. Members to consider this point fairly. Is it not likely that the House might get itself into a muddle if there is free voting during the Committee and Report stages as distinct from Second Reading? All I am asking the Prime Minister is that he should not finally commit himself, but should give the point consideration.

The Prime Minister

I do not think I have committed myself on that point. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting it in that way. It is, of course, not at all unprecedented for a Government to give, for instance, technical assistance in connection with a Bill which is not a Private Member's Bill, and I certainly have not excluded the possibility of that happening in this case. That is, of course, a different thing from the general principle as I enunciated it.

Mr. J. Eden

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the general public look not to the but to him and his Government to preserve law and order?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

May I ask the Prime Minister whether consideration has been given to the constitutional position which may arise until this matter has been decided one way or the other?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. What I have suggested is entirely within the bounds of constitutional practice.

Air Commodore Harvey

Will the Prime Minister ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he, too, will give an assurance that pressure will not be brought to bear upon his hon. Friends?

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We really cannot continue this any further. I propose to call the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and then the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), whose Bill is the one concerned. After that, we really ought to move on.

Mr. Gaitskell

To answer the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Opposition accept, of course, the principle of a free vote on this matter, and that what we are concerned about is that the Government are not themselves giving a truly free vote?

Mr. S. Silverman

I realise what the Prime Minister has said, and that probably his mind is made up about the matter. Nevertheless, before we leave it, may I ask him again to consider the part of my original supplementary question which he did not answer? Will he explain why the precedent which was created by my right hon. Friends in 1948 in precisely similar circumstances is not appropriate now, and whether, if he can overcome that difficulty, it is not in every way more appropriate that a substantial change in the law of this kind should be brought about with the authority of the Government, in view of the way in which the House has expressed its opinion, than that it should be left to a private Member?

The Prime Minister

We have, of course, considered every aspect of this question with very considerable care. If the hon. Member will bear in mind the supplementary question asked by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and the answer which I gave, I think he will, in view of his experience, see that it is quite clearly shown that this is the fairest arrangement at which we can arrive.