§ Lord AIREDALEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are having any success in their search for an expression to replace the Free Pardon, which is not an act of forgiveness, but which (in the words of the late Sir Frank Newsam) "leaves the person pardoned in exactly the same position as if he had never been convicted".
§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has no proposals for recommending that the name or the form of a Free Pardon should be changed. Legislation would probably be required before the object which I understand the noble Lord to have in mind could be achieved. A Free Pardon already has the effect of wiping out the conviction and all its consequences, and it is not evident that such legislation is necessary.
§ Lord AIREDALEMy Lords, I am much obliged for that very discouraging answer. Would not the word "exoneration" explain rather better what is achieved by what we now call a Free Pardon?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, from time to time we have considered, as no doubt have our predecessors, whether an alternative form of words could be selected. Given the fact that there has been a great deal of consideration of this matter over a number of years, I am rather hesitant, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, about accepting his very kind offer to substitute an alternative form of words. We will certainly consider the suggestion. All I am saying at the moment is that a great deal of thought has been given to this question and we are not at the moment persuaded that a change is necessary.
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, is the noble Lord saying that an obstinate refusal to make an amendment of some substance in the wrong use of a word in public matters is a matter for consideration? Is he aware that this question has been raised time after time in another place, and, I imagine, here; that no effective reason has ever been put forward for using a wholly archaic and inaccurate term, and that there is merely the obstinate determination not to go a step further and be generous if you are going to take this action at all?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHWell, my Lords, I think that that would he going rather further than the facts justify. I do not think there has been any question of an obstinate refusal, by either the present Government or their predecessors. My right honourable friend will certainly look at any alternative form of words, as I am sure previous Home Secretaries would similarly have been prepared to look at suggestions made when they occupied that office. All I am saying is that no suitable alternative has yet been found.
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, is the noble Lord now saying that the change would not be justified because you are not sure the man is innocent? If that be so, how does one justify the action of the Law Officers in prosecuting another man for an offence for which this man has been convicted? Either they believe him to be innocent and should say so, or there seems little justification for any of the action they have taken.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, the latter question deals with another matter which is rather outside the terms of the present Question. What I am saying this afternoon is that we are certainly prepared to look at any alternative form of words, but no suitable alternative has yet been put forward.
§ Lord AIREDALEMy Lords, can we be told what is the nature of the unsuitability of the word, "exoneration"?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, if the noble Lord would like to have that matter considered, I have already said I will gladly do so. All I am saying is that we do not normally make major decisions of this kind on the basis of question and answer in your Lordships' House.