HL Deb 14 April 1953 vol 181 cc685-703

3.4 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD)

My Lords, in recent years we have had a number of discussions in this House on the subject of crimes of violence. These discussions have, I think, reflected the anxiety that has been felt, not only in this House but in the country as a whole, at the serious increase in violent crime that has taken place since 1939. In order that the House may appreciate the extent of this problem I feel that it may be useful if, before I go any further, I give your Lordships the latest relevant statistics. Of course, we are here concerned with the crimes classified for purposes of the criminal statistics as felonious wounding, malicious wounding and robbery. In 1938, the total of such offences known to the police in England and Wales was 2,277. By 1948, this figure had more than doubled, and stood at 5,294. Since then, the trend has been steadily upwards as the following figures will show: in1949, 5,320; in 1950, 6,198; in 1951, 6,323; and in 1952, 6,891—an increase of a further 30 per cent. over five years.

I am sure that the House will agree with me when I say that these figures are disturbing. I do not wish to exaggerate the problem in any way, and it is perfectly fair to say that many of these offences do not necessarily involve the use of weapons. On the other hand, far too many of them do, and in the circumstances it is perhaps hardly surprising that there should have been a strong and persistent demand for action on the part of the Government. As your Lordships are aware, hitherto the action that has been most frequently suggested in this House has been the restoration of corporal punishment as a judicial penalty. It was a penalty which, up to 1948, could be awarded by the courts for robbery with violence. I know that this is a subject upon which very sincere and strongly differing views are held in various parts of your Lordships' House. May I say at once that the last thing I want to do this afternoon is to reopen that particular controversy? But this much, however, I feel bound to say: that although crimes of violence in general have increased steadily since 1948, those crimes of violence which were formerly punishable by corporal punishment have not so increased—in fact, they have steadily decreased. So we did not feel that at this stage, at any rate, on the evidence at our disposal, there was any justification for going back on the experiment initiated by the late Government in 1948.

Nevertheless, we did feel it our duty to see whether any further action was possible and appropriate in our endeavour to check, and ultimately to reduce substantially, this evil which has grown up in our midst. Unfortunately, it is impossible to eradicate crime merely by passing legislation, and our attack on crime must, I suggest, be far wider than this. I would emphasise, therefore, that the Bill which is before the House this afternoon represents no more than one aspect of a larger campaign. Other more important steps include the improvement of our penal system and the full development of the reforms instituted under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, especially those which deal with persistent offenders and with juvenile offenders. Another step is to make good the police strengths in the big cities where shortage of recruits still persists. Finally, I would remind your Lordships that even these measures must be of limited effect unless we can arrest the decline in moral standards which confronts us to-day.

For all these reasons I do not want to claim too much for this Bill. What I do claim is that it will bring an immediate strengthening to the forces of law and order in their fight against crime. I should like to add that in this opinion the Government are fortified by the views of responsible chief officers of police, who have assured my right honourable friend that a provision of this kind is likely to be of great value in placing a curb on violent crime. Let me make one point straight away. I do not claim that the Bill will be effective in stopping the determined criminal who deliberately sets out on some criminal enterprise, taking with him such articles, including weapons, as he considers will contribute to the success of that enterprise. But there are a large number of people on the fringe of the criminal community who will resort to crime only, if the opportunity presents itself, yet amongst whom there is a growing tendency to slip a weapon, possibly a knife or a knuckleduster, into their pocket. It is primarily against that type of person that this Bill is directed. Let me emphasise again that it is the view of responsible and experienced police officers that the knowledge that the mere possession of an offensive weapon carries a liability to a substantial penalty will have a salutary effect.

