Lords Sitting of 6 December 1956

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

BRITISH DEPORTEES FROM EGYPT
3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Question, of which I have given them Private Notice: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any further statement to make concerning financial help to refugees from Egypt.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT):My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have given further consideration, in consultation with the Anglo-Egyptian Aid Society and other voluntary organisations, to the question of affording assistance to the British subjects who come to this country as refugees from Egypt. I am glad to be able to announce that the Government have decided to make an immediate grant of £100,000 to the Society to enable them to give prompt relief to those in need of it. I understand that, in addition, the Society propose to make a public appeal for funds; and the Society, as trustees of any funds so subscribed, will use them in such manner as they think fit for the benefit of these unhappy refugees.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I thank the Under-Secretary of State for that Answer, and ask him whether he is aware that everybody, in all quarters of the House, will be grateful to him for the advocacy which obviously he must have undertaken in the last twenty-four hours, and that not only these unhappy victims but the whole country will be most grateful for the decision which he has just announced?
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to say that I entirely agree with what the noble Earl has said. I thank him for putting dawn the Question, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his Answer.
806
Is there any knowledge to-day as to the numbers of people involved?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid that I have no more knowledge to-day than we had yesterday. It is very difficult to get information as to the actual number who may be involved.

PRESS AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to establish a Press Authority and to confer powers upon it; and to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a;and to be printed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARRIED WOMEN) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1956
3.8 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE rose to move, That the Draft National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 28th of November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Regulations spring from the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the question of widows' benefits, Cmd. 9684, of February, 1956. In the summer we passed the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act which provided for the implementation of the Committee's Report and these are the Regulations which implement that Act in respect of the re-establishment of widows in insurance.
The general purpose of the Regulations is to ensure that when widows cease to draw widows benefit they shall be treated as if they had been paying contributions in Class l and, therefore, are entitled to full unemployment and sickness benefit. They are relieved of the usual limitation on the amount of sickness benefit they can draw in one spell where the contributions paid have been less than 156. They also allow unemployment benefit to be drawn up to the maximum of nineteen months in one spell. Widows are also relieved of the requirement to

807
pay 156 contributions to qualify for a retirement pension on their own record. The provisions apply not only to future widows but also to all women who are widows at present and who have received a widow's benefit under the National Insurance Scheme or a 10s. contributory pension. There are quite a large number of women who have not been paying contributions, and who therefore are not entitled to unemployment or sickness benefit, who will be able to get them in full as a result of these Regulations. But, of course, if they wish to continue to draw benefits in future, they will have to keep up the necessary qualifying contributions. That is why the Minister has called these Regulations a "flying start."
I will give your Lordships a few instances of the type of person who stands to benefit under the Regulations. There is the widow of a small shopkeeper: she helped in the shop but did not pay contributions. She can go on keeping the shop, and under these Regulations she becomes automatically qualified for sickness benefit. If she decides to give up the shop she is automatically qualified for unemployment benefit until she can get a job. Then there is the factory worker. So long as she was looking after a family and was drawing a widowed mother's allowance she worked only spasmodically; but when her allowance ceases she wants whole-time work. The "flying start" enables her to qualify for sickness or unemployment benefit in full without waiting for her to pay the necessary qualifying contributions. Then there is the "10s. widow" under the pre-1948 contributory insurance scheme. If at present she is unable to draw sickness or unemployment benefit, she will be able to do so immediately after these Regulations are passed. There are quite a lot of chronic sick "10s. widows" who will benefit from this change.
The Regulations themselves are extremely complicated, as anything to do with this subject always is. I should specially mention the new Regulation 8A (1), which appears in Regulation 3, which contains the principal substantive provisions for giving effect to the National Insurance Advisory Committee's recommendations. It provides that where a widow ceases to be entitled to a widow's allowance, or widowed mother's
808
allowance, without becoming entitled to a widow's pension or retirement pension, she gets the benefits of the concessions I have outlined. I should also mention Regulation 4 which brings in the "10s. widows" and the widows who previously enjoyed widows' benefits. The remainder of these Regulations, in between the two that I have mentioned, deal with anomalies and particular cases, and I do not think your Lordships would wish me to go through them in detail; but, of course, I shall be happy to expound them to the best of my ability if anybody wishes me to do so.
The Special Orders Committee have reported that the Regulations do not raise important questions of policy or principle and are founded on precedent. I hope that they will be generally welcomed by your Lordships, as they were in another place. I can say that no-one will be worse off and quite a number of people will be better off if they come into force. If they are passed, my right honourable friend the Minister intends to bring them into operation on January 7 next. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations. 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 28th of November, be approved.—(Lord Hawke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VISITING FORCES (APPLICATION OF LAW) ORDER, 1956
3.12 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to move, That the Draft Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on November 28, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was set up to provide for a common system of defence it was necessary to make arrangements for stationing the troops of one member country in the territories of another in furtherance of common plans and designs. The detailed arrangements for the reception of these visiting forces was set out in the N.A.T.O. Status of Forces Agreement of 1951.
The obligations that this country accepted when it signed that Agreement were implemented by the Visiting Forces

809
Act, 1952, and the Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order, 1954. The Act and the Order are, however, limited at the moment to those countries who had ratified or acceded by early 1954. Since then, Luxembourg, Turkey, Greece, Denmark, Portugal and Italy have ratified or acceded, and we are under a clear obligation to extend our legislation to cover any forces that they might send to this country under the N.A.T.O. arrangements.
This Order, then, has two principal objects. The first and most obvious one is to extend the Order of 1954 to those six countries that have acceded to or ratified the Status of Forces Agreement since 1954. Perhaps I should say here that the only visiting forces as such which are at present permanently stationed in this country arc the Canadian and the American ones, with which forces I am glad to say our relations are cordial and satisfactory. We do not expect that any other substantial N.A.T.O. force will come here in the foreseeable future, but it is obviously desirable that we should not appear to be in breach of our international obligations in this matter.
The other principal object of this draft Order springs from the new Army and Air Force Acts which were passed in 1955. Your Lordships will remember that those Acts were the result of long and careful consideration both during the passage of the Bills through Parliament and previously in a Select Committee. They set out the basis upon which the military law of the Army and Air Force will rest for the future. It is clearly necessary that the relevant parts of this new military law should he extended to visiting forces, as were the old, and it happens that this extension must be provided for now, since the Army and Air Force Acts, 1955, will come into force on 1st January next. The draft Order therefore provides for the relevant sections of the Acts of 1955 to apply to visiting forces.
When the draft Order was drawn up the opportunity was taken of introducing new references that have become necessary awing to legislation that has been passed since the 1954 Order was made. Examples that strike the eye are those affecting the new Road Traffic and Town and Country Planning Acts; and the
810
inclusion of references to the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956 and to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.
These miscellaneous references, like the others, are designed to place visiting forces in the same position as home forces and thus to carry out our obligations under the N.A.T.O. Status of Forces Agreement. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will see fit to approve this Order, which has not yet been considered in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Visiting Forces (Application of Law) Order. 1956, reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 28th of November, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES.
(1) LIBRARY.
The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Attlee, E. Drogheda, E. Home, E. Ilchester, V. Simonds (Chairman), V. Soulbury, L. Burden, L. Reid, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(2) REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. Fortescue (Chairman), E. Gosford, L. Ammon, L. Amulree, L. Blackford, L. Henderson, L. Killearn, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Mancroft, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(3) WINDOWS IN THE PRINCE'S CHAMBER.
The Sub-Committee on the Windows in the Prince's Chamber was appointed as follows:
D. Wellington (Chairman), M. Salisbury. E. Crawford, E. Drogheda, E. Munster, L. Burden, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(4) ACCOMODATION IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Sub-Committee on Accommodation in the House of Lords was appointed as follows: E. Fortescue, E. Lucan, L. Amulree, L. Burden, L. Teynham (Chairman), with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(5) HOUSING OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS IN THE VICTORIA TOWER.
The Sub-Committee on the Housing of Historical Documents in the Victoria Tower was appointed as follows: Salisbury

