Sitting of 10 February 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Surtax
    Mr. Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware of the saving in work and staff to be gained by the transfer of much of the work on the assessment of Surtax from the office of the Special Commissioners to local tax offices; and what consideration he has given to the matter;
    (2) what considerations of efficiency, convenience and economy have led him to provide for the assessment and collection of Surtax by a separate and centralised branch of the Inland Revenue.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): Supertax, and Surtax which replaced it in 1927, have been handled by a centralised office since Supertax was introduced in 1909. The Board of Inland Revenue has recently considered whether it is desirable and economical to transfer some of the work to local offices, but no decision has been reached pending consideration of any recommendations from the Royal Commission on Income Tax which might bear on the matter.
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an estimate of the amount it would cost to increase the Surtax limit from £2,000 per annum to £2,500, £3,000, £3,500, £4,000, and £5,000, respectively.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The estimated costs in a full year of increasing the Surtax limit from £2, 000 to £2,500, £3,000, £3,500, £4,000, and £5,000, would be £24 million, £41 million, £54 million, £65 million, and £81 million, respectively. These estimates assume that the rates of
    2032
    Surtax charged on the successive slices of income above the new limits would be the same as at present.
    Mr. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to these figures and ask him to bear in mind the middle-class taxpayer when drawing up the Budget?

    Purchase Tax
    Mrs. Mannasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why ladies' shopping bags with zips are taxed 33⅓ per cent., whilst gentlemen's brief cases with zips are free of tax; why kitchen ware for holding food is free of tax, but kitchen utensils are taxed 33⅓ per cent.; why a step ladder suitable for women is taxed and the larger, over six steps, is free of tax, why hair grips are taxed 25 per cent. and hair curlers 75 per cent.; why toothbrushes are free of tax and nailbrushes are not; and why letter-cards carry 75 per cent. tax if made up of two colours, whilst postcards similarly hued are taxed 25 per cent.; and when he will end these anomalies.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Articles cannot always be brought within the same tax category simply because they are to some extent comparable. I will certainly bear in mind those mentioned by the hon. Lady when the tax is again under review.
    Mrs. Mann: I am greatly indebted to the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but he has still not told me the reason why.
    Mr. Brooke: I think the answer to the hon. Lady is briefly that we inherited all these anomalies from the previous Government.
    Mrs. Mann: Oh no.
    Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman say—we have not yet been told—why this Government has abandoned the policy of the previous Government of progressively removing household goods from Purchase Tax altogether?
    Mr. Brooke: We have removed household mops from Purchase Tax only a fortnight ago.
    Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we are getting rather tired of the phrase "bear in mind"? Instead of bearing in mind we should like him to "bear" more in action.
    Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of abolishing all Purchase Tax on items included in the cost-of-living index.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Most classes of goods liable to Purchase Tax enter into the expenditure on which the index is based, though the majority of them only to a fractional extent. The cost of exempting all such classes of goods from tax would be about £200 million a year.
    Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of abolishing Purchase Tax on furniture included in the cost-of-living index.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The cost of abolishing Purchase Tax on domestic furniture of all kinds would be approximately £2 million a year.
    Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the furniture industry in particular would be very glad to make a contribution to the Budget by suggesting that that item might be deleted from the revenue side?
    Mr. Russellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the receipts from Purchase Tax on commercial and educational stationery in the last financial year; and if he will estimate the net receipts, after taking into account Government grants and subsidies to education.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer my hon. Fiend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) on 25th January last.
    Mr. Russell: As this tax is very largely on essentials and the yield is comparatively low, will my hon. Friend ask the Chancellor seriously to consider abolishing it?
    Mr. Brooke: At this time of the year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer reviews the whole range of taxation. I am sure that he will include this item in his general review.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the internal purchasing value of the £ sterling at the latest convenient date when compared with 20s. in October. 1951.
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the purchasing value of the £ taking October, 1951, as 20s.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling as 20s. in October, 1951, it is estimated that the corresponding figure for December, 1954, was 18s. 5d. This estimate is based on the price index of all consumer goods and services between 1951 and 1953 and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.
    Mr. Dodds: Is it not very alarming that in such a short time the pound's purchasing power has gone down again? Would the hon. Gentleman give some hope that it will get somewhere near the value it was when his Government came into office in 1951?
    Mr. Maudling: Naturally the cost of living is a matter of great concern to the Government, as indeed to any Government. I think I can reasonably point out that the fall in the last three years is much less than it was in the preceding three years.
    Mr. Dodds: Nonsense.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the last three years, whilst the cost of living has gone up, as he has indicated, import prices have fallen by about 16 per cent.?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that the right hon. Member is also well aware that import prices are by no means the only, or necessarily the major, influence on the cost of living.

    Entertainments Duty
    Mr. John Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the yield from entertainment tax on the live theatre in each of the financial years 1951–52, 1952–53, and 1953–54; and the estimated yield in the current financial year.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The receipts of Entertainments Duty allocated to theatres and music-halls were approximately £2·32 million in 1951–52 and £2·40 million in both 1952–53 and 1953–54. The yield in the current financial year, during which the Duty was reduced, is likely to be about £2·2 million.
    Mr. Follick: Does not the Minister think that it would make all these things very much easier if he would give support to my Bill, which is to be considered tomorrow week?
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Salisbury Arts Theatre Company which has been playing at the Playhouse Theatre, Manchester, since October last, is to be disbanded on2th February because the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have decided that it could not be exempted from tax on account of a guarantee being put up by Playhouse Theatre which itself is not qualified for tax exemption; and whether, in view of the complexities and anomalies involved in the attempt to administer the present system of tax-exempt entertainments he will consider dealing with this problem by giving tax exemption to all forms of living entertainment in this country.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Without necessarily accepting all the implications of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, I can assure him that his suggestion will be borne in mind in the general review of taxation before the Budget.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it fair, first, to pay out £1 million a year to subsidise certain theatres through the Arts Council and, second, to excuse certain theatres from Entertainments Duty altogether, and at the same time to impose on the remainder this special and lethal tax, which is closing theatres up and down the country? Is it worth while for the £2 million revenue which it brings in; and, above all, is it just?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to hear that I am shortly to receive a deputation from the Theatres Entertainment Tax Committee. I should like to take into consideration all that is said to me on that occasion.

    Petrol (Price Increase)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he had with the directors nominated by Her Majesty's Government to the board of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company prior to the recent increase in the retail price of petrol.
    Mr. Maudling: None, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How can the Minister justify his complete indifference towards this increase, in view of the vast profits of this Government-controlled and Government-owned undertaking? Is there a secret cartel arrangement with the American oil companies as a result of which we must follow any increase in price which they choose to make, and not give to the British home consumer the benefits of the profits that we earn in this Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and its subsidiaries?
    Mr. Maudling: It has been the accepted policy of all Governments since914 not normally to interfere with the commercial operations of this company.

    Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency
    Mr. Marquandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the securities vested in the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency has been sold up to date.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The book value of the securities taken over by the Agency was £252 million. Gross proceeds from realisation so far amount to £124 million. But the securities sold by the Agency cannot be expressed as a proportion of the securities taken over because of developments in the meantime: in particular, capital reorganisations and additional investment in companies by the Agency.
    Mr. Marquand: At this rate of disposal, how much longer does the hon. Gentleman estimate that the Agency will take to complete the work laid upon it by Statute?
    Mr. Brooke: I should not like to give any estimate but I should have thought that the Agency has been getting on fairly well lately.
    Mr. Marquand: May I conclude from that reply that the Agency will remain responsible for rather more than half the steel industry, so far as this Government are concerned, for the remainder of the term of the present Government?
    Mr. Brooke: I said in my original answer that these figures could not be properly interpreted as a proportion of the securities taken over.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the equities has been sold?
    Mr. Brooke: Not without notice.
    Mr. Marquandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what methods are used by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to effect changes, when deemed necessary, in the composition of boards of directors of companies the securities of which are vested in the Agency.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The Agency would effect any changes they consider necessary by exercising their rights as shareholders.
    Mr. Marquand: Do the Agency, then, take responsibility for all changes which have been effected? Do they ascertain the reason for any director's dismissal and satisfy themselves whether that is a right and proper course to take?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not know about directors who have been dismissed, but when a director resigns it is not necessarily the business of the Agency to inquire why he has resigned.
    Mr. Marquand: As we are alluding to a case of which the hon. Gentleman has knowledge, would he not agree that when a director, having resigned, says that he was forced to that position by the bad senior administration of the board, the Agency should look into it?
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman may have greater knowledge of this matter than I have. Speaking for the Agency, I do not think that I should assume for them responsibilities in regard to resignations which, so far as I am aware, have been voluntarily offered.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is it the duty of the Agency, however, to approve the successor of this person?
    Mr. Brooke: As I said in my original answer, the Agency possess and retain their ordinary rights as shareholders.

    Depreciation and Investment Allowances (Dry Docks)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the depreciation allowances granted on the development of new and
    2038
    extended dry docks, so that the allowances can be calculated on the whole capital cost including excavations.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Expenditure on excavation already qualifies for the investment allowance. As regards the ordinary depreciation allowances, my right hon. Friend must await the Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the number of important schemes which are either in progress or in contemplation on Tyneside? In view of the very great importance of this work and the fact that Tyneside is the most important shipbuilding and ship-repair centre in the world—
    Miss Ward: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: —will the hon. Gentleman not give proper consideration to this matter in time for the Budget?
    Mr. Brooke: I fully appreciate the importance of Tyneside, which has been stressed from both sides of the House, but when a Royal Commission is approaching the end of its labours I think it would be a mistake to anticipate its recommendations.

    Scottish Islands (Special Assistance)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance he proposes to give to islands which do not receive shipping subsidies but in which the cost of such commodities as coal is greatly increased by transport costs.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I assume that the hon. Member has certain Scottish islands in mind. The ones he represents already receive assistance in the form of remote area housing subsidy and special grants towards the provision of water and sewerage and towards the cost of improving and constructing roads and piers and croft houses. As recently as two days ago, my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland announced a new scheme of special assistance for land improvement to Scottish island producers.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that I find him particularly evasive on this matter? A large subsidy is given to Northern Ireland, on the ground that it is across the sea, to reduce the cost of

    2039
    certain commodities, including coal. When asked why subsidies are not paid to other islands, the hon. Gentleman says that they are paid shipping subsidies. When I point out that he does not pay shipping subsidies to all islands, the hon. Gentleman then talks of other forms of assistance which are given to all parts of Great Britain. What comparable assistance to that given to Northern Ireland does the hon. Gentleman propose to give specifically to other islanders across the sea?
    Mr. Brooke: We try to be fair to everybody, and I have pointed out that these islands are receiving a considerable degree of special assistance. I have looked into the cost of coal, which is one of the matters in which the hon. Member is interested, and I find that the cost of coal in Orkney is very little higher than in London.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Would my hon. Friend consider applying to the Isles of Scilly those other suggestions that he made regarding assistance?
    Mr. Brooke: I will consider anything, but I should not like to undertake to consider it favourably.

    Agriculture (Support)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how the figure of £250 million, which is likely to be the price of agricultural support during the current financial year, was arrived at; and how these details compare with his Budget estimates for 1954–55;
    (2) whether the milk subsidies were included in the figure of £250 million, which is officially considered to be the price of agricultural support during the current financial year; and to what extent the Budget estimates of £86, 800, 000 are likely to be exceeded.
    Mr. H. Brooke: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the net increase in these estimates and when his right hon. Friend will submit a Supplementary Estimate to the House? Will he bear in mind also that very great profits are going to the middlemen in agriculture and horticulture whilst at the same time the horticultural
    2040
    industry of Cornwall is tottering to destruction?
    Mr. Brooke: A number of Supplementary Estimates were submitted to the House yesterday. I do not think that the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question should be directed to me.
    Following is the reply:

    —

    1954–55 Revised Estimate (H.C.35)

    1954–55 Current Estimate

    £m.

    £m.

    Fat cattle

    5·7

    10·8

    Fat sheep

    11·8

    12·2

    Fat pigs

    39·3

    58·8

    Milk

    39·1

    38·7

    Eggs and egg Products

    28·4

    26·7

    Cereals

    66·0

    46·0

    Potatoes

    4·5

    11·0

    Total (Ministry of Food)

    194·8

    204·2

    Add: Production grants and subsidies (M.A.F.)

    52·0

    50·0

    Total

    246·8

    254·2

    The general milk subsidy is included in the above totals, but the we fare milk subsidy and school milk subsidy are excluded. The total cost of all milk subsidies as published in the Appendix to the Ministry of Food's Revised Estimate was £79·1 million and the current Estimate is unchanged.

    Dividends
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of inflationary tendencies now emerging in the British economy, he will take action to ensure greater restraint in the payment of higher dividends.
    Mr. Maudling: I can agree with the right hon. Member that restraint in the payment of dividends is still necessary. The most suitable way of ensuring this is by relying on the voluntary action of individual managements.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Minister really satisfied with a situation in which wages have increased no faster than prices but dividends have increased four or five times as fast as prices? Does he not realise that these dividend increases will inevitably produce wage claims, which will in turn lead to higher prices? What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Maudling: As I pointed out in reply to a recent Question by the right hon. Gentleman, wage rates in the last three years have been increasing much faster than the retail prices.
    Mr. Albu: Has the Minister seen the figures which were given in a paper to the Royal Statistical Society, which show that the level of investment in this country was the highest ever in950? Are not the dividends paid due to investment which took place at that time, which was very largely made possible by the restraint exercised on wage claims by the trade unions?
    Mr. Maudling: I have certainly seen the figures which were given to the Royal Statistical Society. I also saw a letter in the "Economist" by the hon. Member, which indicated that he based some rather false conclusions on those figures.
    Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that, on the figures which he has given to the House, dividends increased in 1954 four times as fast as wages?
    Mr. Maudling: The last time I gave figures to the House I gave figures to show how the whole picture should be regarded over the years.
    Miss Ward: Can my hon. Friend say whether the dry docks on Tyneside can come into this argument now?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the Economic Secretary taking this matter far too lightly? Is he really contending that an increase of 20 per cent. in dividends over the last year is exercising restraint in the payment of dividends? If he does not think that, what further steps is he taking to induce industry and companies generally to exercise restraint in the payment of dividends?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that right hon. Gentlemen opposite—I will not say deliberately—are exaggerating the influence of dividend movements on the inflationary tendencies in the economy referred to in the Question. If they calculate the total amount of additional consumption expenditure likely to be involved in the dividend increases of 1954 after the deduction of tax and of the amount saved, they will find that it is very small indeed in relation to the total amount of consumption expenditure.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? I asked whether he considers an increase in dividends of 20 per cent. in 1954 compared with 1953—the figure given by him—is an indication that adequate restraint is being exercised in the payment of dividends.
    Mr. Maudling: For the reasons which I explained in answer to the right hon. Gentleman last week, I do not think that the figures indicate a general breakaway from the policy of restraint.

    Cost of Living
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that in his forthcoming Budget he will take the necessary action to ensure that by fiscal means the cost of living generally, food and services in particular, are reduced to the level of October, 1951.
    Mr. Maudling: Before I answer this Question. I should explain that the answer will be
    "the answer to the previous Question"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 955; Vol. 536, c. 194.]
    referred to in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answer to the hon. Member's Question No. 78 on Tuesday, 8th February. My right hon. Friend has asked me to apologise to the hon. Member for the fact that his answer on Tuesday did not take account of the hon. Member's decision to defer the present Question.
    Replies to previous Questions by the hon. Member have explained the limitations on the action which the Government can take on this matter. I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Lewis: May I thank the Minister and the Chancellor for his apology, which is accepted? In view of the fact that, as the Minister has admitted, world import prices have been falling, yet the cost of living has been continually increasing and the £ has now reached its lowest level—at 18s. 5d.—is it not obvious that all this is the fault of the Government, particularly in view of the fact that they will not attempt to restrain high dividends? When can we expect the Government to implement their promise to reduce the cost of living, reduce the price of food, and make the £ worth something?
    Mr. Maudling: That is a rather complicated supplementary question, but I would point out that recently import prices have been rising, not falling.

    Commonwealth Economic Policies (Prime Ministers' Communiqué)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreements were reached at the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers for freeing trade and increasing investment within the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Maudling: As indicated in the communiqué, the Conference reaffirmed existing economic policies, including the need for increasing earnings, the promotion of sound Commonwealth development, and the progressive approach to freer trade and currencies.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been an increase in the rate of investment in the Commonwealth, and, if so, by roughly how much?
    Mr. Maudling: I should not like to give an estimate, because much of the investment takes place in the sterling area and is not subject to exchange control, and therefore one does not have the statistics; but the average level of United Kingdom investment in the Commonwealth in the last few years has been most encouraging and has been growing, particularly in Canada, which I think is a most welcome development.

    Hire Purchase
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the inflationary pressure exerted by the recent increase in hire purchase; and what steps he proposes to take to check it.
    Mr. Maudling: The extension of consumer credit can lead to increased production as well as increased consumption so that it is wrong to assume that the whole effect must be inflationary. I agree however that there are dangers: and my right hon. Friend is keeping a close watch on this as on other aspects of credit policy.
    Mr. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hire-purchase interest rates exceed 20 per cent., that this puts up the cost of the article, and it is helping to increase the cost of living? Will he take
    2044
    some steps to see that these exceedingly high interest rates are cut down?
    Mr. Maudling: This is certainly an interesting point, but one must remember that in so far as hire purchase increases production it contributes to bringing down production costs.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Minister aware that we are most disturbingly short of statistical information as to what is happening in the hire-purchase field? Will he consult the Board of Trade about obtaining figures for the whole field, similar to those which are obtainable in respect of the motor car industry, so that we can see what is happening?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that it will be easy to collect the information, but I will examine the question.