Now, my Lords, let me turn to the Bill itself. What does the Bill do? First of all, it makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in any public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Next, it empowers a police officer, if he has reasonable cause to believe that an individual is carrying an offensive weapon, to arrest without warrant in certain specified circumstances. The Bill sets out what those circumstances are, and they are as follows: first, if he is not satisfied as to the person's identity or place of residence; second, if he has reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary to arrest the individual in order to prevent the commission by him of an offence in which an offensive weapon might be used. I think I should remind the House that the police already have at Common Law certain powers of arrest without warrant. Many Acts of Parliament give them that power in relation to certain offences. A great many of those offences are not felonies. To give one illustration, Section 41 of the Larceny Act, 1916, empowers any constable to arrest a person without warrant if he has reasonable cause to suspect that person of having housebreaking instruments on him by night.

That, very briefly, is what this Bill does, and your Lordships will observe that in it we seek to do something more than merely to deal with an offender when he has committed a crime. Prevention is better than cure, and what we are trying to do is to stop these crimes of violence from being committed. In order to do this, we have felt it necessary to take powers which normally we should be reluctant to take. In particular, in proceedings under this Bill the onus of proof is shifted, as respects articles made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, from the prosecution to the accused. There are, of course, precedents for this departure from normal custom. For example, Section 23 (2) of the Firearms Act, 1937, provides that If any person at the time of his committing or at the time of his apprehension for"— then the Act lists a number of offences— has in his possession any firearm or imitation firearm, he shall, unless he shows that he had it in his possession for a lawful object, be guilty of an offence. Then may I also remind your Lordships of Section 28 (2) of the Larceny Act, 1916, which provides that: Every person who shall be found by night having in his possession without lawful excuse"— Then are added the words— (the proof whereof shall lie on such person)"— and certain implements of housebreaking are mentioned— shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that the onus of proof is shifted in the same way there as it is shifted in this Bill.

I am going to suggest that Parliament has always shown itself ready, where the circumstances require it, to place the onus of proof on the accused, and in the view of the Government the circumstances of this particular measure—those circumstances being the figures that I have given to your Lordships—justify the procedure which we are adopting in this Bill. I go further. I venture to think that no one in this House will object to these powers, in so far as they strike at the criminal or at the potential criminal. Surely we must all be at one in our determination to deal with these social pests. It is, of course, almost inevitable with a Bill of this kind that some apprehension should be felt lest the Bill, in striking at the criminal, should enmesh in its net the ordinary law-abiding citizen who, it may be feared, suddenly, without evil intent, might find himself arrested without warrant, and might then be forced to prove his innocence of an offence which he had no intention of committing. That apprehension seems to have found expression to-day in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, to reject this Bill.

Let me say straight away that I can think of no one more suited to represent the respectable citizen than my noble friend, and I fully respect his vigilance for the rights and liberties of his fellow-citizens. But I hope that, despite his perfectly legitimate suspicions, I shall be able to show that this Bill is not a measure which need alarm the law-abiding citizen—indeed, the very reverse is the case. It is a measure designed solely for his greater protection and safety. In the first place, let me point out to my noble friend that the provisions of this Bill apply only to weapons carried in a "public place," which term is clearly defined in the Bill. Therefore, so long as my noble friend remains on his own property, he may with impunity go around positively festooned with weapons. Clearly, of course, if he has firearms he will need the appropriate certificate. Apart from this his house may be a veritable arsenal, and he will still be committing no offence under this Bill. This fact is valuable from another point of view. It covers such people as night watchmen, who may possibly carry a life-preserver, or some other such weapon—and do so quite properly—in order to carry out their duties on their employers' property.

Next, let us suppose that the ordinary law-abiding citizen is rash enough to stray from his own premises while armed. If he does, he cannot be searched by the police, because there is no power of search in the Bill. He still has nothing to fear from the Bill unless one of two things happens.

A NOBLE LORD

Not after he is arrested?

LORD LLOYD

He has got to do a lot of other things before he is arrested. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will show him what I mean later. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that the police must have reasonable cause to believe that the person concerned is, in fact, carrying an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Clearly, if, like my noble friend Lord Saltoun, the man is a good Scotsman and is carrying a skean-dhu in his stocking, or if he should be a Boy Scout carrying a large knife in his belt, the police might have reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying an offensive weapon, but—

A NOBLE LORD

Would not the same be true if it were only a walking-stick?