811
(Chairman), E. Lucan, E. Munster, V. Thurso, L. Amulree, L. Teynham, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2. —ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN.
The Committee approved the recommendation of the Library Sub-Committee to appoint Mr. Robin Murray Price to the office of Assistant Librarian.
The Committee sanctioned the scale of salary to he paid to Mr. Price on his appointment from 10th January, 1957.
3.—DEPARTMENT OF THE. LORD GREAT CHAMBERLAIN
The Committee approved a revised scale of pay for the Personal Assistants in the Office of the Lord Great Chamberlain.
4.—ESTIMATES
The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1957-58 were laid before the Committee and approved.
5.—SUPPLEMENTARY GRATUITY
The Committee were informed of the death, on 12th November, 1956, of Mr. G. H. T. Anthony, former Inspector of Custodians, who retired on 19th July last, and sanctioned the payment of a supplementary death gratuity under section 2 (2) of the Superannuation Act, 1909, to his legal personal representative.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report from the Committee be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, there is nothing in this Report to which I think I need draw your Lordships' special attention. I therefore beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a third time I desire to refer to one point which arose during the Committee stage. In answer to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I then undertook to consider whether it is correct that a man who wants his patent quickly is not unnecessarily held up by those who prefer to delay, and also whether it is
812
possible for the Patent Office to operate some system whereby people who want their patents quickly can be distinguished from those who legitimately want to delay. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is unable to be in the House to-day, and if that inconvenience has in any way been caused by precipitate action on our part in bringing the Bill forward a little quickly, I would ask his noble friends opposite to apologise to him on my behalf.
I think it is true to say—and inquiry proves this to be so—that every applicant wants to have as soon as possible the first results of the search conducted in the Patent Office. After he knows the result of that search, for which, at the moment, he has to wait, on the average, about fifteen months, the speed at which his application proceeds is almost entirely in his own hands. The sooner he takes action to amend his specification to satisfy the examiner's objections, the sooner his patent is granted. There is little delay in the Patent Office in dealing with amendments submitted to his specification. On the other hand, the man who wishes to delay publication can, by failing to answer the examiner's objections promptly, hold up publication and grant of the patent until near the end of the statutory maximum period.
During the Committee stage I spoke about consultations which had taken place with industry and the professional bodies before this Bill was introduced. The organisations consulted were solidly opposed to giving priority of examination to certain applicants. Indeed, as I think your Lordships will see, this might well operate most unfairly: for example, an application might be taken out of turn and a patent granted to the applicant, whereas, had it been examined in its turn, it would have been found to have been anticipated by a different and earlier application filed by another inventor who had been less importunate in demanding early examination. It would, I think, be quite impracticable for the Patent Office to distinguish between the applicant who has legitimate reasons for delay and the one who has not—indeed, it would take an Act of Parliament to lay down what are legitimate reasons. I have gone into the matter very carefully, and I am satisfied with the situation as it is. I think the question which Lord Lucas of

813
Chilworth raised is answered in these inquiries. I hope that perhaps his noble friends opposite will convey that answer to him, and that he will, in due course, be able to notify his satisfaction to me. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE (SILO SUBSIDIES) BILL
3.22 p.m.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CYPRUS GOVERNMENT'S NEW REGULATIONS
3.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government the reasons for the making by the Government of Cyprus of the new regulations concerning the Press, the extension of the death penalty, and the bringing of charges against the security forces. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting this Question to the Government I should like first to thank very cordially the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for his courtesy in obtaining for me from Cyprus copies of the new Emergency Regulations, and also for the information which he made so readily and speedily available from his Department. If I may do so, I should like to make one suggestion to the noble Lord which perhaps he will be good enough to consider.
The use of the death penalty arid the freedom of the Press in overseas territories for which we are responsible are
814
matters of very special interest to Parliament and the public. This is, I think, recognised by the ordinary practice of the Government. For example, in this case (the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong), when the Government of Cyprus wish to make regulations under their Emergency Powers, dealing with these particular matters, they first submit them to the Secretary of State for examination and approval. What I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. Would he be willing, if in the future any regulations of this kind are made in Cyprus, or similar regulations in any other Colony—because the principle obviously applies generally —to place a copy of such regulations in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament as soon as the regulations arc issued? If he would do so, it would, I am sure. be for the convenience of Members.
We all deplore the violence that has been going on in Cyprus for the past eighteen months. If E.O.K.A., the terrorist organisation, would only stop the shooting. Cyprus would now have a reasonable chance of self-government under a new Constitution. But this reign of terror, as we all know, continues, claiming its victims among civilians as well as in the security forces. So long as it lasts, we all agree that the Government of Cyprus are bound to take whatever measures are really necessary, however unpleasant and however exceptional they may be, to protect the civilian population, the Armed Forces and the Cyprus police force. As we are all aware, the security forces have been doing a most distasteful job with their usual sense of duty and decency, and, in common with civilians, they most certainly deserve all reasonable protection from the law.
That brings me to the third regulation about which I am putting this Question to the Government this afternoon. The measures taken in these new Emergency Regulations are, I think everyone will agree, exceptionally severe, and make a more serious encroachment than hither-to on civil liberties. What I feel we are entitled to ask the Government is that they should satisfy us that these exceptional measures are fully justified by the circumstances of the present situation in Cyprus. We should like to be satisfied that no less severe measures and no lesser encroachment on civil liberties would have served the same purpose—