    Post-war Credits (Repayment)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary to the Treasury the average time taken to acknowledge receipt of postwar credit certificates sent with an application for repayment.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The receipt of a claim to payment of post-war credit is not normally acknowledged if the payment is likely to be made within a week. In other cases an acknowledgment is sent by return of post.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these people who send these valuable documents and do not receive any acknowledgment for more than a week naturally become very worried about it? Would it not be possible to acknowledge them all by printed postcards?
    Mr. Brooke: I am always reluctant to add to work and cost and, therefore, to taxation by sending out acknowledgments unnecessarily if the effective document is to follow within a day or two, but if in the case of any of my hon. Friend's constituents an acknowledgment has been delayed for a long time and no payment has been received, I hope that he will convey my personal apology to his constituents.
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary to the Treasury what steps are taken, when an office at which claims for repayment of post-war credits are to be made has been closed, to publicise both the fact

    2045
    that this has happened and the new address to which applications should be made.
    Mr. H. Brooke: When a tax office is closed, arrangements are made with the local postmaster for forwarding correspondence direct to the new address.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that these arrangements are not working at all satisfactorily, and that I could draw his attention to the case of a disabled man who had to go to two offices? He found the first one was closed, and when he finally found the right office and arrived there just after four o'clock he was told to go away as it was too late and work was finished for the day.
    Mr. Brooke: I feel very sorry indeed if anybody has suffered any inconvenience, but post-war credit certificates necessarily bear the address of the tax district in which they were issued many years ago. If an application or a communication is sent by post to that office, which perhaps will be the wiser course, the postal services will see that it is directed immediately to the right address.

  DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS (COMMITTEE'S PROPOSALS)
  Lieut.-Colonel Hydeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Departmental Records.
  Mr. H. Brooke: A good deal of progress has been made in examining the Committee's proposals and the Government hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to those recommendations which do not involve any legislative changes, particularly the question of opening certain records before 50 years have elapsed?
  Mr. Brooke: I will certainly draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said.

  FISHING INDUSTRY

    Trading Costs (Sample Investigation)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made by the White Fish Authority in the exercise of their powers under Section1 of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 951, which provides for the compulsory keeping of records and furnishing of information by those engaged in inshore fishing, coastal and inland wholesaling, which is designed to show what is happening to prices and profits in the fish industry.
    The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The Authority has in preparation a sample investigation of trading costs covering these and other sections of the industry.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are few things that puzzle the consumer more than the difference between the prices realised at the ports and those in the retail shops? As the first Report of the White Fish Authority, published in July, 1952, stated that the Authority was looking into this matter, will the Minister explain why, in 1955, the job has not been done? Is it not a fact that the trade has been uncooperative in providing these interesting figures?
    Mr. Amory: The White Fish Authority has, of course, carried out some investigations and has commented on them in two Annual Reports. It has now decided that this is the best way in which it can obtain the information it wants, and is taking steps to put this sample investigation in hand as soon as possible.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Fish Fryers' Association has submitted its accounts to the White Fish Authority?
    Mr. Amory: I have no information that it has, or that it has been asked for information.
    Mr. Dodds: Can the Minister answer my question as to whether or not the trade has been unco-operative?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Dodds: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I shall raise the matter on the adjournment, if I cannot do so here.

    Icelandic-Caught Fish
    Major Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of British fish supplies was landed in Great Britain by Icelandic vessels before the 1952 ban on such landings; how far the deficiency caused by the lack of Icelandic landings has since been made good by the British trawler industry; and to what extent the landed price of fish in Great Britain has been affected.
    Mr. Amory: Imports of Icelandic-caught fish amounted to 4·5 per cent. of total supplies in 1950 and 6·2 per cent. in 1951. British-caught supplies in each of the years 1952, 1953 and 1954 were higher than in 1950 and lower than in 1951. Average port prices for all fish fell in 1952–53 and recovered last year to 1951 levels.
    Major Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the ban on Icelandic landings can in no way be termed a restrictive practice; that it is the only weapon that the industry has to combat the unilateral action of the Icelandic Government in closing vast areas of water to our fishermen, and so increasing the danger which the men face? Would he also agree that, even though Icelandic fish has not been landed, other countries have been landing fish in this country throughout the last two years.
    Mr. Amory: Other foreign fish are certainly being landed in this country. I really do not think that it would be useful for me to comment very much about the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. Her Majesty's Government wish to see this dispute brought to an end.
    Mr. T. Williams: What steps have been taken by the Government to try to bring this dispute to a reasonable conclusion?
    Mr. Amory: Her Majesty's Government have been quite active in this matter. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically to refer any inquiries which he has to the Foreign Secretary.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that the attitude of the British Trawler Owners' Association is exactly that which was anticipated? They have now reached a position where they can control the price of fish which is to be sold to British housewives. In view of that, will he consult
    2048
    the Foreign Secretary to see whether new approaches can be made to, and new arrangements made with, Iceland to settle this dispute and put the matter in order?
    Mr. Amory: I do not think that I can accept the conclusion mentioned by the hon. Lady in the first part of her supplementary question. As to the second part, I am in very close touch with my right hon. Friend on this matter.

    Distant-Water Fish (Quayside Prices)
    Major Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give figures to indicate the principal changes in the landed prices of deep-sea fish, in particular cod, in Great Britain during each of the past four years; and to what extent these prices have been supported by any form of subsidy.
    Mr. Amory: The average landed price of British-caught distant-water fish during the four years 1951–54 has been 5s. 8d., 5s. 5½d., 5s. 4½d. and 6s. 0½d. per stone respectively. Corresponding figures for distant-water cod are separately collected only at Hull, where they were 5s. 3d., 5s. 0d., 4s.11d., and 5s. 6½d. There is no subsidy on distant-water fish.
    Major Wall: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the figures given show that the price of cod at the quayside has risen by 6 per cent. since 1951, and by about a farthing a lb. during the last 12 months?
    Mr. Amory: I would agree that the increase shown by these figures is a very moderate one.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Does not the real significance of the figures lie in the fact that the average quayside prices work out at between 5d. and 6d. a lb. whereas the housewife is paying an average of about 2s. a lb. in the shops?
    Mr. Amory: This Question was concerned with prices at the quayside.

  SEA DEFENCES, LINCOLNSHIRE (COST)
  Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Agriculture the total cost of the provision and replacement of sea defences on the coast of Lincolnshire; and how much of this cost has been borne by the various local authorities concerned.
  Mr. Amory: Apart from the limited expenditure incurred by coast protection authorities, the final cost of restoring and improving sea defences in the Lincolnshire River Board area following the 1953 floods will be about £5,710,000. Of this, my Department is contributing all but £64,380, which will be borne by the river board from its precept on internal drainage boards and the councils of the counties and county boroughs within their area.
  Commander Maitland: Now that we can consider these matters in retrospect, and have had an opportunity to study the Waverley Report, would not the Minister welcome a debate on our future policy in regard to sea defences?
  Mr. Amory:I always welcome a debate on any of the matters which fall within my responsibility.

  AGRICULTURE

    Foxes (Damage)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture what measures he is taking to stop the damage and destruction which is being caused by foxes to poultry following the effect of myxomatosis upon rabbits.
    Mr. Amory: I have had no evidence submitted to me as yet that attacks by foxes have appreciably increased following outbreaks of myxomatosis, but farmers would be well advised to redouble their efforts to see that their stock is protected. I am consulting the interests concerned regarding action that might be taken to assist them.
    Mr. Watkins: As the Minister is obviously not aware of the great concern there is about this matter in Wales at the present time, may I ask if he knows that his office in Wales is quite aware of it, and will he ask for reports on this situation immediately?
    Mr. Amory: I have done exactly that. I have had reports right up to date from my county pest officers, including the result of a conference with the fox destruction societies held in Wales a day or two ago.
    Sir R. Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in addition to rabbits,
    2050
    the normal diet of foxes comprises a great number of other small animals such as rats, mice, voles, and moles, and that, in the absence of rabbits, the consumption by foxes of those animals increases, and that in that way they are doing the farmers a great deal of good?
    Mr. Amory: I should hate to think that my hon. and gallant Friend could possibly—conceivably—be biased in this matter, but I think that there is a very great deal of truth in what he says.

    Farms, Wales (Firing Range)
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture the names of the farms which are situated between the proposed Trecastle gunsite and the Sennybridge Range and likely to be affected by the firing by heavy artillery; and the total acreage of all these farms and the total stock carried.
    Mr. Amory: As the reply is rather long, and I should have great difficulty in pronouncing the names, I will with persuasion—[Laughter.]—I am sorry, with permission, circulate the required information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:
    The names of the farms between the proposed gunsite and the range are as follows:

    Crug-y-bwbach.

    Llwyn Carw, Blaen-y-nant and Blaen-y-cwm.

    Gelli faen and Coed-cwm-llwyfog.

    Yscoed-reddfin and Pen-y-cae.

    Clyn-y-foel.

    Beiliau and Draen-duon.

    Llwyn-on and Fedw.

    Clos.

    Cwm-du-ysfa.

    Pant - madog, Maes - y - cyffon and Bwysfafach.

    The names of holdings farmed together as one unit are shown on the same line. The total acreage of the farms is, 1,975, of which 888 acres are rough grazings, and in June last they were returned as carrying 474 cattle, 5, 069 sheep, 7 pigs, 27 horses, and 628 poultry.
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture what consultations he has had with the Secretary of State for War regarding the firing to take place over land between the proposed gunsite at Trecastle and the Sennybridge Range; whether he is aware that this intervening land is fully used for food production; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the effect of heavy guns firing upon the day to day farming operations and in particular calf-rearing.
    Mr. Amory: Consultations took place between my Department and the War Office in 1950 and 1951, as a result of which some changes were made in the area of the propsosed gunsite. Most of the land between the gunsite and the range is used for food production, but I understand that from experience on other ranges it is not expected that firing on the scale proposed will interfere with farming activities on the intervening land. I shall keep the matter under review in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. Watkins: Would the Minister be good enough to send an officer who understands something about Welsh farming to inquire into the situation, particularly in my own constituency? I am certain that it would be to the advantage of food production if that were done.
    Mr. Amory: I will certainly consider that suggestion. I think I do know the types of farming represented by the acreage to which the hon. Gentleman has called my attention. I will look into the matter and if there is any other information which I think would help I shall certainly seek it.

    Livestock Prices
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent prices received by farmers for livestock have increased or decreased since auctioning was resumed; and by what amount the guaranteed price was affected.
    Mr. Amory: Since decontrol, prices of livestock have, as is normal, varied seasonally and it is not yet possible to say whether there has been any general upward or downward trend. The guaranteed prices for livestock are not affected by changes in the market prices.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that there is no doubt that retail prices have risen very steeply? Is he also aware that retail butchers have cautioned housewives in Scotland about paying the high prices? They say that the auctioneers are buying low and selling ridiculously high. If housewives are not to buy butchers' meat, if they are not to buy tea, and if they are to boycott everything, is not Toryism costing the housewives too much?
    Mr. Amory: The hon. Lady has gone rather wider than the Question on the
    2052
    Order Paper, which I have done my best to answer. The points that she has raised are complicated. I should be delighted either to correspond with her or to have a talk with her on the matter, as on any other.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lee.
    Mr. Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not entitled to one supplementary question from this side of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot have an argument about every Question.

    Farm Purchase, Lancashire (National Coal Board)
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement concerning the discussions which have taken place between his Department and the National Coal Board which have resulted in the purchase by the latter of valuable agricultural land in Newton-le-Willows, Lancashire, for coal-getting purposes.
    Mr. Amory: I understand that the National Coal Board has purchased a farm in this area by private treaty. The Board did not discuss the matter with my Department in advance and were under no obligation to do so. If an application for planning permission to use this land for coalmining is made, there will be the usual consultation with the interests concerned, including my Department.
    Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of stockinged-feet invasion by the Board has caused grave disquiet in the area? Will he say what machinery exists within his Department to ensure that highly valuable agricultural land is not sold to any other organisation for purposes other than food and agricultural production?
    Mr. Amory: I have no means of controlling the sale of agricultural land by private treaty.
    Mr. T. Williams: Before the Board spent the £30,000 or whatever the price was en purchasing the land, did it not consult his land utilisation officers?
    Mr. Amory: My advice is that it did not. Normally we should not expect that aspect to arise until the planning stage was reached.
    Mr. Williams: May we take it that when consultation does take place no attention will be paid to the fact that the land has been purchased secretly without consulting the Minister's land utilisation officers?
    Mr. Amory: I cannot quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I do not think it is quite fair to say "secretly." I am told that this was just a normal purchase in the market.
    Mr. Bevan: Is it not perfectly clear that no physical operations can take place on the land which would disturb the existing use of it without consultation with the various Departments?
    Mr. Amory: That is exactly the position.
    Mr. Lee: In the negotiations which could take place if the Board decided to exploit the land, would the right hon. Gentleman's Department be in any way inhibited by the fact that the Board is now the owner of the land as distinct from the fact that it was previously agriculturally owned?
    Mr. Amory: I think not.

    Horses and Donkeys (Imports from Ireland)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Agriculture the numbers and values of horses and donkeys imported into the United Kingdom from Eire and Ulster, respectively, during each of the past five years; what numbers were imported for slaughter; and, in view of the suffering which these animals endure in long sea voyages, if he will make an Order ensuring that such animals arriving from those places shall be rested at the ports of entry for at least 12 hours before slaughter or further transport in this country.
    Mr. Amory: According to returns rendered to my Department, 2,922 horses and donkeys were imported into Great Britain from Northern Ireland in 1953, and 7,927 from the Irish Republic; the corresponding figures for 1954 are, 1,628 and 6,542 respectively. There are no comparable data for earlier years, nor are records available of values or of the numbers imported specifically for slaughter. Horses imported from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, except
    2054
    for certain high-quality animals, are detained at the port of landing and examined in daylight by my veterinary officers. No horse is released until it is considered to be in a fit state to continue its journey.
    Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that horses suffer from peculiar difficulties during long sea journeys and that they are frequently taken on long journeys by road afterwards without water, food, or rest at the port? Will he arrange that when they come off the boat they shall receive adequate attention whether they are destined for slaughter or other purposes?
    Mr. Amory: I entirely agree with the object that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am certainly not aware that the animals are not properly examined and looked after at the port. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I should be very grateful if he would let me have it.

    Calves (Transport)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that many young calves from one to four days old and upwards are sent by rail from Scotland long distances often to the South of England, during which time they receive little if any adequate attention, and that7 have died on such journeys during the last three months; and if, in view of the cruelty and suffering so involved, he will prohibit calves travelling under six months of age.
    Mr. Amory: I have no reason to believe that, in general, calves are not properly cared for during transit by rail, but if the hon. Member has any specific incident in mind and sends me particulars I will gladly have further inquiries made. The requirements of the Transit of Animals Orders, together with the railway regulations, are intended to reduce discomfort so far as possible, and I do not think that the restrictions suggested by the hon. Member would be justified.
    Mr. Freeman: If I send the right hon. Gentleman particulars of the 17 day-old calves which have died during the last three months, will he examine the situation? In addition, 200 day-old calves were sent from Kittybrewster to Glasgow market during the same period, and they suffered very considerably, particularly because the calves are put into small sacks

    2055
    in which they cannot even stretch their legs, and they receive no water or attention during the day that the journey takes?
    Mr. Amory: Again, I should be very glad to receive particulars. The Regulations are fairly definite. They provide for the proper looking after of calves. Indeed, if calves are to be more than 24 hours on the journey they are supposed to be given milk and other attention at regular intervals.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a calf of that age cannot drink, in the ordinary sense of the word. Therefore, to allow milk for drinking is useless unless some form of teat is provided to enable it to drink?

    Special Prices Review (Announcement)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Agriculture why he informed the National Farmers' Union that it is his intention to hold a special farm prices review before making this announcement to the House of Commons.
    Mr. Amory: This House was informed of the decision as soon as practicable after it was made. In the meantime I saw no justification for withholding from the National Farmers' Union and farmers the Government's decision on a matter of great concern to them.
    Mr. Lewis: Was not the real reason for the announcement the fact that the right hon. Gentleman knew that the National Farmers' Union was about to pass a unanimous vote of no confidence in the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture? Is it not true that he made the announcement with a view to getting the Union to withdraw the motion, which it eventually did?
    Mr. Amory: No, Sir. That was certainly not the reason. What the N.F.U. was going to do at the meeting was purely hypothetical, and I had no knowledge of it whatever. My one wish was to make the announcement as soon as possible after the Government had taken its decision.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is it not true that the announcement was made on the evening when a motion of no confidence in the Government had been debated and adjourned until it was known what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to do?
    Mr. Amory: I do not think that I knew anything about it until I read it in the newspapers the next day.