LORD LLOYD

I will deal with that point in a moment. It comes in a special category of offensive weapons, and one to which particular circumstances apply. Clearly, in these particular cases which I have cited to the House, the police might have reasonable cause to believe that the individual was carrying an offensive weapon but, as I shall show in a moment, it is highly improbable that any action would be taken against him. If, on the other hand, he was carrying a weapon in his pocket, the police would not normally have cause to believe that he was doing so. Supposing, however, that the police did have reasonable cause to believe that he was carrying an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he still could not be arrested unless he could not satisfy the police officer as to his identity or his place of residence. This, it seems to me, is a very substantial protection for the law abiding citizen—he has only to establish his identity, and if there has been no indication of a disposition to use the weapon, any further proceedings could only be by summons.

If, however, the individual in question was found loitering by the police in a suspicious manner, and if he could satisfy the pace neither as to his identity nor his place of residence, I admit he could be arrested under this Bill. Furthermore, if, after arrest, it was confirmed that he was carrying an offensive weapon, he might then have to prove that, despite the extremely suspicious circumstances in which he was found, his intentions were absolutely impeccable. Frankly, these are not circumstances in which by the widest stretch of imagination I can visualise my noble friend or any other respectable citizen, for that matter. If, in such circumstances, an individual is found in possession of a weapon such as a knuckleduster or bludgeon, I do not think it is unreasonable that he should be asked to prove that he was up to no harm.

The only other circumstance in which a person will find himself in trouble under this Bill is if the police have reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary to arrest him to prevent his committing another offence involving the use of a weapon. Noble Lords who have had anything to do with the police—the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt. I am sure knows this—

EARL JOWITT

Have I anything to do with the police?

LORD LLOYD

Naturally I refer to the noble Earl in his official relations with the police. If he has relations in any other capacity, I beg his pardon! But he had a certain amount to do with the Home Office in the late Government, and he will know perfectly well that there are many ways in which it may come to the notice of the police that a person is carrying an offensive weapon. In the normal course of police duties, police officers often have occasion to keep persons under observation, and it may well be that they know that certain persons habitually carry offensive weapons and engage in criminal enterprises. This Bill is to enable the police to deal with the "cosh boy" before he has used his cosh, and it will then be up to the "cosh boy" to prove for what lawful purpose he was carrying a bludgeon or a life-preserver. So far as the ordinary law-abiding citizen is concerned, he is not normally kept under observation by the police, nor, I submit, are the police likely to have reasonable cause to believe him to be carrying an offensive weapon. There is a perfectly good safeguard provided in the Bill for the ordinary citizen. We must remember that a police officer has to satisfy the court that he has reasonable cause to believe that the individual concerned was going to commit an offence and, as noble Lords will be aware, if he cannot do this, he lays himself open to proceedings for wrongful arrest. I cannot, therefore, feel that in this Bill so far there is much cause for apprehension by the ordinary law-abiding citizen.

Nevertheless, let me stray a little farther into the field of the improbable. Suppose some law-abiding citizen imprudently strays, fully armed, from his house and by some exceptional mischance is charged under this Bill. What happens? In the first place, a great deal depends on the kind of weapon he is carrying. If noble Lords will look at the definition clause, they will see that it divides offensive weapons into three categories: articles made for causing injury to the person—that is, articles deliberately made for that express purpose; articles adapted for use for causing injury to the person; and, finally, articles intended by the person carrying them for such use. I would suggest that from the point of view of the law-abiding citizen the most important category is the third, since it is that category which covers the ordinary everyday utilitarian articles he is most likely to have about his person. For example, if he is a mechanic, he may have a hammer or spanner, or if he is an ordinary individual, he may have a pocket-knife or possibly a bicycle chain which he may be bringing back after having it repaired, with perfectly lawful intentions, though, as we all know, a bicycle chain can be used as a most fearsome weapon. All these are perfectly normal articles which come into the third category—that is to say, they are not specially made for offensive purposes nor adapted for that purpose, but are susceptible to such use in their ordinary shape and form and may be carried round by anybody. Your Lordships will observe that in the Bill in the case of these weapons the police have to prove that the individual concerned intended to use the article for an offensive purpose. The onus of proof lies upon the police to prove that any article in that category was being carried and was intended to be used for an offensive purpose.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