815
namely, the stopping of terrorism and the protection of the civilian population, the Armed Forces and the police. Any unnecessary or unjustifiable harshness at the present time will, I am sure, do our cause in Cyprus far more harm than good.
There are two reasons why, in my opinion, we should do our utmost to avoid undue severity. The first is that the terrorists in Cyprus are few in number, and most of the public do not support or condone their methods. Any unnecessary harshness embitters ordinary people who would otherwise be on our side, and drives them into the terrorist camp. The other reason, which is perhaps even more important at the present moment than the risk of helping the terrorists, is the risk of alienating friendly and reasonable opinion in Cyprus. The Radcliffe proposals, when they appear, will be the last hope of peace in Cyprus. We all hope that they will succeed, but they will be useless unless they are accepted by public opinion in Cyprus and unless the Greek-Cypriot population, as well as the Turkish population, is willing to co-operate in working the new Constitution. It is, therefore, more than ever important that we should neither use, nor even give the impression of using, any exaggerated severity in dealing with subversion.
I shall keep an open mind about these new regulations until the noble Lord has had the opportunity of replying to my Question. I profoundly hope that he will be able to convince me, and many others who share my doubts, that these regulations are indispensable for restoring order. I feel bound, however, to express my own grave doubts and the doubts that are felt by liberal (I use the word with a small "I") opinion in this country. Liberal opinion is found in all Parties, including the Party opposite and in all sections of the Press. It was expressed in a leading. article in The Times on November 29. I should like to quote one passage from this leader, which was entitled, "The Heavy Hand in Cyprus". This is the passage:
"It is thus the more surprising and regrettable that at this moment the emergency regulations in Cyprus should have been amended to a point of severity which is nothing but ruthless. It is true that a fresh outbreak of terrorism has lately claimed the lives of many British servicemen and policemen. But the
816
measures now introduced to threaten Cypriots are not to be excused merely as a reply to the ruthlessness of E.O.K.A."
A similar attitude can be found in papers that are traditionally liberal, and perhaps more narrowly so than The Times. My noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt will speak about these regulations with his great legal authority and, speaking in all humility in such company, I shall limit myself to a brief comment on each of them.
First of all, there is the regulation about the death penalty. I should have thought that any extension of the death penalty at the present time could be justified only by a worsening of the situation in Cyprus. I listened carefully, as I dare say did other noble Lords, to the broadcast on Cyprus given on Tuesday evening by Sir John Harding. He said, and I presume that the Government agree, because obviously what he said was approved by the Government, that the situation had not worsened since the summer, in spite of two bad outbreaks of violence, one in August and one in November. That is my first reason for questioning the extension of the use of the death penalty.
This new regulation extending the death penalty, among other things deprives judges of the option of giving a prison sentence if a person is convicted of carrying arms or ammunition. I believe that it would shock opinion here if a child of twelve—and that is the age of criminal responsibility in Cyprus—was found carrying a bomb and sentenced to death by hanging. Your Lordships may remember a case reported last week in Nicosia in which two girls of seventeen were convicted of carrying bombs. If they had been prosecuted under the new regulation, the one I am dealing with, they would have been sentenced to death. The judge would have had no option.
May I say a word about the Press regulation? The new Press regulation seems to me, first, too severe, and, secondly, to give the Government wider powers than are strictly necessary for the purpose mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in replying to the Question I asked him last week. Noble Lords will remember that the noble Lord said that the purpose of the new regulation was to prevent the publication of slanderous allegations about the behaviour of the security forces. My first point is that of

817
undue severity. I cannot help feeling that such a drastic penalty as the suppression of a newspaper should not be exercised by the Governor, as he is authorised to exercise it under this regulation, without at least one warning to the paper concerned from the Government of Cyprus or one court conviction of an offence under the Emergency Regulations. I believe—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that neither of the English language newspapers, the Cyprus Mail and the Times of Cyprus, has yet been convicted of any offence under the Emergency Regulations.
My second point about this Press regulation is the vague and wide nature of the powers taken by the Government of Cyprus to control the Press. The power to suppress any newspaper that publishes matter—and here I quote from the regulation:
"…prejudcial to the successful prosecution of measures taken or to be taken to forward the termination of the state of emergency"
is bound to cause editors of newspapers, both Greek and English, a great deal of uncertainty about what they can safely publish. They will be tempted to avoid the reporting of any matter likely to be even slightly critical of the Government's handling of the situation in Cyprus.
May I now say one word about the last of these regulations, which seems to be the most difficult of all to defend. It prevents members of the public from taking proceedings against any police officer, member of the armed forces or Government official, without the consent of the Attorney-General. Surely it is contrary to our ideas of fair play and the liberty of the subject that the Attorney-General, who is himself a member of the Government, should be able to prevent an ordinary citizen from going to law when he believes that he has been wronged by the Government or by any of their servants. If prior consent is considered to be necessary—it may be—before access to the courts is permitted, it ought surely to be given by a judge, by an independent person, and not by a member of the Executive. This regulation is so widely drawn that it covers the whole of the Government service in Cyprus. It protects the security forces and the Governmert and their officers, not only from charges arising out of the emergency but from charges that have nothing to do
818
with the emergency, For example, if one were run over by a post office van in Nicosia and wanted to claim damages, one could not take proceedings against the Government of Cyprus without first obtaining the consent of the Attorney-General. That is as I understand it, though I am not a professional lawyer and my interpretation may be wrong.
These are my brief comments. I felt bound to explain the reasons why I have asked this question and why I feel these doubts about the validity and desirability of these regulations. I appeal to the noble Lord to consider the possibility of modifying and amending them. I believe that their purpose which all of us share, could be secured if they were less severe and less liable to interfere with the rights of Cypriot citizens and the legitimate activities of the Press. I am certain that the relaxation of the Emergency Regulations would help to create the right atmosphere in Cyprus for the reception of the Radcliffe Constitution. With those few words. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
3.38 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who is going to reply, will give me this credit: that I have been very little trouble to him on the question of Cyprus, because hardly ever intervene on this subject. The reason is that I think it is an extraordinarily difficult problem, and I confess that I do not know the answer to it. All I hope is that the Radcliffe proposals will be acceptable and accepted. If they are not, then I see no solution at all, unless it be the solution proposed, I think, by Mr. Walter Elliot, which is a second, third and even fourth best—namely, that there will have to be some kind of separation, which obviously will take years to bring about and would be a most deplorable way of trying to solve this problem. I certainly hope that the Radcliffe solution will be accepted.
I never dreamed that I was going to break my rule and intervene on the question on Cyprus until I happened to hear on Tuesday evening the broadcast by Sir John Harding. I suppose I am very old-fashioned in this matter, but I want to say frankly what I think. I consider that it is a thousand pities that a person in his position should broadcast about controversial matters. I think that it is a

