§ 2.51 p.m.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to an article by Mr. Arthur Koestler in the Observer of March 11, and whether they have anything to add to the remarks of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Home Office on March 8 (OFFICIAL REPORT, March 3, cols. 219–222).]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT)My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on Thursday last my noble friend Lord Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government a Question concerning an article by Mr. Arthur Koestler in the Observer of Sunday, March 4. That article included an extract from the Home Office instructions to prison governors. From this Mr. Koestler appeared to infer that governors are instructed that if something goes wrong in an execution they must conceal the fact. My purpose was to make it clear that, on the contrary, governors have instructions not to conceal the fact. The article also referred to certain incidents alleged to have occurred at and after the execution of Edith Thompson. These allegations, as I informed your Lordships, were subsequently found to be untrue.
In a further article in this Sunday's Observer Mr. Koestler states that he was aware neither of the full text of the Home Office instructions nor of the fact that the allegations concerning Edith Thompson's execution were without foundation. Her 303 Majesty's Government, of course, accept Mr. Koestler's statement without reservation. It has been suggested in some quarters that the Home Office should have corrected these mistakes at an earlier date. My Lords, the Home Office would have remained silent but for the appearance of the articles in question coming at a time when they did. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State thought it right, however, that such seriously misleading allegations coming (albeit unwittingly) from the pen of an author of Mr. Koestler's standing, in a newspaper of authority, and shortly to be incorporated in book form, ought not to pass uncorrected at a time when the whole question of capital punishment is before Parliament.
Unlike other Departments of State, the Home Office deals in a large part of its work with highly confidential matters and it often cannot defend itself without disclosing matters which it would not be in the public interest to disclose. The instructions in question fall into this category. Successive Home Secretaries have refused to make the circulars containing them public. I have explained why the present Home Secretary has thought it right to deviate from this practice. As to the other matters, I am sure noble Lords will readily appreciate that it will not be possible for the Home Office to seek to contradict every canard which journalists and others see fit to publish.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that this misunderstanding, or canard, or however he likes to describe it, has been brought about by the Home Office themselves in allowing to go unchallenged for a number of years a partial statement of the facts? If they had desired to ensure that the public were apprised of the whole facts, they should have made them known. Is it not a fact that Mr. Koestler had every justification for believing that the statement he quoted was the whole statement, which had gone unchallenged, at any rate, for seven years? Therefore, will not the noble Lord bring to the notice of his right honourable friend the desirability of publishing now the whole of the instructions that were issued at the time—I believe it was in 1938—and any subsequent modifications of those instructions?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, as I have indicated, these instructions to governors, which are not confined to the points to which it has been thought right to make a correction, are confidential documents, and it would be most undesirable and entirely contrary to established practice to publish them. With regard to the canard, I can only repeat that it is quite impossible for the Home Office to publish contradictions of all the numerous canards which have been, and possibly still are, current on this subject.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, I can understand the Home Secretary taking the view that he is not going to publish any instructions issued to his officers, but when part of an instruction wins currency, as it has done for a number of years, is it not desirable to publish the whole of the instruction so as to remove any possible misapprehension?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, think that sufficient of the instructions has now been published to remove any misapprehension.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, since I asked a supplementary question to the original Answer, may I put this point to my noble friend, either in an interrogative form or, by indulgence of the House, in an affirmative form? When I asked my original supplementary question to the noble Lord's original Answer I had interpreted his original Answer as implying that Mr. Koestler had deliberately omitted certain sentences from his quotation of the confidential instruction. I have noticed that Mr. Koestler read the Answer in exactly the same way when he wrote about it. Would my noble friend agree that I made it quite plain in my original supplementary question that I had founded my comment upon a belief that that was the meaning of the Answer; and will he accept it from me that I should not desire my comment to stand, having regard to the Answer he has given this afternoon?