    Fertilisers (Use)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to draw the attention of farmers to the advantages of greater use of fertilisers for all crops.
    Mr. Amory: Recommendations on the correct use of fertilisers are made by the Ministry's advisory officers in the normal course of their advice to individual farmers and through their many group advisory activities. Many demonstrations of fertiliser use, notably on grassland, are conducted throughout the country.
    Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts in this direction, because there is a vast difference between the yields of crops which have been generously fertilised and those which have received no fertiliser? As we are losing about 50, 000 acres of land a year for housing and other purposes, has not the time arrived for us to adopt the slogan "More food from fewer acres"?
    Mr. Amory: I do not disagree in general with what my hon. Friend has said, but the position is encouraging. Last year there was a record consumption of both nitrogenous and potassic fertilisers.

    Grassland (Selective Weed Killers)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to draw the attention of farmers to the advantage of using selective weed killer on grassland.
    Mr. Amory: I am advised that the advantages of using selective weed killers on grassland have not yet been sufficiently established to warrant their being recommended to farmers generally. Further experiments are being carried out this year.
    Mr. Crouch: In view of the fact that grass is the most important crop we grow, will these experiments be pushed forward as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Amory: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that they will be pushed forward during the coming year.

    Silage (Pick-up Balers)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to draw the attention of farmers to the advantage of using the pick-up baler for silage making.
    Mr. Amory: Investigations are still being made into the use of pick-up balers for silage. Farmers will be advised of the results as soon as they are available.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this new method of making silage with a pick-up baler is as just as revolutionary as was the combine-harvester some 20 years ago, and that the time will shortly come when this will be the only way of making silage?
    Mr. Amory: I know how keen my hon. Friend is on any progressive methods of agriculture improvements. I share his views, but he would agree that before we give positive advice on this matter we must see the results of the experiments.

  JUNIOR MINISTERS (SALARIES)
  Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister what decision has been reached in the discussions concerning the proposal to increase the salaries of junior Ministers.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): It may well be that there is general agreement that the salaries of junior Ministers are inadequate, but I am not at present in a position to make any further statement.
  Mr. Dodds: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that this matter has been under consideration for a considerable time? A fortnight ago he then said it was being dealt with as a matter of urgency. Since I do not want to cause unnecessary trouble in the Cabinet, I hope that he will be able to make a decision before long.

  AIR DEFENCE
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that there are no guided missiles ready to replace Anti-Aircraft Command, that there are no modern fighters made in Britain 100 per cent. operationally serviceable, and that consequently there is at present no
  2058
  effective air defence of Britain, he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire how this situation arose and urgently to propose remedies.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There will be no Royal Commission. I do not accept the hon. Member's statements of fact, but these are matters which are better considered during the impending debates. As he knows, White Papers on these subjects will be issued shortly. I do not think that it would be for the convenience of the House to anticipate them at Question time.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister not aware that these facts have already been admitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Air? Does he not remember that on 5th March, 1952, he himself said:
  "My first impression on looking round the scene at home … as Minister of Defence was a sense of extreme nakedness such as I have never felt before in peace or war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 434.]
  Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the fact that he has been in office for 3½ years, and that in relation to our present need we have less air defences than we had then, that there ought to be an investigation—a Royal Commission—to inquire into his failure, for which he is responsible, to give the country good air defences?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not find that he has mutilated his speech should he be called upon to take part in the debates on defence.

  FOUR-POWER CONFERENCE
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister whether he will invite Premier Bulganin to participate in joint discussions on the solution of outstanding international problems.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, following the resignation of Mr. Malenkov, he will maintain his policy of high level talks at the appropriate time with the new Soviet Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister: As I have said before, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to seek a Four-Power Conference at a time when it seems likely to

  2059
  yield genuine results. That occasion is not likely to occur till after the ratification of the London and Paris Agreements.
  Mr. Warbey: Is the Prime Minister aware that by dithering for nearly two years he has lost his opportunity of talking with Mr. Malenkov? [Laughter.] Is he going to sit dithering for another two years until it is too late to talk to Marshal Bulganin? [Laughter.] As the international situation is becoming increasingly tense, and as the matter is of the greatest seriousness and not a matter for flippancy, will he say what urgent action he proposes to take to relieve international tension?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware that I had been guilty of any flippancy. I could not fully hear the hon. Member's supplementary question on account of the extreme hilarity and levity which was shown on the benches opposite.
  Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any conversations or inquiries are taking place through diplomatic channels to try to elucidate the statements which have been made on behalf of the Soviet Government, and which appear to suggest a possibility of fair dealings with Germany in the event of any negotiations? It appears that there is talk of elections and so on. Does he not agree there is scope through diplomatic channels to try to find out what is the real intention? Many people are being led away by favourable statements which really deceive, although there is no content in them.
  The Prime Minister: I think I should like notice of that question, and indeed it might be addressed to the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Henderson: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to associate himself with the statement made yesterday by President Eisenhower and reaffirm that the statement of international policy, based on prevention of war, recently issued by the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference will not in any way be affected by the mere change in Government in Russia?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I should not hesitate to confirm the suggestion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made.
  Mr. Bevan: As the recent statement of the Soviet Union about the future of Germany had very great publicity in Germany itself, and as it had a very considerable impact on German public opinion, would it not have been the normal use of diplomacy long ago to have tried to probe to find out what was in the Russian mind? Is it necessary to ask Questions in the House of Commons in order to get ambassadors to do their normal job?
  The Prime Minister: No. I think it is certainly not necessary to ask questions for that purpose. No opportunity is being neglected to discharge fully our duties of a diplomatic character.
  Mr. Bevan: Why has the Prime Minister not done it?
  Mr. Strachey: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the recent trend of events in both Germany and France suggests that his blank refusal to take any notice of the earlier Russian statement may well lead, not to the ratification of the Paris Agreements, but to profound division of opinion in Germany and France?
  The Prime Minister: All these matters are brought before the people very frequently and from many quarters, and they all receive earnest and continuous consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers.
  Mr. Rankin: What happens?

  CHEMICAL AND BACTERIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
  Mr. Parkinasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disquiet caused by provisions in the Paris Agreements which permit the stockpiling in Germany of chemical weapons defined as expressly designed to use the asphyxiating, toxic, irritant, paralysant, growth-regulating, anti-lubricating, or catalysing properties of any chemical substance, and of biological weapons expressly designed to use harmful insects or other living or dead organisms or their toxic products, he will renew the pledge which he gave to the Soviet people through Marshal Stalin that if German forces used against them weapons prohibited under the

  2061
  Geneva Convention, British Forces would retaliate in kind against the German Forces concerned.
  The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the premise of the hon. Member's Question. The Paris Agreements need cause no disquiet except to those who seek to destroy the unity and defensive strength of the free nations. The essential purpose of these Agreements is to provide for international limitation and control over the level of stocks of these as well as other weapons which may be held by member countries on the Continent of Europe.
  Mr. Parkin: Would the right hon. Gentleman look again at the annexe to the Treaty and address himself to the disquiet caused by the uncertainty about the provisions for stockpiling? Would he also bear in mind that stockpiling of this kind in Germany does make this country, in certain circumstances, the hostage of ex-Nazi military adventurers? So far as the second part of the Question is concerned, since he himself has recently called attention to this pledge in a diplomatic Note, does he not think that this is a very proper moment to renew the spirit of it in terms appropriate to the present time?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the view of the Government is fairly and reasonably expressed in the answer which I have given to the Question. The supplementary question and the points it contains will also receive their due consideration.

  N.A.T.O. (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to assure the House that the procedure under which the political authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will make any decision regarding the possible use of atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons, is agreed by Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: All decisions of the North Atlantic Council are taken on the authorisation given to it by member Governments. I am not prepared to go into the detailed arrangements for this matter.
  Mr. Beswick: Are we to take it, then, that arrangements are not yet agreed, and is it not a quite extraordinary situation that these nuclear weapons are prepared, with the aircraft both in this country and elsewhere ready to take off within one hour's notice to deliver them, and yet no one knows under what procedure the order to take off is to be given, or by whom it is to be given?
  The Prime Minister: These matters have been the subject of much discussion between the nations concerned. Of course, the decisions of the North Atlantic Council have to be unanimous and it is the Governments who have to give the decisions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading: Fisheries Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution.
TUESDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading: Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution.
WEDNESDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY—Supply [1st Allotted Day]: Committee stage: Civil Supplementary Estimates, beginning with:
Class V, Votes 5 and 11: National Health Service, England and Wales, and Scotland.
Class VI, Vote 1: Board of Trade.
Class II, Vote 9: Colonial Services; and Vote 4: United Nations.
Class III, Vote 10: Legal Aid Fund.
THURSDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY—It is hoped to complete the Committee stage of the Army Bill; and take the Committee stage of the Air Force Bill; and the Revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Bill; also the Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.
FRIDAY, 18TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Attlee: Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to providing a day for discussion of the Council of Europe and the Schuman Plan?
Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman knows that if there is a desire for a debate before the time of ratification the Government will take it into consideration. I hope, therefore, that it may be discussed through the usual channels.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has the Leader of the House seen a Motion on the Order Paper relating to the reduction of duty on petrol, which has been signed by many Members of all parties? If time cannot be found for a discussion upon it next week will the right hon. Gentleman find time the week afterwards? It would save a lot of time on the Finance Bill if he would do so.
Mr. Crookshank: I would be very surprised if a debate on the subject at any time saved time on another occasion.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Can we expect time to be provided in the near future for a debate on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meetings?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. I do not think that the usual practice is to debate such a conference. The communiqué on the subject is very full, and I assume that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will have studied it.
Mr. Gordon Walker: That is why I asked my question.

BILL PRESENTED
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (HARMFUL PUBLICATIONS)
  Bill to prevent the dissemination of certain pictorial publications harmful to children and young persons, presented by Major Lloyd-George; supported by Mr. J. Stuart, the Attorney-General, and Sir H. Lucas-Tooth; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT)
3.34 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (Cmd. 8932).
I am sure that the House will wish me, in opening this debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, first to express our gratitude to the members of the Commission for their long and arduous labours and for the comprehensive Report which they have presented. Whatever view we may take about particular recommendations of the Commission, I think we must all appreciate the industry and the patience with which Sir Ernest Gowers and his colleagues have examined every aspect of this most difficult question, and the time which they devoted to visiting other countries and collecting information which might throw light on the problem. We are greatly indebted to the Commission for its public-spirited work and for its lucid Report. It is a comprehensive storehouse of information which is of the utmost value to any student of the problem of capital punishment.
The House will recall the circumstances in which the Royal Commission was set up in 1949 by the then Government, after the debates on capital punishment during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill through Parliament in 1948, and I should like to remind the House of the terms of reference of the Commission, which were as follows:
"To consider and report whether liability under the criminal law in Great Britain to suffer capital punishment for murder should be limited or modified, and, if so, to what extent and by what means, for how long and under what conditions persons who would otherwise have been liable to suffer capital punishment should be detained, and what changes in the existing law and the prison system would be required; and to inquire into and take account of the position in those countries whose experience and practice may throw light on these questions."
I think it is important that, in discussing the recommendations of the Commission, we should keep in mind those terms

2065
of reference and the fact that they were designed to preclude the Commission from considering whether capital punishment should be retained or abolished.
The question which the Commission was, in effect, required to consider was whether any practicable halfway house could be found between the existing law, under which every person convicted of murder, except a person under 18 or an expectant mother, must be sentenced to death, and the abolition of the death penalty. The Commission was also asked by the then Prime Minister to consider whether any change should be made in the method of execution, and by the Home Office to examine some subsidiary questions which did not strictly fall within its terms of reference, such as the present requirement that notices should be posted on the prison gate before and after an execution.
The Government have given very careful consideration to the recommendations made by the Commission; and I think it will be convenient to the House if, at the outset of this debate, I give some indication of the provisional views which the Government have formed. I use the word "provisional" advisedly. The Government have not as yet come to any final conclusion about the major proposals of the Commission. They propose to examine them again in the light of the debate this afternoon, and they will be very ready to give full weight to the views expressed, and the arguments put forward, by hon. Members.
The recommendations of the Commission cover a very wide field, but there are three which are of outstanding importance. The first is that the statutory age limit below which the sentence of death may not be imposed should be raised from 18 to 21. The second is that in all other cases the jury should be given discretion to decide whether there are such extenuating circumstances as to justify substituting the sentence of imprisonment for life for the sentence of death. The third is that the test of criminal responsibility laid down in England by the M'Naghten Rules should be wholly abrogated and that the jury should be left to determine, unfettered by any formula, whether at the time of the act the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind, or was mentally deficient, to such a degree that he ought not to
2066
be held responsible. Of these three recommendations, the first and the third were not unanimous, but were supported only by a majority of the Commission; while the second—as I shall point out later in more detail—is put forward in qualified terms which fall far short of a clear recommendation. I should like to say something about each of these three main recommendations.
With regard to the first, that is, the age limit, the Commission recommend the raising of the age limit by a majority of one—six to five. The main argument on which the recommendation of the majority is based is the view that persons under 21 cannot be regarded as fully mature and, however heinous their crimes, are often capable of reformation. The minority, on the other hand, while they recognise that a youth who commits a murder at the age of 19 or 20 may be capable of reform, and that in such a case reasons for clemency should always be sought and will often be found, take the view that the right course is to consider each case individually on its merits and not to exclude the operation of the death penalty by a rigid and arbitrary rule restricted to a particular age.
Like the minority, and everyone else, the Government share the natural desire to spare a young life wherever possible. But they are also disposed to agree with the minority that there are very strong objections to raising the age limit, and, in particular, that it would be dangerous and inopportune to do so at a time when crimes of violence on the part of persons between 17 and 21 are, unfortunately, so prevalent.
There has recently been a welcome decline in the volume of indictable crime generally, but the statistics of offences of violence against the person are less encouraging. In 1938, the number of persons between the ages of 17 and 21 who were found guilty of such offences was 163; in 1948, that number increased to 405; in 1951, it went up to 492; and in 1953, the figure was 603. The Government cannot think that this is a time when it would be right to remove a sanction which may deter such young men from committing murder.
Mr. Frederick Lee: It would appear that there is a contradiction in what the right hon. and gallant Gentle-

2067
man is saying. He assured the House that the Government have not actually made up their mind. If that be the case, how can he tell us that the Government consider, even if they agreed to it, that raising the age limit may cause certain things to happen? Surely the consequence of that is to say that the Government are not prepared, at this stage, to agree to the abolition of the death penalty at all.
Major Lloyd-George: As I said at the beginning, the Government have come to provisional conclusions on the three main recommendations, but they will take account of anything which is said in the House today. I made it perfectly clear that their conclusions were not final, but provisional.
Mr. R. T. Paget: This is rather an important question. I do not quite understand why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should wish to retain the death penalty for a class of youth upon a basis of statistics which seems to show that that death penalty has been completely unsuccessful in restraining them.
Major Lloyd-George: I was just pointing out that at a time when the figure is increasing it is not in the opinion of the Government—although the question may be argued both ways—a good idea to remove something which may be a deterrrent. Let me now go on to give the provisional conclusions of the Government on the other main recommendations.
On the second of the three main recommendations, which proposes the vesting of discretion as to sentence in the jury, the Commission expresses the view that
"the outstanding defect of the law of murder is that it provides a single punishment for a crime widely varying in culpability."
The Commission goes on to say that what it refers to as this "rigidity" of the law is at present mitigated mainly by the use of the prerogative of mercy, a method which it regards as open to criticism on the ground that it leaves to the Executive a task which ought to be performed by the courts and it has, therefore, sought for some other method of doing what is now done by the exercise of the prerogative on the advice of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
2068
The Commission rejects proposals for the division of murder into two degrees, on the ground that it is impossible to frame a satisfactory definition of murder in the first degree as
"no legal definition can cover all the multifarious considerations, relating to the offender as well as to his crime, which ought to be taken into account (and are at present taken into account by the Secretary of State) in deciding whether the supreme penalty should be exacted in each individual case."
The arguments of the Commission against the introduction of two degrees are closely reasoned and they seem to the Government to be convincing. The Commission goes on to argue that the only practicable way of limiting the present liability to suffer capital punishment would be to leave the present scope and definition of murder unaltered and to
"give either to the Judge or to the jury a discretion to decide in each particular case, in the light of all the information before the court, whether the sentence of death is appropriate, and, if it appears to them that it is not, to impose or to recommend a lesser punishment."
It rejects, for reasons which seem to be good and sufficient, the proposal that such a discretion should be vested in the trial judge. It concludes that the alternative of entrusting such a power to the jury is said to work well on the whole in countries where is has been adopted, and that, if it were adopted in Great Britain, a workable procedure could be devised, and that this is
"the only practicable way of enabling the courts, instead of the Executive, to take account of extenuating circumstances so as to correct the rigidity which is the outstanding defect of the existing law."
The Commission add—and here again I think it important to quote the actual words of the Report:
"We recognise that the disadvantages of a system of 'jury discretion' may be thought to outweigh its merits. If this view were to prevail, the conclusion would seem to be inescapable that in this country a stage has been reached where little more can be done effectively to limit the liability to suffer the death penalty, and that the issue is now whether capital punishment should be retained or abolished."
The House will observe that this does not amount to a positive recommendation, but only to saying that, if it is thought essential to find a halfway house between the existing law and the abolition of the death penalty, all the other proposals considered by the Commission must clearly be