819
wholly admirable thing that a man in his position should come back and address Members of all Parties here privately, so that we might know what is in his mind and what is happening; but surely the old position is much the best: that any broadcast on controversial matters should be done by the Minister.
I found myself in an uncomfortable position while listening to that broadcast. It seemed to me that Sir John Harding was relying on the simple and, I believe, utterly fallacious proposition that the more severe your penalties are the better chance you have that crime will not take place. All our history has proved that to be fallacious, unless a considerable limitation is put to it. If you make penalties in such a way that you lose public sympathy, then the last state of things is far worse than the first. I take this attitude—and I believe I speak for all noble Lords in your Lordships' House about this. I think Sir John Harding is faced with an extraordinarily difficult position, and one which, to a gallant and distinguished soldier, must be a most unpleasant one. I believe that he is trying devotedly to do his duty and to find a happy solution, and that we should give him the powers that he reasonably wants. But, equally, I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords here when I say that it would be a mistake to give him powers beyond those which are reasonably necessary. It is entirely from that point of view that I ask your Lordships to look at these regulations.
Speaking with considerable experience in these matters. I am bound to say that I do not think I have ever seen a more draconian set of rules than these regulations. I confess that they have given me grave anxiety. My noble friend Lord Listowel has discussed this matter with me; he has already indicated the points which I was going to put, and therefore I shall put them briefly. I take, first, the regulation regarding the death penalty. Here I speak subject to correction (the noble Lord opposite, or perhaps the Lord Chancellor, who is present, will correct me) but it is the case at the present time that in sentencing someone for, for instance, carrying a bomb, a grenade or explosive, the judges have a discretion. They can impose the death penalty; and in the emergency I can well understand
820
that the death penalty would be appropriate in most cases. On the other hand, the judge can, if he is so minded, impose the lesser penalty of imprisonment; and the period of imprisonment is within his discretion.
My noble friend Lord Listowel referred to the recent case of the two girls, but I think that he had one point wrong. He said that both the girls were of the age of seventeen. My recollection is that one was seventeen—she was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment, and no doubt quite rightly—but the other was fourteen, or it may even have been twelve. Both of these children were carrying firearms, and the judge, exercising the powers that he had, sentenced the older one to nine years' imprisonment and the younger one to two years' imprisonment. Under our law in England, the rule is that up to the age of eight years old a child is presumed not to be capable of crime. Between the ages of eight and fourteen there is a presumption that the child did not know that it was doing wrong, although that presumption can be rebutted. Theoretically, in our law, therefore, it is possible for a child of the age of nine to be found guilty of any crime in the calendar, if you show that the child knew that what was done was a crime. I think I am right in saying that in Cyprus the ages are slightly different: they are seven years old and twelve years old. With a child of seven the presumption arises, but can be rebutted; but at the age of twelve a child is fully amenable to the criminal law.
The effect of this regulation is that a judge no longer has a discretion: he is bound to sentence to death anybody found guilty of carrying a bomb or carrying a firearm. If a child of twelve years, or it might conceivably be eight years—at any rate, a child of such tender years—were carrying a bomb or a firearm, the judge would be under the unpleasant necessity of sentencing that child to death; and, of course, the child would be reprieved. But the fact that the judge had to pronounce sentence on that child would, I should have thought, do our cause an infinity of harm. It seems to me that this regulation bears this stamped upon its face: that the Executive no longer trusts the judges. Have not the judges exercised their

821
discretion wisely and sensibly? Have they not, in those cases where there was no real excuse, sentenced to death those people who were discovered carrying bombs or carrying firearms? If there is some case where the judges have not done that, then I understand the need for this regulation. But I ask your Lordships to agree with me in saying that to make this sentence automatic, to deprive the judge of any discretion and to make it compulsory for him to sentence to death a child of twelve years of age, or upwards, without the option of doing anything else, is wrong, unless an overwhelming case can be shown for it; and it is the sort of thing that will tend to lose us sympathy. Therefore I would ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, who has been good enough to arrange to be here to-day, to make representations and ask whether this matter cannot be looked at again.
I will go further with this regulation, upon a matter of drafting—and one should be careful about the way these regulations are drafted. When I come to the later clauses of the regulation, I come to this conclusion. Suppose two men go poaching (I do not know whether men do peach in Cyprus; I do not know what sort of game there is, or whether or not there are rabbits there) and one of them has a gun, both of them would, I think, have to be sentenced to death. There may be a question whether what they were doing was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order—I should have thought that it was—but, in that case, they would both be guilty and have to he sentenced to death.
If two burglars go burgling in Cyprus, one having a gun in his pocket, even if the gun is never fired, and they are caught, under this regulation the judge would, I think, have to sentence both those burglars to death. What would happen in this country would be that the judge sentencing those burglars would impose a severe sentence on the man found with the gun in his pocket, even though it had not been discharged; and in sentencing his accomplice, he would want to be sure that the accomplice knew that the other man had, the gun in his pocket, or reasonably inferred it, if he was to give him a similar severe sentence. But under this regulation, if I read it aright, if the men are acting in a manner
822
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, both of those people will have to be sentenced to death. Obviously that is not intended, and they would be reprieved; but I think it is unwise to pass these drastic regulations without the most careful thought to see whether or not you have limited, so far as you possibly can, the ambit of the regulations
Therefore, I make this appeal to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—of course, he cannot give an answer here and now—that if he thinks there is anything in the observations that I have made, to make representations in the proper quarter: because he, I know, will agree with me that, although powers are necessary in an emerge icy, and we must not deny Sir John Harding the powers he ought to have to put down this murder game—and do not let it be thought that I sympathise with this murder game; I certainly do not—those powers should be limited so that he does not take more than he wants.
I now come to the question that there should be no prosecution without the consent of the Attorney-General. In this country we have had cases of people vested. with authority who have abused their authority. The legal phrase is colori officii—under the colour of some office you try to distort in one way or another. If there had been a spate of cases against police officers or members of Her Majesty's forces, I can conceive that this regulation, depriving the citizen of his right to redress in the law courts, though no-one can like it at all, might have been necessary, it depends on a knowledge of the facts. But can there really be a case for applying it further than that?
This regulation applies to the public officers—that is, the civil servants. But suppose there were a case of some civil servant acting as a petty tyrant. Is it right that the chance of the citizen to bring an action against him and show him up in the courts should he subject to the consent of the Attorney-General, subject to the Executive? It means placing the law absolutely under the Executive, instead of the other way round. If there are cases alleged, is it not much better to have the widest possible inquiry into these matters? I remember when the Prime Minister of