Maybe the boot on his foot?

VISCOUNT STANSGATE

Yes, a hob-nailed boot.

LORD LLOYD

I do not think we should be too fanciful about this. I do not think noble Lords would suggest that the police should go round arresting everybody with boots on. If we look at this fairly, we see that it is only when an individual is carrying one of the articles in the first category—for example—a pistol, a stiletto or a knuckleduster—or one of the articles in the second category—for example, a razor blade stuck into the peak of a man's cap, or a sock full of sand—that that individual would have to provide a reasonable excuse for carrying that weapon around.

Here I come face to face with the specific point on which I understand my noble friend. Lord Saltoun, is going to move his rejection of this Bill. I do not know what my noble friend is going to say, but from the terms of his Amendment I understand that he takes the view that an ordinary law-abiding citizen ought to be allowed to provide for his own defence by carrying a suitable weapon, possibly a cosh or a stiletto, particularly in areas where crimes of violence have been prevalent recently. On that point I can only say that, of course, there were times in this country when every citizen was compelled to go around armed for his own safety, to protect himself either against his enemies or against robbers and footpads, which in those days abounded. But we have progressed a long way since then. To-day we have a first-class police force whose duty it is to keep the Queen's peace and to guard ordinary citizens. And I must say straight away, and as emphatically as I can, that Her Majesty's Government take the view that it would be most unfortunate if anything were done to encourage further the carrying of offensive weapons by any section of the population, criminal or otherwise.

We believe that the carrying of offensive weapons is anti-social. What is more, I should like to put this to the noble Lord, because I think it is perhaps the most material argument against his point of view as I understand it—and if I have misrepresented him he will correct me when he comes to speak. If the ordinary citizen were allowed or encouraged to carry weapons for his own defence, I believe that it might have an effect exactly opposite to what my noble friend desires to achieve. The trouble is that the more the ordinary citizen arms himself, the more excuse is there for the person who intends to perpetrate something unlawful to arm himself so that he can achieve his end. I have always understood that to be the classic argument for not arming the police with firearms. If that is the noble Lord's argument I am afraid I must join issue with him and say that Her Majesty's Government believe that the task of protecting the citizens of this country should be left to the police. If the noble Lord suggests that the police force is not strong enough—and we all agree that in our big cities it is not strong enough—then let us speed its recruiting, as we are trying to do. I know that results are not entirely satisfactory, but recruiting is improving every year. Or let us try and strengthen its hand, as we are trying to do in this Bill. But let not the ordinary citizen usurp this function.

We feel, therefore that where an ordinary law-abiding citizen is found, in the circumstances which I have described, and despite the many safeguards in the Bill, carrying a weapon in one of the first two categories, it is only right that he should be asked to show that he has a reasonable excuse for carrying it. I am sure my noble friend would agree that if a man used the weapon and seriously injured somebody, he should be called upon to account for his action. Surely, if that is the case after he has done an injury, it is reasonable that he should also account for his action in carrying around a weapon of this kind which might cause serious injury. I do not think I need say anything further. We believe that this Bill is both useful, and necessary, and I therefore commend it to your Lordships. In view of the explanations I have given to my noble friend Lord Saltoun, I hope he will not press his Amendment. If he does, I believe he will be doing the opposite of what he really wishes to see done: he will be weakening the police force, and will not assist the preservation of law and order. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lloyd.)

