§ 53. Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Prime Minister whether he will now state the Government's policy with regard to the further progress of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill.
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government have in preparation legislative proposals in relation to capital punishment which will be laid before the House early in the next Session. Details of these proposals will be given in the usual manner. Any new Abolition Bill which might be introduced in the next Session would be subject to the usual rights and opportunities of private Members of this House.
§ Mr. SilvermanIs the House to infer from that statement that the Government, contrary to their own pledge and contrary to all constitutional propriety, propose to base their policy not on the considered judgment of the House of Commons but on the judgment of the House of Lords? Does he not think that it would be a grave constitutional breach of duty not to afford the House of Commons a reasonable opportunity of exercising its rights under the Parliament Act if it wishes to do so?
§ The Prime MinisterPerhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said on 17th July :
As the House knows, the Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was rejected in another place. The Government are giving consideration to the whole question of capital punishment in the light of these circumstances. It is my intention to make a statement on this subject before the Session ends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1956; Vol. 556, c. 1041.]I have now made the statement, and I would ask the House to await the terms of the Bill which Her Majesty's Government propose.
§ Mr. GaitskellWhile the question of capital punishment has been treated as a non-party matter and a free vote has applied, there is a constitutional issue here, and I must ask the Prime Minister whether he does not feel, in view of the conflict between this House and another place, that it is the duty of the Government to facilitate the introduction of a Bill under the provisions of 488 the Parliament Act on the same lines as the Bill which was carried by this House in the present Session?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Government do not have to invoke the Parliament Act. That Act is automatic. I am here dealing with an appeal which was made by some most eminent authorities in another place, ecclesiastical and legal authorities and people like Lord Samuel, the Leader of the Liberal Party—and the reply which was given to it—that the Government should endeavour to find a Measure which would result in common agreement on this difficult issue. The Government have a responsibility to do that, and we are entitled to ask the House to examine our Bill before taking a decision about any other Measure which hon. Members want to put forward.
§ Mr. GaitskellThe Government are, of course, entitled, if they so desire, to bring in another Bill. I am not concerned with that. What I am concerned with is the action which the Government propose to take in view of the fact that there is a conflict between this House and another place—[Interruption.]—yes, this House having passed my hon. Friend's Bill in the present Session and the other place having thrown it out. That being the position, surely it is right that the Government should enable this House, if it so desires, to operate the Parliament Act. Is the Prime Minister aware, therefore, that a duty devolves upon the Government, irrespective of what they may themselves do with another Measure, to facilitate the introduction of a Bill on the lines of my hon. Friend's Bill which was passed this Session?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir; that is not the Government's duty. The position is that the Parliament Act operates automatically. A Private Member's Bill has the facilities of a Private Member's Bill, and the Act operates automatically. There is no Government function detailed by the Parliament Act in that respect.
§ Mr. C. DaviesWhile it is right that the Parliament Act operates automatically, is it not the duty of the Government to afford the House of Commons—for whose protection the Act was passed ; it was not passed for the protection of any 489 Government—the opportunity of exercising its will under that Act, so that its own will, in spite of anything that might be done in another place, may become an Act of Parliament?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat the Government have sought to do is to meet the very strong appeals which have recently been made, particularly by the Leader of the Liberal Party in another place, to try to find a Measure which would meet the views of the nation in this respect. This does not, of course, in any way limit the rights of private Members, which remain untrammelled and untouched.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsSince the matter was treated as a House of Commons matter and was decided on a free vote, has not the Leader of the House a duty and responsibility to ensure that facilities are given to carry out the will of the House?
§ The Prime MinisterI must remind the House that as long ago as 23rd February I said as regards the action of another place :
As for what another place may do in hypothetical circumstances, I would say that there has never been a Government …which tried to attempt to answer. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1956 ; Vol. 549, c. 577.]that question in advance. I would say that it is quite clear that the obligations given by my right hon. Friend were in respect of the last Session of Parliament.
§ Mr. GriffithsI was not asking what the Government were proposing to do. I was asking what the Leader of the House, the representative of the whole House, proposes to do about a matter upon which the House has declared its opinion. I would address my question to the Leader of the House.
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)I cannot improve upon the answers given by the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] The House had much better—I respond to the request of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that I should listen to the mood of the House—wait and see this legislation.
§ Mr. ShinwellSetting aside all the talk about the Parliament Act, will the Prime 490 Minister answer a very simple question? Is it his intention, on behalf of the Government, to bring in a Bill whose contents will run counter to the decision of the House of Commons? If that is his intention, will not that mean that the Government intend to flout the decision of the House of Commons?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that will be at all a fair conclusion, because any Measure introduced by the Government is subject to amendment by the House if it so decides.
§ Mr. SilvermanMight I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind three things? The first is that the Parliament Act cannot operate automatically but requires a decision of the House of Commons to present substantially the same Bill before any question under the Parliament Act can arise. Consequently, what I ask him is that the House may have the opportunity to decide for itself whether it wishes to persist or whether it does not wish to persist.
Secondly, will he bear in mind that the pledge given by the Leader of the House in winding up the debate for the Government on the occasion of the Second Reading, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), was that the Government would base their policy upon the decision of the House on that occasion?
Thirdly, will he bear in mind that the suggested compromise proposals in the debate in another place were precisely those which the Government pressed upon the notice of the House of Commons at two earlier stages and which the House of Commons decisively rejected on both occasions?
§ The Prime MinisterWith regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I must ask the House to await the Bill before it pronounces on what is contents may be. With regard to a Private Member's Bill, it is perfectly true that if there were a Private Member's Bill in the new Session there would certainly be a free vote on it.