2069
rejected and this is the only proposal which merits serious consideration. This proposal was the subject of a debate in another place in December, 1953. It was severely criticised by distinguished speakers with long experience on the Bench, including the Lord Chief Justice, and by three former Home Secretaries.
The most serious of the many objections raised to the proposal were, briefly, these. First, that it was inconsistent with the traditional conception of the functions of the jury, whose duty has always been strictly limited to deciding the issue of guilt or innocence, and who have had no responsibility for deciding the appropriate sentence; secondly, that it would impose on them a responsibility which they were not equipped to discharge, since they would never have such full information about every aspect of the offence and of the offender as is available o the Secretary of State, and, even if they had, would lack experience of other murder cases, and would, therefore, have no general standard by which to assess the culpability of the accused in the particular case before them; thirdly, that it was not fair to ask 12 citizens selected at random, whose duty was already onerous and arduous enough, to bear this additional burden; and, finally, that it would lead to inequalities and anomalies in a field where the interests of justice imperatively demand the maintenance of a uniform standard.
The Commission itself recognised that the disadvantage of the proposal might be held to outweigh its merits, and stated the formidable objections very fully in its Report. The Government feel little doubt that it is unworkable and that it ought to be rejected.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Commission's recommendation does not amount, in the alternative, to a recommendation to abolish the capital penalty altogether, would he make it clear—as I am sure he agrees about this—that that is because the Commission was precluded by its terms of reference from making any recommendation either way?
Major Lloyd-George: I thought that I had made that perfectly clear from the beginning. That was what the Commission thought was the proper halfway house, and the only one which it could
2070
think of. I thought that I had made it clear that it was precluded from making any recommendation.
There is one further point which I should like to make. It was widely suggested at the time of the publication of the Report that the Commission had said that the adoption of this proposal was the only alternative to the abolition of capital punishment. This is not so. What it said was that if this proposal, which it regarded as the only possible halfway house, was not found acceptable, then the search for a halfway house should be abandoned.
I pass to the third of the major recommendations, which relates to the criterion of criminal responsibility in cases where a defence of insanity is raised. The view taken by the majority of the Commission was that the present criterion contained in the M'Naghten Rules was so defective, in the light of modern medical knowledge, that it ought to be changed, and that the best course would be, not to frame a new and more up-to-date criterion, but to dispense with any criterion and simply leave it to the jury to decide whether, at the time of the act, the accused was suffering from disease of the mind or mental deficiency to such a degree that he ought not to be held responsible.
The grounds on which this proposal was based appear to be that any attempt to reduce the criterion of responsibility to words was, in the view of the majority, likely to be schematic and inadequate, and will, in any event, be irrelevant, because, in practice, juries ignore the M'Naghten Rules or any similar formula and simply ask themselves the question, "Is he mad or not?" Three members of the Commission—Dr. Radzinowicz, Dame Florence Hancock and Mr. Macdonald—dissociated themselves from this recommendation on the ground that, while the M'Naghten Rules were in some respects inadequate, it had not been shown that some criterion was not needed. In their view the advantage of a formula was that it served to limit the arbitrary element and to promote uniformity, as well as to help the jury to decide between conflicting views, whereas to have no formula at all would leave the decision, on which a man's life might often depend, to the uncertain variations of ethical standards and emotional reaction which might

2071
influence the minds of members of the jury.
These members, though they fully recognised that no formula could be perfect, thought that the objections to the M'Naghten Rules as they now stood would be substantially met by the adoption of a formula set out in paragraph 317 of the Report, which the majority of the Commission favoured to the extent of regarding it as a second best to dispensing with a formula altogether.
The Government have considered this question very closely. They feel little doubt that the view of the minority, that in England some formula is essential, is to be preferred. They recognise that the M'Naghten Rules are open to criticism, but they also note that the Commission itself recognised that the theoretical defects of the Rules lead to little hardship or injustice in practice.
They are impressed by the difficulty of framing a satisfactory amendment of the Rules, and by the wide differences of opinion on this issue among doctors, lawyers, and the general public, which were reflected in the Report of the Commission. In the light of all these considerations the view which they are disposed to take is that no advantage would be gained by disturbing the present position and that it is better to leave matters as they are.
Having stated the provisional view of the Government on these three major recommendations, I should like briefly to refer to the other recommendations of the Commission, which, as I have said, cover a wide field. The most important, I think, are the recommendations that the doctrine of "constructive malice" in English law should be abolished, with the proviso that principals in the second degree and accessories before the fact to felony should remain liable to be convicted of murder if the principal in the first degree is so liable; the recommendation that the law relating to provocation should be amended to allow a jury to return a verdict of manslaughter notwithstanding that provocation may have been by words alone; and the recommendation that a person who aids abets or instigates the suicide of another person—that is, the survivor of a suicide pact—should be guilty only of that offence, and not of murder, and
2072
should be subject to a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life.
All these recommendations would involve legislation. Some of them, I think it will be agreed, are not free from controversy, and some, at any rate, might be useful amendments of the law. The Government will be glad to take into account any opinions which hon. Members may express on these proposals today.
There are also a good many recommendations, especially with regard to the treatment of prisoners awaiting trial or under sentence of death or serving life sentences, which would not require legislation and which could be given effect by administrative action. A number of these recommendations have been accepted in principle and effect is being given to them already so far as is possible, although improvements in prison conditions, I am sorry to say, are inevitably limited at the present time by shortage of staff and unsatisfactory buildings.
The only recommendation of this kind to which I think I need refer is the recommendation that the mental state of every prisoner charged with murder should be examined by two doctors, of whom one at least should be an outside psychiatrist and the other usually an experienced member of the prison service. This recommendation has been accepted, and it is now the practice, where there is reason to believe that any question of difficulty is likely to arise in connection with the mental state of the accused, for steps to be taken to consult a psychiatrist from outside the prison service.
So far, I have spoken of the recommendations made in the Report of the Royal Commission. But I recognise that, if the proposal to give discretion to the jury finds little favour, the view may well be taken that, as the Commission itself says, we are driven back on the major question whether capital punishment should be retained or abolished.
There are two Amendments on the Order Paper which ask the House to express the opinion that, for a period of five years, persons convicted of murder should be sentenced to imprisonment for life, and that legislation to that end should be introduced forthwith. I do not know whether the Amendments will be called.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were

2073
to say that I have selected the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and other hon. Members, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add:
"taking note of the Report of the Royal Commission, is of opinion that for a period of five years persons convicted of murder in the United Kingdom should be sentenced, in place of the death penalty, to imprisonment for life; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government forthwith to introduce legislation to that end."
Major Lloyd-George: In that case, Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to deal with it—I am sure the House will be glad to have an expression of opinion on that point—but before I do so I should like, with the permission of the House, to deal very briefly with my personal position in this matter.
I have always taken the view that, if a satisfactory alternative could be found, I should welcome the abolition of capital punishment—and, when I say satisfactory, I mean satisfactory as a deterrent and also something that is satisfactory to the public conscience—but that, until it was clearly established that such an alternative existed, the death penalty must remain and must be carried out in appropriate cases.
When the Criminal Justice Bill was before the House in 1948, I voted for the scheme suspending the death penalty for five years, and I tell the House frankly that, in doing so, I was very largely influenced by the statement made towards the close of the debate that Sir Alexander Paterson, who was one of the most enlightened Prison Commissioners, had changed his views on this issue towards the end of his life. It affected me, and it affected a good many other people, too. The statement was refuted a few days later by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
There can, I think, be no doubt that, when Sir Alexander told the Select Committee in 1930 that, in his view, life imprisonment would not be a tolerable alternative to the death penalty, he was giving his personal opinion, not merely the opinion of the Home Office, and that this remained his opinion until the end.
The views which I have consistently held have been reinforced by my experience at the Home Office, with the responsibility for the maintenance of law and
2074
order in this country; and I must add that the views that I shall express are the views of the Government.
The Government are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment, for three reasons. First, although there may be differences of opinion—and, of course, there are—about the deterrent value of the death penalty in general and in particular cases or types of cases, they are not disposed to reject the evidence of many experienced persons that it is a uniquely effective deterrent to professional criminals. In 1948, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields told the House that the Government could not advise them to dispense with this sanction at that time in view of the grave increase in crime and especially in crimes of violence. Since then, there has been a fall in the total volume of crime, but this is largely due to a decrease in offences against property, and, since 1948, there has been a continued increase in sexual offences and offences of violence against the person. In these circumstances, the Government cannot think that it would be right now to abandon the sanction of the death penalty.
Secondly, although the Government have carefully studied the views of the Royal Commission on the question of imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty, they are not convinced that the detention of some murderers for very long periods—I must underline, for very long periods—and possibly for life, whether in an ordinary prison or in special institutions for mentally abnormal prisoners, would not give rise to much more serious difficulty than the Commission expects.
Some of the most heinous murderers are mentally abnormal, and it may be that they could properly be detained in a special institution for long periods, but many—such as poisoners—are mentally normal and would have to be detained in prison for a very long time, even for life. It is unlikely that such men would be suitable for detention in an "open" prison, and their detention for more than 20 years in the conditions of a closed prison would be likely to lead to serious deterioration, as well as causing grave problems of security.
Thirdly, irrespective of these considerations, the Government have no doubt that it would be entirely wrong to abolish

2075
capital punishment unless there were clearly overwhelming public sentiment in favour of this change. The Government have no reason to think that public opinion is in favour of abolition, or of suspension. Indeed, they believe that the contrary is true.
The Amendment which is to be called proposes that the death penalty should not be abolished, but should be suspended for five years. I should like to say a word about this proposal. The Government take the view that the suggestion that the operation of the death penalty should be suspended for five years is entirely misconceived. Such a period would be much too short to enable Parliament to form a reliable judgment of the effects of the change. Moreover, if the experiment proved unsatisfactory, a difficult and confused situation might arise.
The suspension of the penalty would shift the onus of effecting a change in the law from those who propose abolition to those who proposed restoration of the penalty. Even if this were necessary and justified, it might be difficult to secure the passage of legislation to this end. In effect, therefore, such a "trial period" would be likely to prejudice the whole future consideration of the question, and. in fact, mean the permanent abolition of capital punishment under the guise of what purported to be an experiment. The Government have no doubt that if a change in the law were to be made, the right course would be to face the issue squarely and to abolish the death penalty outright rather than to purport to suspend it for an experimental period.
The question of capital punishment is one on which strong conscientious feelings are held and which it is proper to leave to a free vote, but it is my duty to tell the House that if the Amendment were to be pressed to a Division the Government could not advise hon. Members to vote for it.
Before I sit down, may I repeat what I said earlier in my speech, that while the Government have come to the provisional conclusions which I have stated on the Commission's principal proposals, we shall listen very carefully to all that is said today and we shall wish to take full account of the views expressed in this House.
Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: May I ask the Home Secretary one question? As to the second ground of objection which the Government hold, what is the position about murderers who are now reprieved? If the decision about long terms of imprisonment provides such difficulties in the mind of the Government, what is the position about murderers who are now reprieved? What is their fate? It cannot be an insuperable objection that the future of these men is full of difficulty. I should like the views of the Home Secretary on this matter.
Major Lloyd-George: I do not want to go into that at great length now, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will probably deal with it, but the hon. and learned Member will appreciate that there are people—this is the object certainly of the Home Secretary and it is supported by everybody—who, it is hoped, can be rehabilitated and made decent members of society; that is one of the most hopeful things that we have in this world. But there are other people, the hon. and learned Member will realise, whom it would not be safe to let loose on society. Those are the people who would set us a great problem. I am satisfied that it would be a problem, and an extremely difficult one.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that the House will recognise that, just as the Home Secretary found himself in some personal difficulty at one stage of his speech, I too have a past in this matter. I shall endeavour to discharge the task that now falls on me as openly and fearlessly as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did in explaining his personal position in the matter.
I join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in expressing the thanks, I am quite sure, of every law-abiding citizen for the great care with which the members of the Royal Commission conducted the task that His late Majesty placed upon them of holding their inquiry, framing their Report, and making recommendations. The document that they signed will remain for a very long time as a mine of information to be argued about and to be considered, not merely by people of this country but by people in other States who may have to consider the same problem.

2077
The Royal Commission's recommendations are framed in such a way as to enable us to get clearly the exact position that we have to face in all the phases of this subject all the while that capital punishment remains. The Commission dealt with all the things that come on to the Home Secretary's table when a capital case is submitted to him for his consideration, and as far as am concerned no words of praise and thanks can be too high for those distinguished men and women who spent a very long time in considering these matters and who produced the Report for us. I join whole-heartedly in what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said.
The Home Secretary dealt with the Government's provisional conclusions on three of the outstanding matters, all of which we debate at the moment on the assumption that capital punishment remains. I take it that it will be better to pursue that course, so that when you call the Amendment that you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, we can then go on to consider, with the other matters cleared out of the way, the subject which, I am quite sure, is uppermost in hon. Members' minds. It is only right that we should give some consideration to these matters.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with the question of the statutory age limit, the giving of a discretion to the jury and the future of the M'Naghten Rules as the three subjects on which the Government had reached what he called provisional conclusions. As I gather, on those three matters the provisional conclusions of the Government are that on each of them the existing conditions should continue.
I admit that on 14th April, 1948, at the opening of my speech, I said:
"We believe … that the time is not ripe for undertaking this particular reform. I do not myself believe that public opinion in the country is in favour of this Clause at this time." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1083.]
As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, a speech made later by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in which the authority of Sir Alexander Paterson was thrown against the views that I was advancing, had an obvious impression on the House. Such of us as were there that evening will admit that it was one of
2078
those occasions when the kind of gasp went round the House that indicated that considerable weight had been given to the refutation. I have said that because I want to be quite as frank to the House as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been.
There has been this amazing piece of evidence about the effect of punishment on crime generally in this country that was part of the same Act of Parliament. We abolished flogging for certain offences. The offences for which a man could be flogged in this country were always most severely limited. Rape was not punishable by flogging. It was only robbery with violence and two or three other small crimes, like setting fire to one of H.M. dockyards.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Organising the workers.
Mr. Ede: The word "small" was, I admit, inappropriate. What I ought to have said was "infrequent crimes."
There was one amazing thing connected with the profession of horse knackers, which had become infrequent because the trade in horse flesh at that time did not pursue the lines that it had done in previous years, when it was a fairly frequent offence. Another of the offences was living on the immoral earnings of a prostitute. Flogging had not been very frequently employed in that connection for a good many years. We repealed that. The House did not divide against that repeal until, in another place, the Clause was altered and came back to us on Amendment. Even then, a large number of Members on both sides of the House voted in favour of the repeal of flogging.
While it is true, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that crimes of violence have increased, the astounding thing is that crimes of violence which were previously punished by flogging have decreased, and it is crimes of violence that were never punished by flogging, in any time that we need take account of, which have increased. The prophecies that were made in another place that this would lead to a great increase in crimes for which flogging was the punishment have been completely disproved.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman rested his case very largely on crimes of people between, I think he said, 17 and

2079
21. It is a group of people the members of which, at every stage when they were younger, were a matter of serious concern. It is a particular group which very largely suffered from the influences of the uncivilised conditions during the war and the years immediately following. There is no proof at the moment—indeed, the proof is all the other way—that their successors at their earlier ages are as prone to juvenile deliquency as they were. In fact, juvenile delinquency is falling to such an extent, that one of the problems, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has to deal with, is redundant approved schools.
I hope we may take heart from that in the belief that the traditional good sense and good behaviour of ordinary British citizens are now being restored, and that we are recovering from some of the inevitable effects of the war years. As this group came into the picture in their later years, it was to be expected that there would be an increase in violent crimes. It is an increasing commentary that this increase has not been in the crime—because really there is only one crime that we need take into consideration—for which the severe penalty of flogging was abolished. I, therefore, am myself not prepared, without a great deal more consideration, to agree that we should pay too much attention to what happens to those in a particular age group who have been difficult in the earlier age stages of their lives.
Now we come to the question of jury discretion. I am bound to say that when I read the Commission's recommendation I had an instinctive feeling of revolt against it. I have not myself been convinced that we can make it workable. It would after all prolong the agony for the jury, and would make a further special demand on the powers of the jury to give continuous consideration to the aftermath of hearing the evidence in cases like this.
I wonder what goes on inside the jury room. I was once foreman of a coroner's jury. I have sat at quarter sessions and wondered by what processes jurors have, on occasion, managed to evade the specific hints which have been dropped to them by the chairman in his summing up. But I had a little enlightenment as to what happened, because, on at least two, and, I think, three occasions, I had
2080
a letter from a juror after I had announced my decision about a recommendation.
The juror said, "You have let me down. I stood out for a long time against a verdict of guilty. Then the foreman said, 'We have been here a long time and you are the only person standing out. If we make a strong recommendation of mercy, will you then fall into line, and if you make a strong recommendation of mercy you can rest assured that the Home Secretary will grant a reprieve'." I did not grant a reprieve when, after consulting the trial judge and asking him the grounds on the evidence for making a strong recommendation for mercy, the judge said, "I really have not the remotest idea." That is what happened.
Let us be quite certain of this. Heavy as the responsibility is on the Home Secretary—and no man who has held the office would wish to belittle the weight of the responsibility for a single moment—it would be far heavier on the juror who might have to decide whether there was to be a statement that would mark a man out for execution. For instance, that statement of the jury would have to be unanimous, at any rate in England, before this could happen. I do not think that 12 ordinary well-meaning citizens called together to discharge this heavy responsibility of declaring guilt or innocence ought to have this further heavy responsibility placed upon them.
I read the recommendation of the Commission as getting as near as they could to saying: successive generations have so dealt with this matter now that improvements which can be made are so small in comparison with the tremendous issues at stake that it is up to those who have the responsibility for making the political decision to make up their minds one way or the other. I must regard the inclusion in the Report of the suggestion about the jury system as reducing the possible alternatives to an absurdity, and compelling the House to face up to the main issue of whether capital punishment should or should not be abolished.
I do not go so far as that with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the third point, because I think that to leave the M'Naghten Rules unreformed would be to ignore the plain recommendations of the Commission, and, if I may say so, the weight of evidence that was brought to bear on them. After all, the Rules