3.32 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN had given notice that he would move, as an Amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as Her Majesty's Government know, from the earliest moment I told them of my opposition to this Bill. I therefore thought it only fair, when this Bill was read a first time in this House, to put down on the Order Paper a Motion for its rejection at this stage, in order that the Government should know exactly how I stood in the matter and that none of your Lordships should be at a disadvantage. That is what I have done.

When this Bill was introduced in another place the Government gave figures of the increase over the last dozen years of crimes of violence in this country, and they must have given your Lordships a considerable shock. I know that they made an impression on my mind very different from that created by figures given on various occasions in your Lordships' House to my noble friend Lord Howe, when he asked questions on the subject. For the moment I was greatly puzzled. Then I recalled the Irish priest in the West of Ireland who was pleading, with truth and great earnestness, to a famine relief committee the poverty of his parishioners, when one of the committee interposed and asked him how he reconciled the figures he was then giving with those he had given a year before when he was trying to promote a branch railway through the parish. For a moment the worthy gentleman was stranded; and then, drawing himself up with great digniy, he replied: "Them statistics was compiled for an entirely different purpose." The reverend father was afloat again, and so was I; my faith in Her Majesty's Government was restored. Speaking seriously, however, I think we have made a great advance, in that we are all agreed that crimes of violence are on the increase, that the situation is serious, and that the matter should be dealt with. I do not agree, however, that this Bill is the best way to deal with the matter, and that is what I shall try to show your Lordships this afternoon.

In the first place, the Bill does nothing whatever to promote the housing of the police, or to render that service more attractive. If there is one thing about which we are all agreed I feel sure it is that one of the most important needs in dealing with crimes of violence is an increase in the numbers of police. Again, the Bill does nothing to give to the magistrates the powers which they have indicated they require in this matter. The only thing the Bill does is to make illegal the carrying of any weapon. I agree with the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Lloyd that the prohibition in the Bill is not likely to be regarded by those who habitually disregard the law, especially since the penalties provided are very small. But it is likely to be regarded and observed, to their hurt, by people who habitually have regard to the law.

LORD LLOYD

My noble friend will forgive me for interrupting. I am afraid I did not say anything like that. On the contrary, I said that I thought it was the opinion not merely of Her Majesty's Government but of many responsible police officers that the Bill would have a strong and definite deterrent effect upon those who habitually disregard the law. The noble Lord is not correct in suggesting that I said anything different from that.

LORD SALTOUN

Of course, I accept what my noble friend says. I thought I heard him say that there were some people who, when they were setting about a crime would, none the less—and so on and so on. However, I may have misheard him. It is a small point and not worth arguing about. The Bill says: Any person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the proof whereof shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an, offence… A point there is that if this Bill becomes law the courts will require proof. I do not see how anybody can prove that he has reason to fear an attack, when he does not know from what quarter it will come. Yet it may be common knowledge that the locality is dangerous. I will leave that point for the moment, because it will come in again

I want now to come to the term "offensive weapon." I understand that "offensive weapon" is a term known to English law. But I submit that it is not good in this context, because, if I am not wrong, it was used in old Acts connected with smuggling and poaching—I think it was limited to running a cargo within five miles of the shore, or something like that—which said that where anybody caught doing either of those things was carrying an article commonly used as a weapon, that aggravated the offence. Your Lordships will observe that in such a case the circumstances naturally lent themselves to the presumption of offence; that the weapon was used for offence; and if the man was not guilty of the crime of running the cargo or of gang poaching, then the charge of carrying an offensive weapon fell away at once. That is not the case with this Bill. After all, a weapon of itself is neither offensive nor defensive—that lies in the hand and the mind of the user. From the moment when the first weapon was shaped by some mammal, not yet man, I put it to your Lordships that the primary object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope on better terms with strength. A knife or a cosh can be used equally for defence.

