§ 2.37 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether sufficient experience has now been gained of the effect of the abolition of corporal punishment, to indicate that its resumption would be of benefit to the country as a whole.]
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the principal offences for which corporal punishment could be inflicted on adults before its abolition in September, 1948, were robbery with violence, armed robbery and robbery in company with others. The number of offences of this kind has been below the level of the years 1946–48 in every year since, notwithstanding the general increase in crimes of violence. The Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment, which reported in 1938, concluded that corporal punishment was not an especially effective deterrent, and there is no reason to think that its reintroduction would lead to any reduction in crime.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he happened to see a report in The Times of yesterday, to the effect that two boys were shut in a wooden shed, which was then set on fire by some youths, and that children playing nearby said that a gang of youths had pushed the boys into this shed? May I also inquire whether he happened to notice that during the November 5 excitement a small boy aged, I think, about eleven (I speak from memory) had a firework pushed down inside his shirt. May I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that there is any sort of punish-that will fit such a crime, short of a 197 hiding? Would he not agree that the fact that a court could award such punishment might have a very good deterrent effect.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I did indeed notice in the papers reports of both cases which the noble Earl has mentioned. Whatever might be my own views on them, I think I am right in saying that both cases have yet to be disposed of by the courts, and therefore it would not be proper for me to comment on them at the present stage.