2081
were composed at a time when our knowledge of the way in which the human mind works, and, occasionally, fails to work, was far less complete than it is today.
I think we would all agree, without subscribing to all the intricacies of modern psychiatry and the specialist doctrines of some of its professors, that we know a great deal more and that a great deal more has been established than was the case when the M'Naghten Rules were framed. I cannot help thinking that there would be an advantage to jurors if they had something more in accordance with modern modes of thought than the M'Naghten Rules to help them in the decisions they have to make.
I come to the matters which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned as among the lesser recommendations. I agree with him that prolonged detention in the present prisons for the most violent type of prisoner is something which humane people could not readily tolerate. I hope that his experience will agree with mine that the ordinary murderer who is reprieved is among the mildest mannered and best behaved inhabitant of Her Majesty's prisons and presents very little difficulty indeed. He generally falls in fairly well with prison routine, is reasonably helpful and can be generally regarded as a person who, after a period of punishment that is, in his case, probably more retributive than reformative, can be released on society and is unlikely to give us any further trouble.
There is a small, hard core of very violent people. Until the prison service is able to do something rather better for them than at present I am not, at all sure that I do not sympathise with the representations which were made to me by an Anglican clergyman of very high standing about a prisoner who was under sentence of death. It appeared that this prisoner might be reprieved. The clergyman brought to me the wish, expressed by the prisoner to him, that the prisoner should not be reprieved as he did not wish to waste for years in prison. The reform of the present system and the building of new prisons are matters which deserve early consideration. I hope that the schemes prepared by the former Home Secretary will fructify under the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's care and that we shall soon be able to consider this phase
2082
of the subject without the misgivings about long detention that I have just expressed.
On the question of the deterrent effect of the death penalty, I must say—and I use these words advisedly, because I have given a great deal of thought to this matter—that I do not think the case for deterrency is proved either way; that is to say, I do not think that the people who say that it is a deterrent can prove their case from analogy with other countries. Those who say that it is not a deterrent have no statistics from this country, because we have never had the opportunity of trying it. This is the conclusion to which I came, and I was Home Secretary for a longer period than any other Home Secretary since the Great Reform Act of 1832.
Mr. Hugh Dalton: Well done.
Mr. Ede: I do not say that with any suggestion of flippancy, like the man who survived the French Revolution and who said that that was his only achievement during the Revolution. I was in that office for a long time, and I probably had at least as many cases to consider as any Home Secretary in the last sixty or seventy years.
I came to that conclusion, apart from two or three men like Heath and Haigh, cool, calculating gamblers in these matters, who managed to get away with it a surprising number of times. With all the other men, if you had said to them on the morning they committed the crime, "Before night, you will be in danger of the gallows, "they would have laughed at you. A little too much to drink—and, after all, the amount of drink that puts a man off balance varies from individual to individual very considerably—and a little sexual excitement introduced, and something is done, a blow is struck, that places the man in jeopardy. He did not consider for a moment—he did not have the chance to consider—the effect of the punishment that he might be incurring.
As far as I could see, very few of the people who stand in jeopardy are those to whom any colloquial rendering of the words "malice aforethought" would have any real application. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gains in experience he will possibly be able to check that

2083
statement. Therefore, I am not convinced that the deterrent has been proved either way.
I doubt very much whether, at the moment, public opinion is in favour of this change, but I doubt, also, whether, at any time during the last hundred years, a plebiscite would have carried any of the great penal reforms that have been made. The appeal in the time of Romilly was always to the belief that public opinion would not stand it, but there are occasions when this House has to say that a certain thing is right, even if the public may not at that moment be of that opinion.
I want to deal with a matter that is entirely personal, just as the Home Secretary did. If ever there was a clear case, when the papers came on to my table, that a man was guilty, it was the case of Evans. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton dealt with this subject in a book that was published in connection with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), a book to which the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) contributed a foreword. He wrote this:
"The most worrying aspect of the Evans case is precisely that Evans's guilt appeared so clearly proved. No criticism can be directed against judge, jury, counsel or police, and yet the apparently cast-iron case was unquestionably a false one. No single reason advanced by Mr. Humphries in his address to the jury is relied upon by Mr. Scott-Henderson in supporting their verdict. It does not matter in the least if Evans may have been guiltyof something upon the basis of some other case. His trial proves once and for all that a case that appears absolutely clear may yet be a false case."
Let me recall what happened. It is the last thing to which I shall ask the House to listen. Evans was found guilty of the murder of his infant daughter. He was charged, at the same time, with the murder of his wife, but as he had been found guilty on the first case, the second was never heard. He asserted that the man who had murdered his wife was the other man living in the house. The evidence was overwhelming against Evans and then, years afterwards, the bodies of six women were found in that house and the other man admitted the murder of those six women. If those facts had been known to the jury at the time, they might perhaps have found Evans guilty of murder in conjunction with Christie; I
2084
doubt whether they could have found Evans guilty of murder in any other circumstances.
I was the Home Secretary who wrote on Evans' papers, "The law must take its course." I never said, in 1948, that a mistake was impossible. I think Evans' case shows, in spite of all that has been done since, that a mistake was possible, and that, in the form in which the verdict was actually given on a particular case, a mistake was made. I hope that no future Home Secretary, while in office or after he has left office, will ever have to feel that although he did his best and no one would wish to accuse him of being either careless or inefficient, he sent a man to the gallows who was not "Guilty as charged."
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"taking note of the Report of the Royal Commission, is of opinion that for a period of five years persons convicted of murder in the United Kingdom should be sentenced, in place of the death penalty, to imprisonment for life; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government forthwith to introduce legislation to that end."
The House will recall that the proposal made in this Amendment, and, indeed, the proposal made in the following Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is precisely the proposal which, on a free vote of the House in 1948, the House accepted. It would now be the law of the land had it not been for the rejection of the Clause in the House of Lords, and had the House of Commons had its way in 1948 the hope which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just expressed about present or future Home Secretaries would have been fulfilled in his own case.
As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Home Secretary said when he moved his Motion, the House will recall that it was arising out of what Parliament did in 1948 that the Royal Commission was set up whose Report we are now considering. He said, rightly, that in and by its terms of reference the Commission was expressly excluded from considering or reporting upon the question whether the death penalty should or should not be retained. Its terms of reference were limited to the question of

2085
what modifications or qualifications ought to be made in the law on the basis that the death penalty remained.
The House may recall that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Leslie Hale) as to why he had limited the terms of reference of the Royal Commission in that way. My right hon. Friend replied that he had not left it to the Royal Commission to determine the issue of capital punishment because, in his opinion, that was not a question to be determined by Royal Commissions but one to be determined by Parliament. I, for one, agree with him.
A year or two later, when the events happened with an account of which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields concluded his speech, I sought to reintroduce, in the form of a one-Clause Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule, the proposal which Parliament had accepted in 1948. That was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now Solicitor-General. His ground for advising the House not to accept my Bill—and the House accepted his advice—was that it was better to wait until the House received the Report of the Royal Commission.
We now have that Report and the Government propose to take note of it—and that is all. I propose lo take note of it and to see what light is thrown by its recommendations, limited by the terms of reference as they were, on the question which the Commission could not consider but which we must consider. In other words, what light does the Royal Commission's Report throw on whether the death penalty should be retained or not? I doubt whether any of us who take part in this debate will find anything new to say. This matter has been well canvassed and discussed over a great many years. I think it is fair to say that all the arguments are known and that they have been repeated over and over again; there are some good arguments each way, and the question, ultimately, is where, in the last resort, does the balance fall?
I do not propose to go into all the questions which the House quite properly discussed in 1948. I propose to look at the question again in the light of the Royal Commission's Report and see
2086
where we get then. But, first, I should like to say a word on the question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman very effectively, but quite fairly, put, namely, "Why do you not propose to abolish the death penalty altogether? If your arguments are good and if the balance falls where you think it falls, then you make out a case for abolishing the death penalty; you do not make out a case for suspending it for five years."
I think that is an argument which it is one's duty to meet if one is making a proposal for a provisional suspension for five years and not for total abolition. I propose to meet it in this way. I take the three main grounds which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave—as he was careful to say, on behalf of the Government—for rejecting the idea of abolishing the death penalty, and I hope to persuade him that this five-year proposal provides the most convenient method of dealing with each of the Government's main objections to abolishing the death penalty altogether. When the Home Secretary said that the Government's decision was only provisional and that they would consider very carefully all that was said in this debate, I hope he meant to include in that not merely what he said about the Royal Commission's recommendations but what is said about this Amendment, too.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's first point was that the Government are not in favour of abolishing the death penalty because some crimes of violence are increasing and because we ought not to abandon what may be a deterrent. That is, of course, a two-edged argument. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields quite rightly said, no one can prove a speculative proposition. No one can establish, in fact, whether any murders were prevented by the existence of the death penalty, or whether any more murders were committed where the death penalty was not in force. Nobody knows. It is purely an inference which may be legitimately or illegitimately drawn.
Suppose the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures had been different; suppose he had said that since 1948 the rate of violent crimes had gone steadily down year by year. Would he not have said, "Is this the time to remove so effective a deterrent?" It would have been a very strong argument, and I

2087
should have thought a rather stronger argument than the equally speculative proposition—I think both are speculative—that "We must keep this powerful deterrent to violent crime because we have got a powerful deterrent and violent crime is increasing."
What I say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is: try it for five years and see. It is quite true that even then the conclusion will not be logically watertight, but it will enable us over a period of five years to see whether the trend is violently different, whether it is effective at all, or whether there are more murders when we suspend the death penalty. If there are not, who would want to keep the death penalty? Even "The Times" this morning, in what I hope, without disrespect, I may call a particularly obtuse leader even for "The Times," says that nobody wants the death penalty for its own sake.
There is one overwhelming argument which, if it could be established, might remove all objections to the death penalty. If it were really established that we reduce the rate of murder by inflicting the death penalty, one might say "Keep it by all means." But I say that if that cannot be proved, and if we can show by a sufficient trial period that we can have the death penalty abolished and not increase the number of murders then there is strong reason for thinking that the experience of this country will be very like the experience of all other countries which have tried it, which is certainly that the incidence of the rate of murder is not appreciably affected, either way, by whether there is a death penalty or not.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's second point was that life imprisonment would be a worse penalty than capital punishment. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman concedes that there are some murderers who ought not to be hanged. He does not say that it is the worst murderers who ought to be reprieved. He said that where there are extenuating circumstances the murderer ought to be reprieved, and he therefore concedes that, by and large, his present practice when he reprieves a man is an improvement, a mitigation of the penalty and not an aggravation of it. If that is so, he has a period of five years in which
2088
he can experiment in every way possible to find some form of penalty other than death which will fit these cases. Why not try it?
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's third argument was public opinion. He said that public opinion is not yet ripe for the abolition of the death penalty, and he said, by implication, that we must wait until it is. I say to him, with great respect, that it is possible to misconceive what the situation is. What a man thinks at the beginning of an argument is one thing; what he thinks at the end of the argument may be quite another.
I concede that if the Home Secretary walked up and down the streets of our big cities, casually button-holed people standing at bar counters and asked them for a quick opinion, in favour or against the death penalty, he would get a majority of negative opinions. But that is before the argument starts. I think it is clear that no rational person, whatever his opinion at the beginning, has heard the argument through both ways without, at the end of it, feeling very grave doubts, at the least, whether this penalty can morally or politically be justified.
The period of five years gives the right hon. and gallant Gentleman just what he needs for his third argument. It gives him, by an experimental, provisional period, a chance of educating the public by the results of trial and so getting them accustomed to the state of affairs of which, one gathers, he would be in favour if only he were satisfied that public opinion would support him.
The education of public opinion on these matters is a slow and difficult process and I can conceive of no better way of educating and informing it, if that is what we want to do, than showing them a provisional trial period of five years and, at the end of it, being able to say to them, "You see, it is not so dreadful. The United Kingdom, our country, is not so far behind in civilisation all those other countries of similar background and history and social make-up which have been able to dispense with this penalty without harm."
Mr. George Porter: Is it not a fact that there is positive proof that wherever there is the remotest contact between people and the murderer, there is no difficulty in getting public

2089
opinion, in that particular case and for that person, in favour of the abolition of the death penalty?
Mr. Silverman: That is probably true, and to that extent it assists the argument which I was developing.
I must say that I failed altogether to follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the final point which he made. It may be that I misunderstood him. It seems to me that what he was advancing as an objection to a five-year trial period was, in fact, an objection to abolishing the penalty outright without a trial period. It sounds so violent a contrast with what I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intended to say that I may have it all wrong, and if that is so I shall be grateful if he will correct me.
What I think he said was this: five years is too short. Supposing that, at the end of five years, the case had not been established, we should then have to come back to Parliament to reimpose the death penalty; and that might create a very difficult political situation and we might not be able to do it. I think that was his argument. But, of course, the purpose of suspending it for five years instead of abolishing it is to avoid that very thing. If we pass an Act of Parliament which suspends it for five years and at the end of five years are satisfied that we have made a mistake, then the death penalty is automatically restored without our coming back to Parliament at all. It is only if we abolish it altogether and then change our minds that we have to come back to Parliament to get it restored.
It seems to me that, unless II have misunderstood what he said, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman got it completely the wrong way round. If we want to be able to restore it if the experiment does not work, then for goodness' sake let us not abolish it outright but let us suspend it for a trial period. We shall then be able to restore it without any political difficulties of any kind.
That is all I want to say about that subject, and I come now to the Royal Commission's Report, about which I shall be quite brief. It seems to me to be quite clear, I think beyond controversy of any kind, that the Royal Commission was unanimous about one important thing. This was a very distinguished Commission, whose members spent a long time and much effort on their task. I should
2090
like modestly to concur in and endorse all the compliments and gratitude which have been expressed to them by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and my right hon. Friend. I agree that here we have a storehouse of the whole of this controversy and that no future examination of this problem will be seriously possible without reference to the Commission's Report.
At the end of the argument, what did the Commission unanimously decide? It unanimously decided that the present law was wrong and ought not to continue. And the Government have decided to take note of that and to do nothing—so far, provisionally; so far they have decided to do nothing. I have quoted this before; I am fond of it and I will quote it again; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's distinguished father once said of an earlier Prime Minister, "The right hon. Gentleman is continually stumbling across a great truth and picking himself up and going on as if nothing had happened."
That is what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is doing. The Royal Commission tells him, "Whatever you do about it is your business. We will make such recommendations as we can make within the limits of our terms of reference. You may not like them. It is the best we can do within those limits, and if you do not like them you must do something else. But what we are unanimously telling you is that the present law is wrong."
If the present law is wrong, is the House of Commons going to refuse to change it? If we send the matter to a Commission of this kind, in order to sift all the evidence, weigh everything in the balance and present a Report and then, after two or three years, it comes back to us and says unanimously, "This state of affairs is wrong and ought not to continue, "is the House of Commons going to say, "Let it continue," or is it going to say, "Let it stop"?
In what respect did the members of the Commission say unanimously that it was wrong? It was no great discovery; it was not very original. But they were not appointed to be original. They were appointed to find out the truth, however obvious and well-known the truth was, and what they reported is what we all knew before—that is to say, that if we have a crime so varied as murder, we ought not to have one rigid, automatic

2091
penalty for every form of that crime, especially where the penalty is the capital punishment which we cannot recall if we make a mistake.
They did their best within their terms of reference. We told them, "Do not tell us whether you think it ought to be abolished. Tell us how you think it ought to be modified, if in any way. Tell us how you think it ought to be qualified, if at all." The members of the Commission have said to us, "Since you forbid us to tell you what we think about the death penalty itself, then we must do our best to tell you how it may be modified or qualified to remove this defect that, by the present law, you must wring the neck of everybody who is guilty of murder, no matter how great or how little the moral turpitude involved in the particular case with which you are concerned."
The Commission examined all sorts of ways of doing that without abolishing the death penalty. It said, "Why not have degrees of murder?" and went into that question with great care, but unanimously decided that that does not work. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees, and so do I. When the House of Lords defeated our proposal in 1948 it defeated it because it said, "Here is a series of types of murder, abolish the death penalty in all other cases, but keep it for these because public opinion will not tolerate any mercy." So I and my hon. Friends negotiated with my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary and said, "Let us abandon our Clause and see whether we can devise a new Clause in which we will retain the death penalty for just those categories for which the House of Lords says we must retain it and abolish it for the others."
We produced a very remarkable document, doing our best—like the Royal Commission—within our terms of reference.
Mr. John Paton: And with the best legal advice.
Mr. Silverman: Yes, with the best legal advice from both sides.
Mr. Ede: Might I thank the hon. Member for accepting some of the responsibility? Hitherto, it has been placed squarely on my shoulders.
Mr. Silverman: I fully accept my share of the responsibility. My right hon. Friend came to me and said, "You cannot have your Clause, the Lords will not give it to you. But if you like to try for something else, try for something else." I said, "All right, I will try for something else." I accept responsibility for that. We worked at it together and I accept my share of responsibility for this ungainly conjunction of incompatibles which we formed into a Clause by way of amending the penal code.
The House of Commons accepted it and we sent it back to the House of Lords. The very people who rejected our original proposal on the ground that it would not cover the special cases, said, when they received our Clause which specifically set out to meet those special cases, "This will not work, no jury will be able to understand it." So they rejected that, also. [An HON. MEMBER: "Abolish them."] I am not complaining. I think it might have worked, but I agree it was a very difficult and anomalous thing.
I do not quarrel with the Royal Commission when it said, "This will not do, you cannot categorise it." If we are precluded from saying that the death penalty should be abolished altogether, if degrees of murder will not do, if special categories of murder will not do, what are we left with? The Royal Commission gave the only possible answer in those circumstances. Whether we like the answer or not, it was the only possible answer.
The Commission said, "Since you must differentiate and you cannot differentiate by categories, you must differentiate case by case." That is the origin of the main unanimous recommendation—since we ought not to have the death penalty in all cases, deal with one case at a time and judge each case on its merits. Short of abolishing or suspending the death penalty, the only possible answer to that is to continue the present practice of allowing the courts to inflict the automatic, rigid penalty and then leaving it to the Home Secretary to advise Her Majesty to exercise the Prerogative of mercy to fit some other penalty to the crime if some other penalty is better.
Of course, there is a radical fallacy there. We are using the Prerogative of mercy for something which is confessedly