Take the razor, also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lloyd, and which was given to me by a police friend as the offensive weapon par excellence. I would remind your Lordships that every tailor and every seamstress carries a razor blade to split seams; and I expect that many of your Lordships carry a razor blade with which to cut your cigars. It is just this ability of weakness to cope with strength that this Bill is framed to destroy. It does not add any appreciable penalty to the rascal who uses the weapon and commits some crime of violence, which is something I should very much welcome.

I am afraid that the Bill will be used in order to make up a defect in evidence against some one whom the police suspect, possibly quite rightly. If they find him with a bunch of keys or a spanner, it may serve to establish a case against him. A moment like this, when I think all of your Lordships, and not least myself, owing to recent events are nourishing an uneasy feeling that we may have hanged a man for something he did not do, is not a moment to extend the law of presumptive evidence in the way we are doing this afternoon. If the Government are of the opinion—and they have said that they are—that crimes of violence are on the increase, the proper course for them to take is to do everything they can to promote the recruitment of police, to increase the police force, to increase, if necessary, the penalties for such crimes, and to take the people into their confidence and ask them to assist the Government as much as possible, partly by not exposing themselves to attack and partly by being ready to defend themselves if they are attacked.

Some twelve years ago, when we were menaced by German "cosh boys," the voice of the Prime Minister rang through the country and called on us to defend ourselves by every means which we could; and I think even to-day he must be proud of the way in which his appeal was received. But that is very different from the voice which sounds through this Bill to-day. As a matter of fact, if the Government were to take the line I suggest they would not have very much to do, because people for long have been ready to defend themselves, and they are doing so to-day. May I give your Lordships an old example? As long as I remember, the fisher girls, who follow the herring round our coasts and who are brought by that employment into some of the worst quarters in Britain, always carried with them their sharp gutting knives; and they were always left severely alone by everybody. They passed unscathed through the worst quarters, because everybody knew that they were perfectly ready to use, those knives if they were molested. I believe the recent sobriety of the country and the knowledge that the girls are not to be touched with impunity has led to a discontinuance of that practice, but if any fisher girls were molested again you would find exactly the same remedy being invoked.

I know many young girls in humble circumstances who have to go out to work at night, and who carry with them something with which to defend themselves. I will give your Lordships three short examples. One evening about two years ago a woman was walking along Sloane Street when she was attacked by a man who tried to get hold of her bag. Two young men were walking along the pavement towards her and she thought that she was going to get help. But the young men were of the same opinion as my noble friend Lord Lloyd and, apparently, as the Government, which is that these matters are best left to the police, and so they crossed the street. However, a taxi-man, who shared my views, drove boldly up on the pavement and pushed the assailant in front of him with his wing and got him loose from the bag. He said to the woman, "Jump on my luggage platform and I will take you away." He drove her to Knightsbridge and said, "Only last night I rescued another women who had been beaten to her knees under that lamp-post." I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack one question which arises out of the Bill, and of which I have not given him notice because this question must have been familiar to him from early youth. Of the two parties, the young men who took the Government's view or the taxi-man who took my view, which was the neighbour of the woman who fell among thieves in Sloane Street?

Not long after that incident a girl was attacked after dusk on a lonely common that I know. She struggled, and by good fortune she had about her something that she could use as a weapon. She wounded her assailant in the face and he promptly dropped her and ran off. Later on, because of his wound, he was picked up by the police. No doubt the fact of the attack could be said to show that she had reasonable excuse for carrying a weapon. But if she had been crossing that lonely common with something to defend herself before she had been attacked—she could not foretell—according to the very interpretation which my noble friend Lord Lloyd gave of this Bill she would be in danger. Now I think it is contrary to public interest that young women of good character should be liable to arrest and to a charge because they carry something for their own protection at night. The very insufficiency of the police forces upon the people of this country their time-honoured duty of defending themselves as best they can, and I think that every man and women is a constable in his or her own defence.