823
the day came to me about what ultimately turned out to be the Lynskey Tribunal. He told me that rumours were going around of something being wrong. I said: "If there are rumours going around of something being wrong, please have an inquiry, with the utmost publicity, to let everybody have a chance of saying what he likes." If we had hushed up the whole thing, the rumours would have continued to go round. In considering this question, do remember that, if there are cases where people have done something wrong, it is surely much better that they should be shown up, rather than bottled up.
Therefore, I ask the Lord Chancellor, or the Minister who may be going to reply, to consider whether the scope of this regulation at the present time is not too wide, whether it should not be limited to the police and the members of Her Majesty's forces, and whether, even in that case, the Government should not show that it is necessary because there have been a spate of such cases and such allegations. I do not know whether there have been or not.
Thirdly, I come to one point upon which I believe we shall all think on the same lines. This puts the Press absolutely at the mercy of the Governor. I am sure that the Governor is a most reasonable person, and I hope that I have not said one word to the contrary. But I object, as a matter of principle, unless it is absolutely necessary, that the Press should he under the control of anybody. It becomes a most serious matter indeed, if any newspaper publishes any matter which is prejudicial to the successful prosecution of measures taken to forward the termination of the state of emergency in the Colony. I am aware that we are shortly to have the Radcliffe proposals. I hope they will be explored and criticised honestly. I hope they will be a matter of give and take and that, finally, they will be agreed to. I hope that the Press will criticise, if they think criticism is necessary, will applaud where they think applause is necessary, and generally behave like a responsible Press does. I know the noble Lord has said that it is not in the contemplation of the Government at all to interfere with any such criticism. I can well believe that it would
824
not be. My point is that the regulation is so widely drafted that it seems to have that effect.
I expect that many of your Lordships have received a communication from the Times of Cyprus, which I believe to be (I know nothing about Cyprus, I am afraid) a perfectly respectable paper, against which no prosecution has ever been brought, so far as I know, saying that, as things are to-day, in face of this regulation it certainly would not dare to criticise the Radcliffe proposals in any respect whatever. The Radcliffe proposals are obviously put forward in the hope of ending the emergency and, therefore, they seem to me to come within the language of the regulation, though I am perfectly certain that was never intended.
The powers which the Governor is given are immense. He can, without any trial, without the newspaper ever having been convicted, close it down and stop all future issues. If it comes from a specified publishing house, he can close down all the newspapers published by that publishing house. After he has done that, it is true, there is an advisory committee appointed by him, one of whose members is a judge appointed by him. It seems to me that we have this matter entirely the wrong way round. There ought to be the judge first of all, not subject to the Executive. Then if he convicts a newspaper, by all means, if it is necessary, let the Governor refuse to allow that newspaper ever to be issued again. I would much rather myself that the judge had that power, but that is because I am old-fashioned, I am afraid. But do not let the Governor do it first, and then refer what he has done to a body appointed by him. That seems to me entirely opposed to our traditions in this country.
There again, I would beg the Lord Chancellor to make representations in the proper quarter about these matters. I am sure that no one on this side or the other side of the House wants to deny to Sir John Harding powers which he reasonably needs. We realise that he is dealing with a murder gang, and he must be given quite exceptional powers. But we do ask him to see that those powers are not more exceptional than they need be. In saying that, we are not expressing to the smallest extent any disapproval of Sir John Harding or any distrust in him, or anything of that sort. We proceed on