2093
not mercy at all. Mercy begins where justice ends and if we use the Prerogative of mercy in order to do justice because the legal system does not do justice that is not mercy at all. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a little experience now of trying to do it by way of Prerogative. I hope he does not think that those of us who from time to time have pressed him and his predecessors very hard on individual cases have done so because we did not appreciate how onerous a job he had to do, or sympathise with him, or sympathise with his necessary protective devices to prevent his mind being influenced by pressure of one kind or another. But the public will not understand that, nor tolerate it much longer.
I am not going to deal with the merits of any cases, but I take three and only mention them. I defy any rational human being to find any common basis on which the three decisions can be reconciled. Derek Bentley was short of 19 years; he was a mental defective. He had committed no act of violence himself. If he was guilty of murder at all—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) thinks he was not—he was guilty of constructive murder and not of murder in fact. That boy was hanged, yet the process is said to look for reasons not to inflict the capital penalty. I say no more about it; there it is.
The other day there was a woman who was certified insane by the prison doctor. She was hanged. A week or two later a farmer in North Wales was convicted on the clearest possible evidence of murdering his partner because his partner wanted his own money back. He murdered his partner so effectively that no trace of the body was ever discovered. That raised a legal question which was fought out in the courts and was decided in the Court of Criminal Appeal. No one thought of taking it any further—[HON. MEMBERS: "They did."]—although they might have done so.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: I hesitate to intervene, because I was concerned, but the fiat was refused.
Mr. Silverman: At any rate, it was thought by the Attorney-General to be so clear that it did not raise a point of sufficient public importance to justify
2094
taking it to the House of Lords. That man was reprieved.
Mr. Philip Bell: I do not mean this offensively, but is it in order to discuss in the presence of the Home Secretary and an ex-Home Secretary particulars of individual cases in which the Prerogative was considered?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): There is no point of order about that.
Mr. Silverman: I am not asking any Home Secretary to discuss any of the cases; I am saying that if we do not abolish the penalty, if, nevertheless, we want to vary the penalty, if, nevertheless, we want to reject the recommendation of the Royal Commission that the jury or the court shall decide, then we are driven back upon the present method of using the Prerogative of mercy as though it were a judicial process.
When we examine how that works, we find that it does not satisfy the most elementary test of a judicial process, which is that normal intelligent beings of some experience shall understand it. Nobody understands it, and the practice prevents the Home Secretary from explaining it. So where are we? We are left, then, with the Royal Commission's revolutionary proposal.
I agree with all those who say that this is a very difficult thing to do. It makes a change in our law, not quite so revolutionary a change as some think, but it undoubtedly makes a substantial change. It is hard to work and it places too heavy a responsibility on the jury, and all the rest of it. Are we going to reject that too? If we do, then we are driven hard up against the question which the Royal Commission has posed to this House, whose responsibility it is.
Now, then, do we propose to do what everybody knows ought to be done, that is, to differentiate between crimes of different moral culpability? If we cannot think of any other way, we are driven back on abolishing the death penalty altogether, or at least, as we propose, suspending it for a provisional trial period. No one of the other recommendations matters in comparison with that. All the other problems, the age of execution, insanity, degrees of moral culpability, and all the rest of them, cease to be problems if the death sentence goes.

2095
It is only the penalty which makes it a problem; it is only the rigid capital penalty that raises all these nice questions with which they are dealing. There is, in parenthesis, the method of execution. It seems to me that the world would have lost one of its most valued and treasured chapters of moral literature if the ancient Greeks had used the services of some ancient Pierrepoint instead of a cup of hemlock. I doubt whether Plato would have had the material to write those wonderful pages if Socrates had been hanged. But these are subsidiary questions and the main one is the one with which this Amendment deals.
There is an occupational disease about Home Secretaries. I have known several Home Secretaries deal with this matter in the nineteen years during which I have been a Member of the House of Commons. There was Sir Samuel Hoare, now Lord Templewood. He was Home Secretary when I first heard the House of Commons debate this matter, and he opposed the abolition of the death penalty. Then, in the House of Lords in 1948, he supported its abolition as he had always supported it before he was Home Secretary.
Then there is the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. He always led the fight for the abolition of the death penalty, but in 1948, when he was Home Secretary, he opposed it. Now there is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. In 1948, he voted for this very proposal which we are now discussing, but now, on behalf of the Government—as he was very careful to say—he opposes it. He explained it, yes, but when he came to deal with the grounds, I, perhaps mistakenly, read into it some doubt whether his mind really went with his words.
Major Lloyd-George: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. I must make it clear. When I said to the House that I was completely misled by what was said in 1948, I meant it, and, if I may say so, I am not the only one. The hon. Gentleman made some reference to what happened on that occasion. I am not sure that the Clause would have been carried if a statement had not been made which completely misled several people.
Mr. Silverman: My hon. and learned Friend will reply to that later, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not said that he would have voted
—
Mr. Paget: May I put this question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? Had not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman declared himself in favour of abolition before the debate was ever held?
Major Lloyd-George: No, I am not aware of that, and, if I may, I will answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. The opinion which I held, and I repeated it today, I still hold. If a satisfactory alternative were found, then I should be satisfied. The evidence given by Sir Alexander Paterson whom the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned was that, in his opinion and with all his experience, there was no alternative. He did not regard long imprisonment as a humane alternative to capital punishment. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that that view had been completely altered, and that is what affected me.
Mr. Paget: This point has been put, and I think it convenient that it should be dealt with. In winding up the debate in 1948 I was mistaken, not in saying that Sir Alexander Paterson, before his death, had changed his mind on this issue but in the smaller sphere of saying that he had joined the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. Sir Alexander Paterson attended the funeral of Mr. Corbett which was carried out in the Quaker fashion where the friends of the deceased rise and make a statement. Mr. Ayles, who was a Member of this House, was also there. On that occasion, Sir Alexander said—just before his death—that he now believed that the time had come to abolish capital punishment.
Mr. Silverman: Sir Alexander Paterson is, unfortunately, deceased. We have to make up our minds for ourselves, not on the basis of what Sir Alexander thought, but on the basis of what we think ourselves. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me that he would retain the death penalty because he thinks it a more merciful thing than the present alternative, then I am bound to believe him, but I am bound, at the same time, to say that I am very greatly surprised to hear that opinion expressed by a Home Secretary who does reprieve now and again from the death penalty to life imprisonment in what he thinks are the most deserving cases. Therefore, while I do not question what he says, he will forgive me for saying that I do not find it very convincing.

2097
To conclude, I beg the House to give this thing a trial. About deterrents, I think that Francis Bacon said the last word some 300 years ago. He said
"There is no passion in the mind of man so weak, but it makes and masters all fear of death."
I think that is true, and that it is accepted as true by all of us in our own experience of life. If the death penalty is not a deterrent, then get rid of it. I would like to see this House, not by a party political decision and not régimented in any way, but with each of us exercising our own conscientious judgment as we think fit at the end of the argument decide that, at any rate for five years and as a provisional experiment, we should bring to an end this barbaric and obscene futility.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Hollis: I beg to second the Amendment.
The one ambition in the minds of all hon. Members is to discover the means by which murder shall be as infrequent as possible. Even if the Amendment had not been called, it would have been very difficult to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment without considering whether hanging is or is not a necessary and effective deterrent. For whilst I appreciate everything that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary said about the terms of reference of the Commission, nevertheless almost all of the Commission's recommendations obviously depend upon the answer to that question.
Let us take, for instance, the recommendation that the age for hanging should be raised from 18 to 21. Unfortunately, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, a very large proportion of murders are committed by people between those ages. Therefore, if one takes the view that hanging is a necessary and effective deterrent, one can obviously say, "Why should we be deprived of protection against this class of people who are most likely to murder us?" On the other hand, if one takes the view that hanging is not a necessary and effective deterrent one is in favour of raising the age to 21, but equally logically one can say, "Why not abolish it altogether?"
We have, therefore, to face the question whether hanging is a necessary and
2098
effective deterrent or not. It is a subject to which I have given attention for a very large number of years. Through my necessarily amateur inquiries into the experience of abolitionist countries some years ago, I reached three conclusions. The first was that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to find a country where the murder rate had increased after the death penalty had been abolished. Secondly, where there was already a trend of decrease, that trend continued after abolition. The third, which interested me particularly, was that when one had States of the same sort next door to one another, such as in Australia and America, some of which had and some of which had not abolished the death penalty, the curves of increase and decrease of murder coincided with surprising fidelity irrespective of whether the States were or were not abolitionist.
Therefore, I reached a conclusion which I afterwards found much more eloquently summarised in Lord Temple-wood's book, where he said:
"The statistics upon which I make my assertion that in no country has the abolition of capital punishment increased the murder rate, are based upon figures taken over a period before and after the abrogation or repeal of the death penalty. These figures not only show that there has been no increase in the rate of murder, but also that there has been no check in any downward curve where the rate of murder was already falling at the time of abolition. The experience of the thirty-six abolitionist States clearly shows that abolition does not increase the number of murders. I do not go so far as to say that it reduces the number of murders. I restrict myself to the assertion that it does not increase the number."
That was the state of inquiry which Lord Templewood had reached at the time the Commission reported. Therefore, I came with great interest to the Report of the Commission to see whether it supported Lord Templewood's assertion or not.
Appendix 6 of the Report deals with foreign experience considered country by country. In the case of the United States, Professor Sellin sums up:
"The important thing to be noticed is that, whether the death penalty is used or not, or whether executions are frequent or not both death penalty States and abolition States show rates which suggest that these rates are conditioned by other factors than the death penalty."
In the case of Belgium, the Report states:
"In so far as these statistics are a reliable guide, they do not suggest that the abeyance

2099
of capital punishment has had an adverse effect on the number of murders."
The phrases referring to Denmark and Italy are substantially the same.
Since we last debated this subject, New Zealand has turned from a condition of abolition to a condition of capital punishment, but it returned at a time when the murder rate was already falling. The Minister of Justice, who moved the Motion for the renewal of capital punishment, specifically stated that he did not base himself on statistics. There is only one example in all history of an apparent increase after abolition. That was in the three Swiss cantons of Aargau, Solothurn and Thurgau in 1874, where in the next two years, the murder rate went up from 1·9 to 2·4. However, if one takes the murder rate for a period of 24 years after that and compares it with the 24 years before, it went down. There was this one solitary instance of a small increase. Apart from that, the evidence seems overwhelming that Lord Templewood's generalisation is justified.
The Commission itself sums up in three sentences the deductions from these statistics when the Report states:
"Prima facie the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as a deterrent to normal human beings than any other form of punishment, and there is some evidence (though no convincing statistical evidence) that this is in fact so."
The Commission also states:
"We agree with Professor Sellin that the only conclusion which can be drawn from the figures is that there is no clear evidence of any influence of the death penalty on the homicide rates of these States. … The general conclusion which we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate, or that its reintroduction has led to a fall."
Therefore, I conclude that the substantial result of the Commission's inquiries is to support Lord Templewood's contention.
There is, therefore, no reason whatsoever to imagine that, contrary to the total experience of country after country, abolition would be followed by an increase in the murder rate, certainly not an increase on any dramatic scale. In the same way, some of the other incidental points which hon. Members and other people reasonably and fairly put forward in favour of capital punishment are effectively answered in the Report.
2100
My right hon. and gallant Friend very fairly drew attention to the passages of the Report which bear witness to the fact that the police are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment. As far as it goes, I accept that as an argument on the anti-abolitionist side, because we all admit the desirability of carrying the police with us in any reform. On the other hand, we have to consider not only what the police think but whether the police are right.
On that matter again, some years ago I made some inquiries about the experience of gang warfare and the murder of policemen in certain abolitionist countries in Scandinavian countries and in Holland and Switzerland. I received the reply that such things are unknown. They are phenomena found almost solely in countries which have capital punishment.
The case seems so very strong that it is important to consider what are the two answers to the appeal to foreign experience. The two answers are these. On the one hand, there are some people who tell us that foreign experience is irrelevant to this question. We all perfectly well understand that statistics and facts must be used with care, that it is a false logic to say that, because in a single instance A is followed by B, B is necessarily caused by A. We know that each country has its peculiar problems. We also know the way in which it is legitimate to use facts and statistics. Where we have a large number of instances where there is such a sequence of A being followed by B again and again, one is entitled to wonder if A is not the cause of B.
In this case, we have as remarkable a cross-section of world population as one could imagine. The experiment of abolition has been tried in thickly-populated countries like Holland and in thinly-populated countries like Norway; in agricultural countries like Denmark and in industrial countries like Belgium; in Latin countries like Portugal and in Nordic countries like Sweden; in English-speaking countries like Queensland and some American States; in Christian countries, and in non-Christian countries such as Travancore. One could not imagine a more complete cross-section. If, from all these countries with their

2101
varying experience one gets this unvarying lack of great difference after the abolition of the death penalty, we are entitled to say that the frequency of murder has not so much to do with capital punishment but that other factors are clearly more important.
Another point raised is that our capital punishment is, perhaps, more merciful and more scientific than the punishment adopted in some other countries. When the matter was debated seven years ago, I recollect that Lord Simon made the point that the present prison system in Italy contained certain features which would be intolerable in this country. No doubt he was perfectly correct, but it is very difficult to see what his point proved. We are under no obligation to imitate the undesirable features of the Italian prison system. There are abolitionist countries such as Sweden and Switzerland which have extremely good prison systems. If we want to go abroad for models, we can surely go to the best models rather than to the worst. We need not, however, go abroad for models. It is a matter for very careful consideration what we should do in detail, but it is not our concern at this moment.
What we have to establish is that an alternative of the present system is not an insoluble problem. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that if only he could be provided with convincing evidence that there was an alternative he would like to be an abolitionist. I would with respect advise him to look at page 229 of the Report, where he will find a discussion of the opinions held in his day by Sir Alexander Paterson. I do not wish to go into it all now, but in paragraph 653 the Home Secretary will find this:
"The Home Office at that time did not dissent from that view. But in giving evidence before us, though they still said that 'prolonged detention for more than ten or twelve years makes it increasingly difficult for [the prisoner] to re-establish himself in outside life and increases the risk of mental or physical deterioration, ' they added that developments in prison administration in the last twenty years have materially altered the conditions of confinement for prisoners serving long sentences, and continued: 'While therefore the Commissioners remain of the opinion expressed [in 1930] that a very long sentence of imprisonment is and must always be a dreadful thing, they do not consider that in present conditions its effect on prisoners would be such that it ought not to be contemplated'."
We entirely appreciate the candour with which my right hon. and gallant Friend is
2102
dealing with this case but, in all friendliness and open-mindedness, I would ask him to consider whether that Home Office opinion does not provide him with the answer he confessed he was seeking, and whether he cannot join us in the Division Lobby tonight in favour of the abolitionist cause which he admitted having so deeply at heart.
There is another point. People say: "If these be your opinions and if you think that capital punishment by hanging is of comparative irrelevance to the number of murders, I see that you are not greatly keen on hanging, but why do you make such a fuss of it one way or the other? Why do you think the matter so important?" In answer to that, I will say just three things. The first is that my own interpretations of my religious views are such that I would not say that in all circumstances is the State forbidden to take human life; but I would say that the State is forbidden to take human life unless it is abundantly proved that it is necessary for it to do so. Hon. Members must make up their minds as to what importance they attach to that aspect of the problem. It is obviously not a point for detailed discussion in this House.
My second point is this. When I spoke on this matter seven years ago, I said that I did not think that in modern circumstances in this country there was a grave risk of an innocent man being hanged. I said that that was not one of the arguments upon which I based by case. I must confess that some things that have happened since have made me a great deal less comfortable about that view. I had intended to say two or three brief sentences about the Evans case, but after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) it would be indecent for anyone else to intervene on that topic.
My third point is that in considering the effect of hanging we have to consider the effect on three different classes. First, we have to consider the effect on the murderer. Then we have to consider the effect on any officers who, in one capacity or another, are called upon to take part in the execution. On that there is very little controversy. Everyone agrees that it is profoundly painful and distressing to have to take part in such executions. I think—indeed, I know—that people who do