I will relate another incident which is probably fresh in the memory of the Governent. The other day in Glasgow, school teachers who had to work late were subjected to persistent attacks by young ruffians, and the police could afford them no protection at all. As your Lordships will well understand, when a policeman was present no attack took place, but as soon as there were no constables about then the attacks were made. So the women took the law into their own hands and armed themselves with water pistols which they charged with a very powerful and pungent alkali. Word went round amongst the ruffians that the women were carrying acid, and the attacks ceased at once. It may well be that the Government will say that they had a reasonable excuse, but what I want to know is how many women must be injured and how great must be the injuries before we are allowed to consider that there is a reasonable excuse.

If I myself were to go on foot at night to a part of London I did not know and which I thought to be dangerous I would certainly take something with me for my defence. It would be far better for me that I should have to go to prison for two years if I happened to be caught doing so, than for me to be hit with hammers and perhaps left paralysed, to spend years lying in some hospital—because that is what happens to some people to-day. I do not think any Government have the right—though they may very well have the power—to deprive people for whom they are responsible of the right to defend themselves. With courage and a weapon of some kind—I do not say a pistol—even a weak woman can make head against one or perhaps two assailants; but with empty hands she is absolutely helpless. We can be sure of this: that unless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it.

My noble friend Lord Lloyd has made the position of the Government clear, but I prefer to take the exact words used in another place on this very point of self-defence. It was said: The Government do not wish to lend themselves to the support of the proposition that it is right or necessary for the ordinary citizen to arm himself in self-defence. The preservation of the Queen's peace is the function of the police. Now those words may sound very wise and profound, uttered in an Assembly where the worst wounds dealt are those dealt with words, from the mouth of a Minister who enjoys or who can enjoy police protection, and to us who drive to and fro in the comparative safety of our cars; but they sound very different to people who know what is really going on and how little protection the police can afford. I think they will sound to many injured people to-day more like a cynical mockery. The other day, on my return from your Lordships' House to my home, a woman signalled to me and asked whether I could help her to find a policeman. I put her in my car and we went on a merry expedition to Sloane Square, King Street, Cadogan Place and Sloane Street; and at last I remembered that there was a police station in Gerald Row. The first policeman we saw on this journey was, in fact, at Gerald Row. I want to make it quite clear that I am not imputing the smallest blame to the police: I have nothing but admiration for them. It is astonishing, when one considers the real and artificial crimes with which they have to cope, that they manage to do what they do. But the police force are hopelessly inadequate in London, and I would remind your Lordships that crimes take place where the police are not. The Government have shown in introducing this Bill how much more the public are dependent on their own efforts at self-defence than they were a few years ago. The Government's own figures answer their question as to whether or not it is necessary for people to be prepared to act in self-defence.

I should now like to say a word or two on another aspect of the subject—the right to act in self-defence. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and from the Government what I think is a revolutionary doctrine. I have always held that the preservation of the Queen's peace was the duty of every one of her subjects, and that the police were only citizens with special responsibility. I speak with diffidence in the presence of so many people who know so much more about laws than I do, but I have consulted Lord Halsbury's Laws of England. In Volume 9 of that work he deals with the power of arrest without warrant. There are many paragraphs on the subject. I do not propose to read them all to your Lordships, but perhaps I may be allowed to read one or two. One paragraph says this: An arrest without a warrant may be under a power conferred by common law or by statute, and may be by a private person or by a peace officer… and so on. The next paragraph says: At common law the power of a private person to arrest is limited… to certain cases. Paragraph 114 says much the same thing. Paragraph 115 says: A private person may also without a warrant arrest anyone who…commits a breach of the peace…so as to justify a private person in arresting…when there is an actual assault… Those of your Lordships who remember Lord Halsbury will recollect that he was not a very large man, though he was a very determined one. I think those who remember him will agree that if he was proceeding in any case of actual assault to arrest somebody, he would not limit himself to his bare hands: he would take very good care to use anything that he thought suitable for the purpose. All the more so since, as your Lordships will be aware, the generation in which he lived would have considered it unthinkable that such a rule should prevail. Their youth had been engaged upon discussion as to what was the best weapon to take with them at night for defence against the gentle garrotter. Your Lordships will be aware that in the 1860's the garrotter was just as big a menace as the "cosh boy" is to-day.