§ LORD MANCROFTCertainly.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONMy Lords, I feel that I must ask the noble Lord whether he appreciates the serious moment of the Answer which he has given to-day. There can be no doubt now in the minds of any of us who were present on the last occasion that 305 everybody drew the same conclusion as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham. That conclusion was clearly the only one to be drawn from the Answer of the noble Lord. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. l96 (No. 69). col. 219]:
Mr. Koestler's quotation omits important parts of the original Home Office instruction and gives an entirely misleading impression….He goes on with words which I think are clearly intended to create the impression that Mr. Koestler has picked over a document which was available to him and selected those sentences which best suited his case. I certainly thought that; I know that a number of my noble friends thought it, and I know that other noble Lords on the other side of the House thought it. As it turns out, that was not the case, and the noble Lord must have known it was not the case; and he must have known, too, that Mr. Koestler had quoted what he believed to be the whole thing. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is really guilty, if not personally, certainly in his official position as Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, of misleading this House and doing a grave injustice both to this author and to the journal that published his article. I think he should make the fullest withdrawal in that regard.The matter is rendered more important by the fact that this Question was asked and this misleading Answer was given on the eve of a critical debate in another place. Therefore, I think that the most full statement by the noble Lord, and complete publication of the document, is the least that can be expected. Will the noble Lord bear in mind that this Question and Answer, and the manner in which it has been treated, have added to public misgivings about this whole sad and terrible affair?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I deny as strongly as I can that I ever misled the House, or intended to mislead the House. I did no such thing. I stated the facts as they were then known to me. I stand by every word of the Answer I gave. We have now subsequently learned from Mr. Koestler that the facts upon which my Answer was given were not complete. I have accepted Mr. Koestler's explanation wholeheartedly. I will repeat my explanation and my apology, if the noble Lord 306 wants it; but I do not think he ought to want it. I do not think I can say any more, save to repeat that there is no ground whatever for the charges which the noble Lord has just levelled against me, or the Department and the Secretary of State I have the honour to represent.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONMy Lords, I think the noble Lord overlooks the fact that, while he was in possession of knowledge that this author did not know, and could not have known—
§ LORD MANCROFTNo, my Lords, I was not in possession of that knowledge. If I had been in possession of that knowledge, I could not possibly have made the remarks that I did.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONMy Lords, if the noble Lord was not aware of the fact that the whole document had not been published, then I can only suppose his Department did not inform him of the facts which were known to them. In that case, I will withdraw all personal imputations on the noble Lord.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that last statement, but I will still not allow him to make implications about my Department. Because the gentleman in question published a certain portion of that confidential statement it was assumed by me that he had in his possession knowledge of the whole document. I was wrong and I have apologised. If I had thought otherwise I should have been telling the House an untruth, and I should not have the right to stand at this Dispatch Box and justify it.
As to the second half of the statement, concerning Sir Beverley Baxter's allegations which have now been found to be untrue, I thought that possibly Mr. Koestler might have consulted with Sir Beverley Baxter before he repeated them in the paper, and he might have found what the true facts were. I was wrong. Mr. Koestler obviously did not consult with Sir Beverley Baxter. If I had known that he was unaware of the facts, I would have said so, but mine, I think, was a reasonable assumption. I made it in all good faith. I resent very strongly indeed any implication that I, or my Department, have acted in any way improperly in this matter.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONWith the indulgence of your Lordships, I think I ought to say to the noble Lord that I accept absolutely his assurance that he did not know that the whole document could not have been available to Mr. Koestler. But I am bound to go on believing, as I think all noble Lords must believe, that the Home Office must have known that he could not have seen this document, because it had never been published. In view of the fact that the noble Lord has associated himself with the very proper and full withdrawal which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has made, it is only right that he should appreciate the point which I now make.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, the noble Lord's feeling about this is very natural, but I would suggest to him that he has allowed himself to be led into a little heat in regard to Sir Beverley Baxter. He made a very unfair observation about Sir Beverley Baxter a moment ago, and I suggest that the whole of this trouble arises from the fact that the Home Office did not "come clean" over the business in 1948—
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)Has the noble Lord a question to ask? It is a well-known Rule of this House that, at Question time, supplementary questions are allowed, but not mere expressions of opinion. I have no desire in any way to inhibit the noble Lord from addressing the House, but it should be in question form.
§ LORD CHORLEYWith respect to the noble Marquess, I have been a Member of this House long enough to be well aware of that Rule, but it is sometimes difficult, in putting a question, not to preface it by a preliminary observation. What I am putting to the noble Lord who represents the Home Office in this House is whether it would not have been better if the Home Office had "come clean" about this matter in 1948 instead of trying to cover up this instruction which ought to be known to everybody.
LORD FARINGDONMy Lords, may I also put a supplementary question rather on the same lines? I gathered from the noble Lord that it is still not the intention of the Home Office to publish the whole of this instruction. He has 308 said that some part of the instruction is not relevant to this particular subject, and I can see that that might be omitted. But does the noble Lord not think that at this stage there is everything to be said for a complete publication of this instruction? Is he not aware that, unless this is done, the impression will remain abroad, as it has been abroad now for a great many years, that in fact prison governors have been instructed not to allow the public to know that execution by hanging is not, as a rule, or, at any rate, not always, an instantaneous death?
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I do not accept that for one moment. Enough of this instruction was already made public by myself in your Lordships' House last week to cover the whole of the matter now under discussion. I hope the noble Lord will do me the kindness of reading it again.
§ LORD SILKINIf that is so, what is the harm in publishing this instruction or, if the noble Lord wishes it, that part of the instruction which is relevant to what we are now discussing? Is it not preferable to do that rather than to publish it in bits as and when further information is extracted from the Government? The noble Lord is himself saying that sufficient is now known. Why not publish it? I would ask him to consult his right honourable friend to see whether it would not now be better to publish the whole of this particular instruction.
§ LORD MANCROFTMuch of this instruction is quite irrelevant to the matter we are now discussing. I repeat that all that is relevant is now in public hands.