825
ordinary general principles, and say that these drastic posers ought not to be given unless the case for them is outstanding and overwhelming. I believe that if the Lord Chancellor were to ask the Government of Cyprus to look at this regulation again, in the light of the observations made to-day, it might be that they would find they could achieve the same result with less drastic powers.
3.58 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I say one or two words in support of my noble friend Lord Listowel, who has brought this matter forward in such a timely manner? I should also like to say to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that a great many people, both in Cyprus and here, will be most grateful to him for the powerful aid which he has rendered in this matter by his perfectly devastating criticism of these new regulations. In view of what has been said about them in detail, there is no need for me to go over that ground any more; but there is one point that I wish to make. I am struck by the discrepancy between the resort to these new regulations and the encouraging reports that have conic forward at fairly regular intervals from the Governor of Cyprus about the successful progress of the campaign against E.O.K.A.
I think it was about a year ago that the Governor told us that the net was closing around E.O.K.A. Yet it is now felt necessary to have recourse to these drastic new regulations. It makes me feel that there must be some very big rents in that net which was closing around the terrorists. We have, on various occasions, had other statements from authority in Cyprus about the successful progress of the campaign against the terrorists. I am also, I. must confess, particularly surprised at the regulations about the Press, and to find that Mr. Foley, of all men, is in trouble at this moment. I remember him very well I remember the newspaper. It was always most helpful in every way to a Government, and it is a most astonishing thing to me to find that that paper may be in trouble at this moment.
I should like to say, too, that I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said about the recent broadcast by the Governor of Cyprus. On reflection, most noble Lords will, I am
826
sure, agree that it is not advisable in the present state of affairs that such a broadcast should he made by the Governor. It is very unfortunate that, in the broadcasts and in what we hear out of Cyprus at this present moment, the emphasis always seems to be that of a commander carrying on a campaign, and not of a Governor trying to bring peace to a distracted island. Nor do I feel that the timing is good—to bring forward these regulations just at the moment we are about to hear the contents of the Radcliffe Report. I cannot think of anything more calculated to ensure a bad reception for the Radcliffe Report. It is a great mistake in timing. Let me say, too, how earnestly I hope that this Radcliffe Report may open out the way to the taking of a new step in Cyprus, and that once again we may find the controversy getting into the field of political exposition and negotiation and, above all, conciliation.
There are hopeful signs. From what I have seen published recently, it appears that the Greek Government are taking a more reasonable and also a more helpful view of the Cyprus dispute; and I hope very much that the same may be said of the Turkish Government. If it is true that the Greek Government and the Turkish Government are prepared to be conciliatory at a time when the Radcliffe Report is published, then we may be on the high road to a better state of affairs, That is devoutly to be hoped for, because it is extremely difficult to answer these very unfair attacks made upon us by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Nehru on the score of colonialism, when, unfortunately, Cyprus does not at the moment present a very happy example of British colonial rule at its best and as we mainly know it.
The last thing I want to say is this. It is most unfortunate that affairs in Egypt have been, and are being, used to bolster up our "staying put", and the maintenance of our non possumus attitude in Cyprus. The Cypriots may well say that it is rubbing salt into their wounds to make them the victims of what I must call errors in Egypt. That is all that I want to say, except once again to tell your Lordships how earnestly one hopes, as I am sure all your Lordships hope, that the Radcliffe Report may indeed he about to open Me door to a bettor and happier state of affairs.
4.4 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by other noble Lords on this side of the House about these regulations. It is almost impossible to contain one's feeling of indignation at regulations so extreme as these. In all my recollection of British colonial history I cannot remember anything quite so draconian as these regulations ever being passed, as it were, on to the Statute Book. I would remind Members of your Lordships' House that, whenever an extreme violence of this kind has been attempted, it has never been successful, whether it was at Amritsar or whether it was in Ireland. The result has always been that we have had to go much further back than the position we were in when we started. Usually, it has been an indication that the men actually on the spot were losing their heads.
It cannot be that regulations as extreme as these are really necessary. I implore the Government to take them back and look at them again. If these regulations are carried through with the draconian severity which, on the face of them, they entitle the Government to take, the Government might just as well tear up the Radcliffe Constitution before it is ever published to the world, because obviously it will have no chance whatever of success. It is a question not only of opinion in Cyprus but of opinion all over the world.
We in this country at the present time are in difficulties with regard to world opinion about us, and it seems to me to be flying in the face of providence to go on in this way at this time, particularly when we need the assistance of America and the Commonwealth countries, where liberal opinion is strong. I hope that the Government will, at this last hour, look at this matter again, think About it, withdraw these regulations and substitute for them something which is reasonable and which can, in fact, be operated with some prospect of success.
4.8 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, put his case, as did the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, with studious moderation and great force. It is in that spirit entirely that I should like to respond to what has
828
been said. We all respect the views of the noble and learned Earl particularly on legal matters, where he is clearly a very great expert. I should be the first to say that on such matters I am a child compared with him. Therefore, I can only do my best on the technicalities to give him such satisfaction as I can.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said—and I accept it—that none of us likes taking stern measures: none of us likes the situation that we find in Cyprus. We should all prefer that a happier state of affairs could come about, and we all devoutly hope that the new proposals which are on the way may lead to that happier state of affairs which has been our objective for the last years. I will mention something that was said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, because I think it is relevant too. He said that we recognise, at the same time, the great difficulties under which the Governor is labouring to carry out an exceedingly difficult task, and that he clearly must have the powers that we should all wish him to have—the powers which are necessary for him to carry out that task. I think that that is the feeling of all of us here.
Therefore the issue, as I see it—and it is a perfectly fair issue—is: are these powers more than the Governor needs? Are they excessive: are they draconian? Could the Governor do with less powers? I think that is a perfectly fair question and I will do my best to answer it. There is one other point I should like to make before I get down to details about regulations. Inevitably in any legal document there are two things: there is the intention of the document and there is the drafting of the document. I would not pretend to be an expert on draftsmanship, and certainly, if I may say this straight away to the noble and learned Earl, any criticisms or comments which he makes on the effect and implications of any legislation are something to which I would pay the most profound attention. I need hardly say that I shall mention everything that he has said this afternoon to my right honourable friend. But there are these two things—there is the actual drafting and the intention.
It is also true to say that drafting is a difficult business. It is difficult sometimes, without drafting rather widely, to

829
cover the sort of cases which one knows one must deal with. I think the noble Earl will agree with me that precise drafting is a difficult art and is difficult to achieve. I am not going to pretend that this drafting is perfect. It may be that many of the things he has said are correct, and we may be able to improve these regulations. I will certainly have a look at them again to see whether that can be done.
But I should like to try to explain to noble Lords opposite why it is that these regulations are necessary at all, without prejudice to the drafting. If I may take the points of Lord Listowel's Question in order, let me start off with that concerning the Press regulations. I told the noble Earl, I think on November 28, what was the intention behind these Press regulations, and I explained to him that it was to prevent a series of slanderous attacks upon the security forces, most of them totally unfounded, which did great damage to the relationship between our troops and the local population and which there was no other way, we thought, of stopping. I pointed out to the noble Earl at that time that there was already in existence another regulation, Regulation No. 41, which has been in existence for some time, and which gives the Governor very wide powers indeed, said at that time—that is, when we last discussed this matter—that I did not think these new regulations gave any wider powers to the Governor than were given by Regulation 41. I think that was a fair statement. I would not wish to mislead the House. It is very difficult to compare two things which are phrased differently. I would have said that one regulation was a great deal narrower in one respect and possibly slightly wider in another part of it; but in conception would have said that broadly they were about the same.
EARL JOWITT: It is difficult for us, because we cannot get Regulation 41; it is not in the House.
LORD LLOYD: I will try to see that the noble and learned. Earl is supplied with it. We cannot have all the Colonial regulations in the Library, otherwise it would be impossible to get through the door, but I will see what can be done about the regulation in point. As I have said, I think it is difficult to pursue too
830
far the comparison between the two regulations. But I should like to make one point: that it is not possible, even under these regulations, for the Governor to prohibit the publication of a newspaper, unless he is satisfied that there is a systematic publication of offending material. That is a much narrower power than we had under Regulation 41. He must be satisfied that this is going on systematically, the whole time—in other words, that there is a really deliberate and systematic attempt to slander the security forces. I think that that is some security. Then there is the Advisory Committee which the noble Earl has criticised, and of which criticism I take note.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the statement on these regulations which was made last night by the Government of Cyprus, because I think it may do something to satisfy the noble Earl. First of all, the statement emphasises that they are a temporary emergency measure, empowering the Governor to take action if the situation demands it. Secondly, the point was made that the most careful consideration would be given to each case before the powers are invoked. Thirdly, it was again stressed and stated that the measure was not intended to debar the Press from fair and honest criticism of the Government.
The noble Earl has referred to the drafting. He reads the regulations to be so wide as actually to debar the papers from criticising the Radcliffe Report. I must confess that I am not a lawyer, and I accept his word for that. If that is the case, it is something that must be looked at, and I promise that I will look at it. That is not the intention, even if the regulations are drafted in that way. And I must again remind your Lordships that although Regulation 41 has been in existence for two years now, never once has the Governor used it in the method that has been suggested by the Press out there. I was a little surprised at this sudden alarm and despondency, because this other regulation, which is just as wide, has been in existence and has never been used. I think the most important guarantee is that although the Government said last night that they could not give an absolute undertaking to give previous warning to publishers