There are one or two other paragraphs which perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read from Lord Halsbury's great work. Paragraph 116 reads as follows: Peace officers, that is constables and other persons…have at common law the same powers of arrest that private persons have and certain additional powers. Paragraph 118 says: If a police officer sees a breach of the peace committed, or is assaulted or obstructed in the arrest of a felon he can, if there is a reasonable necessity, call upon a private person for his assistance in arresting an offender, and such person commits an indictable offence if he refuses to aid the constable. Paragraph 119 says that there are a large number of other Statutes which say very much the same thing.

I think that that disposes of Lord Lloyd's argument that the preservation of Her Majesty's peace is the peculiar function of the police. All these passages that I have quoted deal with powers and duty of arrest without warrant. They certainly include self-defence. Indeed, in the generation in which Lord Halsbury's work was written, the idea that a man was not entitled to defend himself with any means in his power was, as I have said, unthinkable and would not have been entertained for a moment. This is not, I think, the first time that it has been sought to make the, police into a privileged class, but the attempt has always been rejected, and I hope that it will be rejected again. I do not think this is a moment to try to put the police into a specially privileged class, and I do not think that the crime wave from which we are now suffering should be used as an argument to that end.

If this foreign doctrine does come in, I think certain consequences must follow. First, if I am not allowed to defend myself, the Government become responsible for my defence, at any rate in all public places. I understood Lord Lloyd to be ready to accept that responsibility. Well, my Lords, if I may not defend myself except with my bare hands, how can I reasonably be asked to assist the constable? He is young, able-bodied and armed with his truncheon. How can I, who cannot help myself, help to defend the police? That surely will have to go by the board if this Bill goes through. Moreover, if—as, I am sorry to say, often happens—a policeman loses his life, in the execution of his duly, his widow gets a pension; but if I am called to his aid and get killed, my widow does not get a pension. On the contrary the Inland Revenue swoop down and pick my bones; and the Chancellor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget, is glad to have the opportunity of saying that the returns from death duties are showing some improvement. It is no use saying that the other side of his official face is suffused with tears: you cannot have it both ways.

Theoretically, to-day I have the duty of defending myself, but after this Bill becomes law the situation will be changed. The Government will have the sole responsibility. Are they prepared to accept a benefit from their failure to discharge the duty they have undertaken? If no one is to be allowed to carry any sort of weapon to defend himself or herself against the strong and armed, and defence is to become a peculiar function of the policeman, will the relatives of the killed or injured have a right to compensation if the Government fail in the discharging of the duty they are undertaking? If I am wrong, then it must be that the theory is that the Government are the shepherds of Her Majesty's subjects, with the right to shear, kill, or let die as best pleases themselves. I am sure they would not say that for a moment.

I think that in this Bill the Government have taken up an impossible position, and I am sure your Lordships ought not to support them without grave thought. They have openly said that they seek a position for the police which has always been resisted and which, if granted, will impair public confidence in the police. I think, too, that we ought to be very slow to allow a Bill to pass which imparts a presumption of guilty intent from circumstances which may be entirely and completely innocent. As for noble Lords opposite, I will say this to them: that on many occasions in the past they have complained that noble Lords on this side do not criticise Conservative measures when a Conservative Government are in power. I do not know whether they have said that merely to rub a sore in the House of Lords for Election purposes, but if they seriously mean it—and I believe that they do—then here is a chance to criticise the Government, and I trust I have given noble Lords opposite some very good reasons for so doing.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Saltoun.)