2103
not believe in abolition join with those who do in mitigating as many details of such executions as they can. On the other hand, should hanging be proved to be necessary, then I believe we have a right to say to those people that, unpleasant though it may be, they must carry out this unpleasant task. The whole issue is, of course, whether or not hanging is necessary.
Thirdly, the effect on the public at large should be considered. No one who follows English public opinion today can seriously doubt that there is, throughout the nation, a morbid obsession with the topic of murder. Many will have read the George Orwell essay "The Decline of the English Murder, "in which he notes that the murders of our grandparents' day had, at any rate, their comparatively intelligible motives, but that a horrible feature of our life to day is the growing prevalence of the murder of mere beastliness.
Mr. Robson Brown: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way, but the statistics in Table I, in page 329, show quite clearly that of 146 recorded murders tabled therein 90 were of a form and kind where there was obviously some kind of premeditation and beastliness is not mentioned at all; shame and disgrace—one; sexual passions—none. The figures do not agree with my hon. Friend's contention.
Mr. Hollis: There have certainly been a number of murders recently which I should consider beastly murders.
Mr. M. Follick: A sexual murder is a beastly murder.
Mr. Hollis: No special point turns on the argument. My general point, which nobody can dispute, is that there is an obsession with the topic of murder in our national life at present. Many people say, "This is just human nature, and there is nothing that you can do about it." However, if we turn to the Scandinavian countries or Holland, we find that the whole atmosphere is very different. The method of splashing murder cases in newspapers as in this country is quite unknown in those countries. I have no doubt that a large part of the morbid interest in murder in this country comes from the drama of the situation in that a man is on trial for his life. I am perfectly certain that if the deterrents are
2104
to be effective, they should be as humdrum and undramatic as possible.
If we were to abolish capital punishment for the moment I believe we should have a great improvement in the public attitude towards crime. That in itself would be a good thing, but not sufficient as an overriding case for abolishing capital punishment. However, we should have a general improvement over the nation, and in the long run, if other factors were favourable, it would lead to a decrease in a number of murders.
Murder cases appeal to the million; and this in their case only means that they read the newspapers and meditate on the details. But I believe that this morbid fascination is likely to be enough to push the small number of psychopathic individuals just over the border, and placing a dramatic aura around murder is just the way to make murder more common. If hon. Members want authority for that, I have two authorities for them according to their taste and outlook. Those who like modern psychology can go to Dr. Jung, and those who do not like modern psychology can go to Dickens and read "A Tale of Two Cities" and "Barnaby Rudge," and they can then take their choice as to the authority which they accept.
Hon. Members who were in the House at the time will remember that when we debated the matter seven years ago what was in many ways the major speech against the abolition of the death penalty was that by Lord Waverley, who at that time sat in the House as Sir John Anderson. As everybody recognised, he spoke with a peculiar degree of authority on a topic of this sort. Lord Waverley made a very remarkable speech on that occasion. In making the key speech against the abolition of capital punishment, Lord Waverley frankly admitted that he thought that hanging had no deterrent effect in the case of constructive murder, crime passionnel and political murder. Thus, by the confession of the most responsible advocate of capital punishment, a very large proportion of the crimes for which people were condemned to death were crimes for which capital punishment was irrelevant.
I believe that ever since Lord Waverley's speech the House and the country have been under an obligation at least to do something about the prob-

2105
lem. I believe that the obligation has been generally recognised. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the late Government sought to discover whether there was a halfway house between abolition and the present law. The late Government made an experiment with a new Clause, but that was not happy. The present Commission was then set the same task, but, through no fault of its own, it has—I believe that this is the general feeling in the House—failed.
The Commission has recommended the repeal of the M'Naghten Rules. There is a great deal to be said for that, but it is not a fundamental change in the situation. The Commission has tried to discover whether it is possible to divide between two sorts of murder, but it has decided that it is impossible to do that, and I believe that that is correct. I believe that the House generally agrees that the Commission is correct. The Commission has recommended, though with no very great enthusiasm, an experiment at jury discretion. I do not feel much enthusiasm for that, and it does not appear that the House feels much enthusiasm either.
I believe, therefore, we are now faced with a situation in which something has got to be done. There is an obligation of honour to do something. An honest attempt has been made to find a halfway house, but it has failed. It is demonstrably untrue that catastrophic consequences will follow abolition. Much the simplest solution to the problem is that of abolition.
It is very important to solve the controversy, because the controversy itself is a very large part of the trouble. Nothing has made a greater contribution to keeping this country in an unhealthy condition than the simmering on of this wretched, miserable controversy. I do not think that anybody can doubt in his bones that abolition will come before long. The House would render a great service to the country if it expressed the opinion that it should go now.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Basil Nield.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. Basil Nield: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) divided his speech into two parts. In the first part he presented his
2106
case for the Amendment with great clarity, and in the second part he proceeded to discuss some of the proposals in the Report of the Royal Commission.
Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Something which occurred a moment ago aroused some interest, and I think the House would like your guidance. Once when I was charged with the duty of winding-up a Bill the Chair ruled that I could not be called if a Privy Councillor was on his feet, and the Table at that time informed me of the absolute rights of Privy Councillors. I do not believe in those absolute rights. However, what I want to know is why on one occasion the rule goes one way and on another occasion it goes another way. This is not a political matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) was on his feet when you called the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Privy Councillors are generally called when they rise. However, they have no right; it is a custom to call them.
Mr. Pannell: Is that in the Standing Orders?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not in the Standing Orders. The Chair is entitled to call whom it wishes; and I called the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester.
Mr. Nield: I hope the House will want to hear what I have to say, and I am very anxious to hear what the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) has to say in due course.
I was pointing out that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne divided his observations into two parts. I was about to say that I wished to make the major part of my speech upon the general proposals, or one aspect of them, in the Report. However, it is obviously proper, in my view, that I should express my own opinion upon the extremely important issue raised in the Amendment. The hon. Member uttered words to the effect that if it could be shown that the removal of the death penalty would have the effect of increasing the number of murders his objection to it would be swept away. Am I wrong in saying that?
Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. He has got it the wrong way round. I said that I should be prepared to tolerate the continuance of the death penalty if it could be shown that its retention prevented murders.
Mr. Nield: I do not think that that is very different from what I said. What the hon. Member means is that if, by abolishing the death penalty there is going to be an increase in these crimes, then nobody could tolerate it for a moment. Of course he takes that view. Of course my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) takes that view.
Some of us will have seen that only today some unfortunate woman has been foully strangled within a few miles of this House; and if we do anything which involves even a risk of increasing hideous offences of this kind, we clearly do the greatest disservice. It is because I am convinced that to do away with this penalty would, or might, increase the number of these capital offences, that I must oppose the Amendment.
It has been rightly said—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—that it is extremely difficult to prove whether the death penalty operates as a deterrent. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne made the same observation. On the other hand, those of us who, by reason of our calling, are brought into touch in the courts with these cases must form an opinion from our experience. All I can say is that it is my convinced view that this is the most compelling deterrent of all.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers rose—
Mr. Nield: May I finish this sentence. I do not want it to be thought that I am seeking to avoid any question?
I suggest one line of thought which is very important. It is that—again in my opinion, and it must be such—a great many criminals are deterred from carrying arms, because they know that if they do and, in an emergency use those arms, they may be faced with a capital charge.
Mr. Rogers: I should just like to know if the hon. and learned Member held the same view about the abolition of flogging.
Mr. Nield: I did not. My recollection, and I was a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the matter upstairs on the Criminal Justice Act, is that we were in a large measure in agreement on that aspect.
I should say that the final, ultimate, and most cogent of all deterrents is the contemplation of the death penalty. I think it right to express these views after, let it be said, many years experience in the courts and having been engaged in many of these cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, in his speech, pointed out that one important aspect of the Royal Commission's Report was that dealing with criminal responsibility on the part of those who are mentally abnormal. It is correct that in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Report the Commission discusses that question, and it is to that question that I desire to address myself now.
I should immediately say to the Home Secretary that I do so because I am not convinced that the provisional view, to which he has given voice on behalf of the Government, is right on this aspect of the matter. It has for a very long time been recognised that if a man, at the time of committing an unlawful act, is so mentally disordered that guilt ought not to be imputed to him, he ought not to be held liable to conviction and punishment under the criminal law. No one surely can deny that humanity requires that that should be so.
One recollects that the traditional definition of murder is that which comes from Coke in the 17th century. It starts with these words:
"When a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion unlawfully kills … with malice aforethought."
Of course, the phrase "of sound memory" sounds rather strange to modern ears, but I have no doubt that in the context in which it is used it means "of sound mind and understanding." It is thus implicit in the definition of the offence itself that only a person of sound mind ought to be convicted of the crime.
Under the present procedure, as hon. and learned Gentlemen will know, when a man is found insane, the jury is required to give a special verdict, which is that of guilty of the act but insane at the time. In my view, and I have held it for some time, that is not logical and

2109
I agree with the proposal contained in the Commission's Report that in such circumstances the verdict should be one of not guilty. A person found insane should be acquitted of the offence, there being retained, of course, the right of keeping the acquitted person under restraint—so long as his condition requires that to be done.
This may seem a somewhat small procedural matter, but I think that it will be recognised as one of principle. I hope that the Government may think it right to take steps to see that this matter is changed and that a verdict of not guilty is substituted for the present special verdict.
It will be realised that the law presumes a person to be sane until the contrary is proved. It is one of the few instances where the burden of proof is upon the accused person to establish his insanity, if that is his defence. Here, of course, is the real problem, because the range of mental abnormality may be from some minor eccentricity to mania. The fundamental and intensely perplexing problem is what must be proved in order to establish insanity, which would amount to a defence.
For well over 100 years the test which has been applied in the courts is the test laid down by what are called, I think inappropriately, the M'Naghten Rules. From these rules is drawn the test upon which every jury is directed in every case of this kind, and I dare say there may be many hon. Members who do not recall how these rules came into being.
The position is that a man called Daniel M'Naghten, who suffered from a delusion that he was being persecuted by Sir Robert Peel, shot and killed Sir Robert Peel's secretary, a Mr. Drummond, in mistake for Sir Robert Peel. He was tried for murder and acquitted on the ground of insanity, and the trial caused public concern. Thereupon, the House of Lords asked the judges of the day to express their opinion as to the criminal responsibility of those who suffered from insane delusions.
The judges did express their opinion, and it contained these words:
"To establish a defence upon the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to
2110
know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."
May I ask the House to notice this: from these rules which, as I say, have been the guide in these questions for so long, in fact, since 1843, it is clear that the fundamental requirement is that there should be shown to be a disease of the mind. I would suggest that is clearly right. It should remain so.
But the rules go on to say that, having established a disease of the mind, the defence must continue so as to prove a defect of reason of the sort described. It is around these words "defect of reason" that controversy has ranged over a number of years. Is it too strict a requirement? May there not be—and let me say that I am convinced there are—cases where a man knows the nature and quality of his act and knows that it is wrong, but, by reason of a disease of the mind, cannot prevent himself from committing it?
May there not be, not merely a defect of reason but a defect of will which should constitute a defence? In this connection it will be remembered, at any rate by my hon. and learned Friends, that it has been decided that an irresistible impulse, or an uncontrollable impulse, is not a defence, and I have always doubted the righteousness of that. Logically, if there be a disease of the mind which renders a man incapable literally of resisting an impulse, I cannot in logic see why that is not a defence. I ventured to say that in the evidence which I gave before the Royal Commission.
The M'Naghten Rules in this connection have been criticised by very distinguished persons and bodies of persons for a long time, along the lines that if a man is prevented by disease of the mind from controlling his own conduct, that should amount to a defence. It was Sir James Fitzjames Stephen who took this view very clearly in years gone by, and indeed for this there was judicial support; because one reads in the Commission's Report that in 1840 a man called Oxford was tried for shooting at Queen Victoria, and Lord Chief Justice Denman, directing the jury, said that the accused should be acquitted,
"if some controlling disease was, in truth, the acting power within him, which he could not resist."
That, I think, is a matter

2111
It will be within the recollection of some hon. Members that in 1922 the Lord Chancellor of the day set up a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Atkin, as he then was, to inquire into this problem. It is to be noticed that among the evidence called before that committee was evidence from the British Medical Association to the effect that a disease of the mind which rendered a man incapable of resisting or controlling his conduct should be a defence.
That committee reported to that effect when it said:
"It should be recognised that a person charged criminally with an offence is irresponsible for his act when the act is committed under an impulse which the prisoner was by mental disease in substance deprived of any power to resist."
No doubt the Commission whose Report we are considering was impressed by the evidence which they had upon this subject.
As it seems to me, the principal argument against any alteration of the M'Naghten Rules would appear to be this: they have worked well for a long time; they have been liberally interpreted, and indeed they have been stretched by the jury if circumstances appeared to require it. For my part—and I would urge my right hon. and gallant Friend to observe this—I feel that in a matter of this importance, when a man may either be acquitted or sentenced to death, the rules should be adequate to embrace the sort of case which I have put to the House; that liberal intepretation or stretching should not be necessary, but that the rules should cover it.
In this connection the Commission has presented two alternatives, the members of the Commission being divided in their views. On the one hand it is suggested by a minority that the M'Naghten Rules should be amended and extended so as to add that insanity is proved if disease of the mind renders the accused incapable of preventing himself from committing the offence.
On the other hand—and this is the recommended proposal; as it were, the preferred proposal—it is suggested that the M'Naghten Rules should be abrogated and the whole question left at large for the jury to say, looking at all the circumstances, if they find insanity or no. I
2112
am not able to support the latter proposal. I feel that a formula should be devised so that the jury may have an objective standard by which to decide the issue.
On the other hand, I certainly incline to the view that the most serious consideration should be given to the question of giving effect to the former alternative, namely, that a formula devised for the guidance of the jury be adopted, and the M'Naghten Rules extended in the way proposed by the Commission so as to include these other cases where, owing to disease of the mind, the mind does not go with the act, so that there is no offence. Were this change made, it might well be that it would provide a further protection for those whose mental affliction should in justice excuse them from criminal responsibility.
6. 19 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: I desire to intervene shortly in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
I think that we all start from one common ground of agreement, whatever view and whatever conclusion we may come to regarding the question of abolition or not. That is that there is something utterly repellent in the infliction of the death sentence. According to our particular inclinations we use words like "immoral," or "uncivilised," or "shocking," but broadly speaking what we are all pointing to, whatever adjective we may choose, is the fact that we are deeply disturbed at the idea that a human being is deliberately and solemnly done to death by the will of society, in whatever circumstances.
In his speech the Home Secretary used a word which I should like to borrow. It is a dangerous one, but I think that it is apposite in this context. He referred to the question of onus. His approach to the matter was that much as he disliked the death penalty—as I am sure we all do—he felt that it would be unsafe to abolish it unless he was certain that some equally effective deterrent could be put in its place.
Is not that really putting the onus in the wrong place? If we start from the assumption that there is a practice which is inherently barbaric, and which everybody, deeply and profoundly, feels ought

2113
to be dispensed with if it possibly can be, is not the only justification for its retention convincing and irrefutable proof that without it society would be seriously harmed?
In adopting the view which he has done, and which he says is that of the Government, the Home Secretary is really treating the Report of the Commission as if it had not been made. The question surely is whether the death sentence is such a unique deterrent that, inevitably, if it is dispensed with society must suffer harm and innocent victims be made sacrifices to murderous instincts on the part of individual miscreants.
It is upon that precise question that, after the most exhaustive investigation of all the evidence on both sides—including that consisting of what one might call personal reaction and personal conjecture and that consisting of statistics—the Report has come down in favour of the view that it is impossible to draw any conclusion of any validity as to the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent, and the relative possible effectiveness of alternative penalties.
I put it to the Home Secretary and to the House—because we are all proceeding to exercise our judgment on a free vote and independently, as we should in a matter of this sort—that that leaves the matter in this position: ex concessis here is something which is inherently horrible. Investigation has shown that it is impossible to draw any safe conclusion to justify it.
It is said that the death penalty is a very good deterrent. So far as I am aware, that is really the basic argument which is put forward in support of it. That is obviously what was uppermost in the minds of the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield). I think that everybody would accept that, broadly speaking, those people who believe in the retention of the death penalty test this question by asking themselves, "Is it or is it not a unique deterrent." The Report entirely cuts the ground from under the feet of those who believe in the death penalty for that reason.
Some hon. Members will agree with me, and others will violently disagree with me, that the final and ultimate test is not necessarily whether or not it is a
2114
deterrent. I do not believe that the fact that the death penalty may be a good deterrent is, of itself, necessarily and alone sufficient to justify its retention. If it were enough to justify barbarity to point to the fact that it was an effecive deterrent, it would surely be an equal justification for even more barbaric and severe penalties.
Nobody in this House or in the country would for a moment suggest that in order to provide the most effective of all deterrents we should reintroduce some form of physical torture. Indeed, if anybody made such a suggestion to those who most ardently believe in the retention of the death penalty, the reason why that suggestion would be rejected out of hand and with indignation would be that it was in itself uncivilised and abhorrent. But those are precisely the grounds upon which I protest against the death penalty.
Where is the line to be drawn? If the death penalty itself is uncivilised, why draw the line at the death penalty and say, "We shall accept that uncivilised thing, but we shall not proceed further and accept the infliction of sonic sort of physical pain which would be an even more effective deterrent"? That is why, at the outset, I do not accept the question of whether or not the death sentence is uniquely effective as a deterrent as being a conclusive test.
I urge the further consideration, which was developed by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), that one must measure against any advantage—if there is one—or any effective deterrent power in the case of the death penalty, the disadvantage which consists in the harm done to society by the infliction of the death sentence. This is a matter which depends upon personal impression and conjecture. On this point I certainly have with me the hon. Member for Devizes, whose reaction is entirely the same as my own and, I believe, the same as that of many people.
One has to consider what happens when a murder is committed. A manhunt begins; the people become enthralled by the fact that a man is being chased; the picture of the wretched creature sometimes appears in the newspapers—a horrid-looking object who is known by everybody to be at bay and running for his life; he is almost inevitably apprehended, and there is then