831
before taking action (obviously, it might be impossible to justify overlooking a particularly glaring offence), they have stated that normally a warning would be given to any publisher before the regulations were invoked. I think that is some safeguard, because it shows people the sort of thing which is intended, it gives them fair warning, and normally it does not apply automatically.
Finally, I must say that Her Majesty's Government have the fullest confidence in the discretion of the Government of Cyprus in its use of these new regulations, and I am confident that they will not be invoked in the spirit in which it has been suggested they might be invoked, which is inimical to the legitimate function of the Press in Cyprus. That is the last thing we want to do. We have had this other regulation before and we have never used it, and I think it is only fair to the Governor that he should be judged on his record apart from any possible legal snags in the new regulations. So much for the Press regulations.
EARL JOWITT: Will the noble Lord be all in favour of trying so to word these regulations as to make it quite plain that legitimate and honest criticism of such things as the Radcliffe Report is not hit at by the regulations at all?
LORD LLOYD: Entirely, in so far as it is within my power to do so and in so far as the drafting is possible. That is the only proviso that I must make. I am not a draftsman, and I think the noble and learned Earl will accept that; otherwise. I will give that assurance.
The second matter to which the noble Earl referred in his Question was the extension of the death penalty. This was also referred to by other noble Lords. Again, I do not want to get involved more than necessary in the detailed points of law, because these regulations are very complicated; but I would refer to-day to the copy of the regulations which I think your Lordships have seen and which has been placed in the Library. Broadly, as your Lordships will have seen, these regulations extend the application of the death penalty in two ways—I think the noble Earl pointed this out. First of all, the death penalty will be imposed on conviction for discharging firearms or for throwing or exploding
832
bombs in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that that action would have a purpose prejudicial to public safety.
Secondly, the new regulation creates a new offence to which the noble and learned Earl made special reference: that of consorting with terrorists. In other words, when a person is found to have consorted with terrorists in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that he intends to act with them in a manner prejudicial to public safety, the death sentence will be imposed on conviction. There, again, the noble Earl has said that the regulations are drafted far too widely, and I will have a look at them. He supposed that they would extend to poachers. I am perfectly prepared to look at them again, to see whether my advisers agree with the noble and learned Earl, and, if so, whether we can net a more precise definition.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord once more, may I say that I believe he has referred to Regulation C as providing that carrying a firearm without lawful excuse is the offence. There is there no element of its being calculated to be used in a manner prejudicial to public safety. That is under Regulation D, not under Regulation C. Under Regulation C, the carrying of a firearm must automatically bring the death penalty.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Earl is on a different point. I was referring to consorting, which he will see from the regulations is a different matter. I have already said that carrying a firearm carries the death penalty. It has done so, under Emergency Regulations, for some time. The difference, as he has pointed out, is that it is now mandatory instead of being optional. The reason for this extension at the present time is that existing regulations have been found to be unsatisfactory in three main respects. First, they left to the courts discretion to impose either the death penalty or life imprisonment. Here the noble and learned Earl entirely disagrees and thinks that the court should continue to have that discretion. He is a great legal authority and I am taking careful note of his opinion.
The view of Her Majesty's Government was that if one looks at these crimes in

