HL Deb 05 May 1953 vol 182 cc213-6

2.49 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

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

My Lords, this Bill has been fairly fully discussed in your Lordships' House, and I do not think there is a great deal that I need say this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Saltoun has opposed this Bill throughout its passage but, apart from my noble friend and a few supporters, I think that this Bill, in intention at any rate, has secured the general approbation of your Lordships. I believe that it will secure the approbation of the country. Various fears have been expressed about the operation of the Bill, particularly in reference to the law-abiding citizen. We believe that there are adequate safeguards in this Bill for the law-abiding citizen, and we believe that the Bill will be a strengthening to the forces of law and order. We therefore hope that your Lordships will give it a Third Reading this afternoon, so that it may be put upon the Statute Book as soon as possible. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Lloyd.)

2.50 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, by common consent the House has given this Bill an easy passage. I think the fact that we have all helped in passing this Bill shows that the House is absolutely united in trying to stop in any way they can these outbursts of violence which, unfortunately, have marked recent years. There is no question of Party feeling about that at all. I must say that, had there not been such outbursts of violence, I should not have liked this Bill at all. I have a profound regard for our police forces, and I trust them very far; but I do not suppose any one of us would think it desirable to pass an Act of Parliament, for instance, authorising the police to take into custody anybody of whom they did not like the look. Quite obviously, that would be going much too far. Whether or not this Bill goes too far is a matter on which differing opinions may be felt. In my own view, having regard to the emergency with which the police are called upon to deal, it does not go too far. At the same time, I very much hope that the Home Secretary will make special note to keep the working of this Bill under observation. If things improve, as I devoutly hope they will, and if it became possible to repeal this Bill and remove it from the Statute Book, then I for one, and I feel the Home Secretary for another, should be only too pleased. In the meantime, the Home Secretary has asked for these powers, and both Houses of Parliament have agreed to give them to him. I can only hope that the process of time will show that the powers are unnecessary. If in fact that proves to be so, then I hope that we shall not hesitate to remove this Bill from the Statute Book.

2.52 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, the first thing I have to do to make a correction in the statement I made to your Lordships on a previous occasion when dealing with this Bill. It was not in Glasgow that schoolteachers made use of water-pistols to save themselves from a sporadic outbreak of hooliganism at night, but in a place not a hundred miles from Glasgow; and it was not quite recently, but some years ago. If anybody in that great city, which I admire and love, and of which I am an adoptive son, has received any annoyance from the attribution to that city of an act which I personally consider honourable, I regret it, and of course I regret having misinformed your Lordships upon that point. I want to say at once that my informant was a man of unimpeachable accuracy, and that it was a mistake on my part, because I committed the error of inferring, from what he said to me, rather more than was actually stated. At the same time, I want to say that I believe the weapon in question was never actually used, because the public knowledge that it was there prevented the crime. My friend wrote to me on the subject, saying: I told you at the time, to illustrate the fact that if an aggressor gets the idea that he will meet opposition of an unpleasant character, he will think twice before he acts. That fact reinforces my fear, which I expressed on another occasion, that this Bill may give an aggressor the assurance that he is very unlikely to meet with opposition.

My Lords, of course I readily understand that it is impossible for any Government to exhort people to take their own measures to defend themselves. I think that the situation would have to be very much worse than it is to-day to compel the Government to that course; in fact, I think we should reach what the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition describes as a "population armed to the teeth"—I think that was the expression he used. On the other hand, the proposition I have repeated twice to your Lordships—that unless there is in the general population not only a right but a willingness to defend themselves, then no police force however large can ever do so—has never been controverted; nor do I think it can be controverted. Here you have a contradiction which, up to now, has been satisfactorily resolved by the common sense of the people themselves. My objection to this Bill, and my complaint, is that it has brought that contradiction to a definite issue and I do not think that the answer here is a good one. At least, I was not very satisfied with my noble friend Lord Lloyd's answer to the conundrum on the last occasion. I am very much afraid that many people, and especially women, will have more fear of the law than respect for common sense, and in consequence will suffer. I have not yet learnt what the Government's attitude or answer to that is. Do they consider merely as a regrettable incident the fact of a few women being coshed?

There is another point—namely, that the citizen is himself a constable, and it is his duty to go to the aid of the police if he is called upon. The constable is armed with his truncheon or cosh, and presumably his opponent is as well or better armed. If I am called upon to go to the help of the police, is it my duty to fling myself into the battle with my bare hands, or am I to say that I will go home and get my cosh and then come back and help them? I have in my pocket a letter. I do not know what truth there is in that letter. It is from a man who received an injury on being called to the help of the police. To that injury he attributes the loss of his sight and his job. He says that he did not get very much compensation, but that he received a beautiful letter of thanks which he still retains. That is not really a very satisfactory answer. But if the individual is bound to go to that duty with his bare hands, then I am bound to say that I think the law should have been scrutinised when this Bill was going through. However, the Bill is going through—there is no doubt about that—and therefore there rests upon your Lordships the duty of watching carefully how the Government discharge the new responsibility they have undertaken and, if you are not satisfied, of drawing public attention to it from time to time.

On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.