833
relation to the circumstances in Cyprus at the moment—and that aspect must be taken into consideration by anyone who is considering these regulations—these crimes amount to what, in an ordinary court, in time of peace, would amount to murder by firearms or similar weapons, or consorting with somebody to murder; and just as in a British court a judge has no discretion in the imposition of the death penalty in such cases, it was felt by Her Majesty's Government that it was not fair to force upon the judiciary a discretion which is always difficult for a judge in relation to something which, in our view, amounted in the present circumstances to murder or attempted murder. That is the reason behind this. The noble and learned Earl may net consider it al adequate reason but it was one of the things which we felt was wrong with the previous regulations.
A second defect was that the previous regulations left some offences by terrorists —such as being in possession of, as opposed to carrying, a bomb—outside the scope of the death penalty. In the view of Her Majesty's Government a man would not have a bomb unless, presumably, he intended sooner or later either to use it or to assist somebody else in using it, an implication which would involve him in murder just as much as anybody who carried it out.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I take it that in all these cases where a judge is left with no discretion but must impose the death penalty, there remains the prerogative of mercy in the Governor, who would have to review every case. If he thought the death penalty was not merited, presumably he would do what the judge has hitherto been able to do: namely, convert the sentence into imprisonment for life or some other punishment.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. That is exactly the position. The prerogative power remains, as always, with the Governor, and therefore the death penalty is not necessarily final. The prerogative power may be used.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He said that anyone carrying a bomb could be presumed to be anxious to use it and to be a terrorist; but that did not apply in
834
a case which happened last week, where a girl of seventeen carrying a bomb said she was taking it to her young man. There is surely at any rate a presumption that some people may carry bombs without being terrorists. It is in a case of that kind that discretion between imprisonment and the death sentence ought to be open for a judge to use.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I think the noble Earl will always find a case to disprove any principle of law; and, of course, hard cases make bad law. I do not dispute this particular case. All I would say is that anyone who is carrying a bomb in Cyprus at the moment is not doing so just for fun. I think it is a reasonable assumption that it is being done with evil intent.
Finally, to come back to my main theme, I said that there were three deficiencies in the previous regulations. The last deficiency was that the, regulations did not make it an offence to consort with terrorists. A lot has been said about the improving situation in Cyprus, and in an all-over sense, that is true; but there has been a minor set-back in the last month or two, as a result of the removal of troops to Suez. and there has been an increase in indiscriminate murder, and attempted murder, by members of E.O.K.A., carried out, for the most part, by small groups of terrorists against unarmed civilians, expatriates and Greek Cypriots alike, and also, of course, against individual members of the security forces.
May I give your Lordships a few typical examples? There was the ruthless murder of a doctor called out on the pretext of an urgent medical case by a self-styled patient who was acting in collusion with the murderer; and the murder of a young journalist shortly after his arrival in Cyprus from this country. It was really to deal with this situation that the Governor became convinced that the punishments hitherto provided were not an adequate deterrent, and Her Majesty's Government have accepted and endorsed his proposals for making these new regulations. That does not mean to say that I am not prepared to look again at the drafting of the regulations, but we feel that, in principle, the Governor must be supported, because there has been a turn for the worst in the last month or two.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree with me in this: if a child of twelve is carrying a bomb, the person who is responsible, generally speaking, is the person who persuaded or told the child to carry a bomb, not the child. As I see it, the unsatisfactory nature of the regulations is that, under them, a judge has to sentence that child to death, although, of course, as the noble Lord has pointed out, there would be a reprieve. Under the regulations, however, nothing can be done to deal with the person who told the child to carry the bomb.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I must accept the difficulty which the noble and learned Earl has exposed. There is one point which I should like to make: that in Cyprus nobody can be executed under the age of sixteen years, and nobody can be imprisoned under the age of fourteen. Without putting this forward as necessarily an argument for or against the regulations, but merely stating a fact, I would remind your Lordships that, where these difficult situations have occurred elsewhere, we have had to take similar powers, both in Kenya and in Malaya, at one time or another during terrorist campaigns. It has been necessary to introduce regulations similar to these, and I need hardly remind your Lordships that the penalties were reduced as soon as the situation improved. I can assure your Lordships that the Governor will keep that possibility constantly under review.
The third question raised by the noble Earl was this matter of the Public Officers' Protection Regulations. Here again, I will have another look at the drafting but the intention is perfectly clear. These regulations have been made to prevent a prosecution from being brought against members of the security forces in respect of offences alleged to have been committed while acting, or purporting to act, in course of duty, unless leave of the Attorney-General has been obtained. The reason for that is a simple but important one: it is to prevent malicious and vexatious prosecutions against members of the security forces. I should like to emphasise that there is no question or intention of denying justice or, as has been suggested in some quarters, of placing the security forces in any way above the law because the Attorney-General would have to give his consent. The pro-
836
ceedings can then be instituted in the usual way.
There is a very real reason for this. What has been happening is that there have been cases of applications by lawyers purporting to act for persons wishing to prosecute members of the security forces. These people have been along and have asked for the names and other particulars of members of the security forces in circumstances in which the Governor has had every reason to believe that the lives of these people might be endangered by the provision of this information. In other words, in certain cases an entirely bogus charge is levied against some members of the security forces: a lawyer then comes along and asks for names and other particulars. From the moment those names are given, the lives of the men concerned are in danger. That is something which I do not believe your Lordships would wish to see happening—and the noble Earl said that it was right that the lives of our people should be protected by every means within the power of the law.
LORD CHORLEY: Would the noble Lord explain how it is possible to bring proceedings against someone whose name is not known? It is unintelligible to me. Surely you must go to someone to ask the name of a person against whom you want to bring an action?
LORD LLOYD: I am sorry if what I have said was unintelligible to the noble Lord. I will try to explain what the object of this procedure is. In many cases these are not genuine prosecutions. The inquiry is made simply in order to find out the names of people who were at a certain place at a certain time, with the object of killing them. The purpose of having this procedure, to which I have just referred, is that the Attorney-General may satisfy himself that there is a genuine prima facie case against these people before their names are given and their lives are put at risk. If the noble Lord thinks that that is wrong, then he and I must disagree. I think that the authorities in Cyprus would be failing in their duty if they did not take a precaution of this kind. As I have said, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, rather suggested that the Attorney-General was the wrong person for this purpose. Again. I will have a look at this point—
EARL JOWITT: I do not necessarily suggest that the Attorney-General is the wrong person. I merely suggested that this procedure might be very undesirable in certain cases. It may be necessary in the case of the Armed Forces and the police, but I cannot think that it is necessary in the case of the Civil Service.
LORD LLOYD: I will take note of the noble and learned Earl's observations.
My Lords, I have done my best to answer fairly the points that have been raised, and I should like to make one last. general observation. I think that, despite what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, we must look at these matters in the perspective of the Government's general policy and the situation in Cyprus. We are now considering the Report made by Lord Radcliffe on a new Constitution. We hope that that Report will bring the progress that we all want. We have always saidl—and I believe it to be true —that our first task in Cyprus, the task Upon the completion of which all constitutional progress depends, is to put an end to terrorism. Until that has been achieved, there cannot exist in Cyprus the conditions under which free elections can take place, free opinions be expressed, political meetings be held, and polling take place without fear and intimidation. The new measures with which the noble Earl's Question is concerned, have been taken with the sole purpose of bringing terrorism to an end in the shortest possible lime, so that the people of Cyprus can again breathe freely and their feet be set firmly on the path of constitutional progress.
4.35 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble Lord? I know nothing whatever about the law of Cyprus, but I was puzzled by one remark Which he made. I understood him to say that would be illegal to execute anyone under the age of sixteen in Cyprus, but we heard the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, say several times that children were sentenced to death. I just do not understand how those two statements can be fitted in one with the other. I can well understand that in many countries people are sentenced to death when everyone knows that that sentence will not, in fact, be carried out; but I do not understand how anyone in any country can be sentenced
838
to a penalty which in itself would be illegal.
LORD LLOYD: I can speak again only by the leave of the House. I confess that I think there is a discrepancy here. Certainly it is true that children under the age of sixteen cannot be executed in Cyprus. This, again, it seems to me, may well be a case where the intention and the wording of the draftsman may not be completely harmonious.
EARL JOWITT: I think it is another case where the drafting has broken down. Obviously a judge cannot be called upon to pass a sentence which is illegal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): If the noble and learned Earl will allow me, perhaps I can deal with this point. The same problem comes up in this country. We might have someone under the age of sixteen who is convicted of murder, and there is a special provision in our law by which another sentence is imposed. I have not checked the point, but I have no reason to suppose that there is not a corresponding provision in Cyprus—a provision which solves the problem raised by Lord Merthyr. It is a difficulty which we have to face in this country, and we have faced it by statutory provision. There was the case of Craig, a year or two ago, where a boy was under the age of sixteen—under the age at which he could be hanged. This is not an insoluble problem, and I have no reason to suppose that it will riot be solved in Cyprus.
EARL JOWITT: Does the Lord Chancellor remember what the procedure is in those circumstances? Does the judge have to pass sentence of death? Surely he passes sentence of imprisonment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My recollection is that there is statutory provision by which that is done. I have no reason to suppose that a similar statutory provision does not exist in Cyprus.
EARL JOWITT: This regulation is equivalent to a Statute, and under it the judge is bound to sentence that child or young person to death.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Earl is well aware that death is also a statutory penalty in this country. The other Statute which deals with the question of age picks it up and solves the problem. Death is also a statutory penalty, as I say.
EARL JOWITT: This matter certainly needs to be looked at.
LORD MERTHYR: Surely in this country a person who is under age cannot be sentenced to death.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree. But that does not alter the penalty for the offence. You can have a penalty for the offence, and you can have a Statute providing that if the person guilty of this offence is convicted he will be sentenced to death. Then it is picked up by the other matter which prevents someone from being sentenced to death if he is under a certain age. I have no reason to suppose that that is not so in Cyprus, but I will have the point checked.