2115
a morbid interest as to what he will say. Then begins the battle in the courts, and the varying fortunes from day to day as the evidence points this way or that. Then there is the speculation as to what the jury's verdict will be, then the appeal, and after that the presentation of petitions bearing the signatures of those who sympathise with the convicted man.
Then, finally, come the ghastly and unutterable happenings of the night before and the morning upon which the man goes to his death. It is said that ordinary people are not conscious of all that, but we have only to go into any gathering of ordinary people to see them all bent over the newspapers, reading all the macabre details—and the spice of it is that a man's life is at stake. That is why all this is blazoned over the newspapers; that is why it is such excellent copy, and that, I suggest, is why it has a brutalising effect upon society.
One must approach matters of this sort with no hysteria, and it is doing a disservice to the House to overpaint the picture. I hope that no hon. Member thinks that I am doing so. I am trying not to. Our society is built up upon a sense of kindliness, of a dislike of the infliction of suffering, a hatred of brutality and the infliction of death.
These murders unfortunately happen from time to time, and the same procedure goes on each time. The whole account is given in the newspapers, and all the lurid and graphic details are drunk in by millions of people. My personal conjecture is that, in the long run, little by little, imperceptibly and without our being conscious of it, it is bound to blunt that sense of kindliness upon which our civilisation rests.
One has only to look back at the history of the last 50 years to realise what a delicate fabric civilisation is, and also to realise how utterly dangerous is anything which tends in the least to undermine the foundations on which that fabric rests. So I urge that consideration, as did the hon. Member for Devizes, as constituting a counter-balancing disadvantage that should be weighed in the scales, even if it is thought that it is shown and demonstrated that there is an advantage to society in the added effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent.
2116
One cannot look at it wholly in isolation. We must consider it in its context, and we must weigh the good, if any, and the bad that comes from it. I put it to the House that the bad outweighs, and I believe in the long run easily outweighs, the good. The evidence has been exhaustively examined already. The Commissioners state as their considered opinion that the statistical evidence is quite inconclusive. They might possibly, as an hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out, have gone a little further in the direction of saying that a conclusion can be drawn from it, because they point to the record obtained from States in America where conditions were comparable, in some of which there was a death penalty and in some of which there was not.
As they point out, in paragraph 64 of their Report, in those States there was, broadly speaking, a corresponding fluctuation in the figures of violent crime which seemed to exclude the operation of the death penalty as a really effective influence in determining the figures for violent crime. At any rate, they said that the figures, so far as the statistical side of the matter goes, will not lead to any result.
The rest of the evidence, I think one must describe it, without any offence to any of those who gave it, is evidence dependent on a purely subjective approach. It is a guess. The Royal Commission said that, in its considered view, the evidence, so far as it could tell, led to this conclusion: that, prima facie—and that means probably, or far from certain—the death penalty was a more effective deterrent than other penalties in the case of normal people.
In this House, we are normal but we are not the sort of people who are to be deterred. We are not inclined to crime. I put it to the House that that conclusion by the Royal Commission is one in the face of which it is unsafe for the Home Secretary or the Government to say that the death penalty ought to be retained because of its deterrent value.
I would also put this consideration before the House. I believe that a great deal depends on what society gets used to as the supreme penalty. At the moment, we are used to the death penalty as the supreme penalty, but suppose that we had no death penalty, and that instead it was recognised that all that lay before

2117
a murderer—a person who committed the worst of all crimes—was a long period of imprisonment, so long as really to terrify the ordinary person.
I think it may well be—again, I may be mistaken, and one cannot dogmatise on matters of this sort—that, once society had become accustomed to that as the supreme penalty, it would possess great and perhaps equally deterrent power, not because it was a long term of imprisonment, but because it had become accepted as the worst thing that society could do to one and the supreme penalty that could be imposed upon one.
When we discussed this matter in 1948, we were, after all, still in the shadow of the aftermath of the war. It had ended some three years before, and it is now 10 years since it ended. We have got back to peace-time habits and to the ethics of peace-time existence, so far as we ever shall for many years to come, and perhaps in our lifetime, because blood is still being spilt in many areas of the world at this very moment. That being so, it behoves society to make up its mind definitely whether it wants this penalty to go on. It is a proceeding which, by its character, is not one which can just be accepted as part of the normal course of events.
We cannot justify the death penalty because it is of long standing, and because it is that to which we are accustomed. If men are to lose their lives, they must lose their lives only as the result of the considered will and expressed and determined purpose of society, after carefully going into the matter. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne.
As the House will be aware, there is a similar Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of certain right hon. and hon. Friends of mine and myself, which is in identical terms, except that it omits reference to imprisonment for life as an alternative to the death sentence. That difference was deliberate, because it was our purpose to leave open the question of what the alternative should be. The Home Secretary has said, and many people think, that there is something even barbaric in a long period of imprisonment, such as must be inflicted on the worst criminals—poisoners and so on.
2118
Many people say that that is uncivilised in itself, and that they are not prepared to accept it. In our Amendment, we deliberately left open what the alternative should be. Obviously, it has to be long, but it need not necessarily be so long as to cause the deterioration of the culprit. At any rate, if the alternative sentence is long—and, of course, it must be long, and everybody accepts it—surely, it is a matter for prison reform so to alter the conditions in which the culprit would live during his years of imprisonment as to prevent them being such as to be likely to cause a breakdown in his spirit.
For these reasons, we put down this Amendment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne put down his Amendment, because, there being uncertainty as to the deterrent value of the death penalty, and that being the only justification, if there can be any justification for such a thing, we think that there should be a trial period in order that society may be able to resolve that uncertainty by its own experience.
The Home Secretary says that five years will not give us the answer we want. If so, let it be longer. Let it be 10 years. Let it be such period as can place society in a position in which, with confidence, it may answer the all-important problem which is before us. For these reasons, I very much hope that a majority of hon. Members will feel that it is their duty to go into the Division Lobby tonight in support of the Amendment.
6.39 p.m.
Sir Lionel Heald: I am sure that no one would for a moment doubt the sincerity and conviction of the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and those who are associated with him. I very much hope that, if I put forward a different and contrary view, I may have the same indulgence and leave of the House, since I speak with equal sincerity.
I have perhaps the advantage that, unlike most of those who have spoken so far, I have no previous record. There are others, of course, who have, and I think that it is perhaps rather significant that there is this difference of opinion, this changing of mind. It seems to show that people's minds on this subject and in this House are still in a state of flux.

2119
That, I think, is a matter which we ought to take into account when considering the Amendment, because I feel it is necessary to bring the House back for a moment or two to the Amendment.
We have really heard very little at all about the Amendment. Most of the discussion today—and certainly some very interesting, attractive, stimulating and moving things have been said—has been on the question of whether capital punishment should be abolished or not. The Amendment expressly and carefully refrains from suggesting any such thing as that. It is said that there is to be an experiment. Therefore, I very respectfully venture to warn hon. Members who have not made up their minds upon the question—and I think that there is quite a number of them here—that they should be very careful what they are doing when they come to vote this evening. After all, it is to them that the arguments should be addressed today.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne does not want a five-year experiment. He wants capital punishment abolished now. The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend does not want an experiment. He is convinced about it. We have only to listen to him to realise that. Then there are those, on the other side, whom nothing will convince that it should be abolished. But the people interested in the subject this evening are those who have not made up their minds, and, quite frankly, the appeal of the Amendment—if it is to appeal to hon. Members in that position—must be on the basis that the five-year experiment is going to do something. I ask the House to consider quite calmly and quite dispassionately what it is going to do.
The object, normally, of an experiment is to gain experience. What is the experience that we shall have gained at the end of five years? Does anybody seriously think that the next five years are going to produce statistics of any greater assistance than those which we now have? Thinking about it in, perhaps, a more concrete form than we have been hearing about it in the last hour or two, what are we really going to have before us at the end of five years which will help us to make up our minds any more than we can now?
2120
We are going to have five years' time, but we shall not get five years' experience, because, after all, some of the best murders of 1955 may well have been committed already, and in the last year there will, perhaps, be a different consideration in the minds of some people. We are told by the Report that interesting and useful figures are those of crimes of murder believed to be murder by the police. Whether that is a good and reliable thing or not, it is, at any rate, something which the Commission thought useful. I find that over four years those figures were 173, 141, 147 and 119.
What do those sort of figures teach us? Those being the sort of figures—suppose we have A, B, X and Y—which we shall take over four years of the experiment, what inference is anybody going to draw from them? None whatever. If one looks at the figures of the convicted for the same period, we find 30, 25, 36 and 28—no trend of any kind in the four years before the Commission's Report. No information is provided by those figures.
So what position are we going to find at the end of the five years? We may possibly have some statements alleged to have been made by convicted people or something that somebody thought of from talking to them or from looking at them, or the report of some psychiatrist. What position are we going to be in? We shall be in the position that we shall not be able to form any judgment at all from statistics, as the Report of the Commission shows that it was not. What is going to happen then?
I suggest that we ought to think of the speech which would be made in 1960 by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend. Cannot hon. Members hear him getting up and saying, "What right has the House to put back this dreadful thing which we have taken away unless it can prove it is necessary to put it back?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to hon. Members because by their applause they are making my point so clearly. What we are going to do by this Amendment, if it is accepted, is to create a fait accompli. [Interruption.] If any of my hon. Friends had any doubt as to the object of the Amendment, they have now had the answer given to them.
Mr. S. Silverman: I respectfully suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he got it the wrong way round.

2121
If we were to abolish capital punishment altogether in 1955, and wanted to reimpose it in 1960, then, indeed, we should have to do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. But if this Amendment, or legislation to implement this Amendment, were carried, then, in 1960, the death penalty would be automatically restored unless the House of Commons or Parliament intervened to extend the period.
Sir L. Heald: I think that the House took my point, and hon. Members opposite have saved me time in making it any further.
There is another point of a more general character I wish to mention, which is that in this country we have never taken kindly to experimental legislation. It is not the work of statesmen, but of mere politicians. Some of us have had experience of what happens when experiments have to be unscrambled. It very often produces some most unsatisfactory results, into which I cannot go further at the present time.
Experimental legislation carries in its train the necessity for other experiments, and I should like to know, in due course, whether my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary would be able to give an assurance that, if the experiment were put into force, he could be certain that he would not have to arm the police. That, I think, is the sort of consideration that one has to bear in mind. If we are going to try experiments, then let both sides take part in them, because, otherwise, we might find ourselves taken somewhat to task by the people of the country.
I have spoken as regards the negative practical effect, and I would just add the point that no Home Secretary, and no one with any administrative experience of this matter, has suggested that we should get any valuable information or experience from such an experiment. That is an interesting fact. After all, if the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who gave a slight indication of the way in which the weathercock was turning—although he did not say anything very definite—had felt that this would be a really valuable and useful experiment which would produce material upon which the House of Commons might be helped to make up its mind, would he not have said so very clearly? Perhaps which-
2122
ever of my right hon. Friends replies to this debate may be able to give us a little information on that point. I hope that he will.
As regards the question of the onus of proof, I would remind the House of what was said on that subject in the previous debate, which sums up what I want to say in the clearest possible way, when Sir John Anderson, as he then was, dealt with the subject. He had been asked whether this was something which would give assistance in arriving at a conclusion. This is what he said:
"As regards the proposal that abolition of the capital sentence should be tried for a period of five years, to that I am absolutely opposed. I do not believe that it can provide any useful lesson."
He went on to say:
"I should regard it merely as an evasion of the real issue, an evasion which would quite subtly shift the onus of proof from where it ought to be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April. 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1005.]
That is what I was saying before, and it certainly is not an original thought of my own.
The same thing was put into words by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt in another place. He said:
"But, whatever the conclusion we ultimately reach on that problem"—
that is on the question and the abolition of the death penalty,
"I feel that we must face up to that problem frankly and boldly, and must not try to arrive at the abolition of capital punishment by a mere side issue or subterfuge."—[OFFICIAL R4EPORT, House of Lords, 16th December, 1953; Vol. 185, c. 150.]
I venture to suggest that it would be a matter for very wide consideration as to whether intentionally or not, it does not matter, the Amendment is not a mere subterfuge. It is not a matter of conscience in any way when we are considering whether or not an experiment is worthwhile. It is a matter of conscience as to whether we vote in favour of the abolition of capital punishment or against it.
Tonight no one will expect for a moment those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in favour of the Amendment to vote in any other way except one. I certainly do not expect anything I say to have the slightest effect upon them. But I do say that anyone who has not made up his mind on this

2123
subject ought to think very carefully indeed before he accedes to the temptation of easing his conscience by saying, "That is all right; we can let it run for five years."
I do not believe that it is a question of letting it run for five years at all. I believe, as has been stated quite widely outside this House by representative organs of public opinion, that it is merely an illusion to think that this is an experiment. It is an attempt, quite genuine and perfectly proper, to take the House by storm tonight on this Amendment.
If hon. Members are prepared to accept in principle the total of it—permanent abolition of capital punishment—then of course they are perfectly right in supporting the Amendment. But if they are not, then I say they have no right whatever to vote in favour of it.
6.55 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I think that the principal point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) was dealt with by the intervention of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). If his emphasis is on the onus of proof—and he made a big point of that—I say that I feel that the onus of proof is on those who want to hang a man.
As to his other point about the five years—I admit it quite frankly—I hope that in those five years there will be a good deal of public discussion before any irrevocable step is taken. I go further and say that if the right hon. and learned Member or any other hon. Member is not satisfied that five years is a long enough period, it might not be asking too much if they would seek to amend it and let us have a longer period.
In the Report of the Royal Commission, the members come down as near as they can, at every stage, in favour of advocating abolition, but they could not do so because of their terms of reference. Not being able to do that, they resisted the temptation, but they came to their most important finding in paragraph 65. I was surprised that the Home Secretary did not refer to that at any time in his speech. I would remind the House that the last words in paragraph 65 go to the root of the matter because a great deal in the speeches we have heard has been on
2124
whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not.
The Report states:
"The general conclusion which we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate, or that its reintroduction has led to a fall."
That, surely, is the most important sentence in the whole Report. Is it surprising that the Commission should have come to that conclusion? After all, in the debate today, we have had affirmation from the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) that, in his opinion, capital punishment is a deterrent. But we have had no one seeking to argue or bring evidence to that effect. What evidence has come before us has been in accordance with the findings of the Royal Commission.
We have the fact that we should not think of potential murderers reacting to deterrents as do ordinary men. We know that one half of the men and women tried for murder each year are found to be insane. We must remember, too, in connection with this word "insane, "that Christie was—to put it mildly—a trifle odd but not legally insane. They are not ordinary normal people.
Secondly, we have had pointed out the fact that in the course of the last 130 years or 140 years we have had a change, in that capital punishment used to be applicable to more than 200 crimes, and as the deterrent of capital punishment has been lifted from those offences they have not increased; they have declined in number.
We have had reference made to flogging. The fact is that since flogging was abolished those offences which were previously floggable have also declined in number. We have the illustration, which was given in the Report, of the adjoining States in the United States, Rhode Island and Massachusetts are next door to each other. In Rhode Island, there is no death penalty. In Massachusetts, there is a death penalty. The racial origin of the people and type of communities in the two States are indistinguishable one from the other.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: No.
Mr. de Freitas: I know both States well, as does the hon. Gentleman. Does

2125
he say that Rhode Island is very different from Massachusetts?
The fact is that in both States the murder rate is almost exactly the same, and it has been so since 1920. If we take two other States, New Hampshire and Maine, which are also States next door to each other, with a State line between which has nothing to do with history or race or anything except the incidence of settlement, we find the same. One State has capital punishment and the other State has not. Again, the trends are almost the same.
In the face of that evidence, of the arguments that have been advanced, and of the concluding sentence of the paragraph which I have just read, to the effect that the Commission came to the conclusion, after examining all the evidence, that there was no evidence that the abolishment of capital punishment had led to any increase in the homicide rate how can it be said that it is a deterrent? We require the discharge of a heavy burden of proof.
I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with one point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey, because it worries me. The point is whether the police would be in danger if this experiment were carried out. We can only go on what evidence we have, to show whether, when capital punishment has been abolished, there has been an increase in armed robbery or in the carrying of arms by robbers.
In paragraph 255, the Select Committee says:
"We have had no evidence … that after the abolition of capital punishment in other countries there has been any increase in the number of burglars arming themselves."
I should like the Home Secretary to deal with the point because it is important.
I make no apology for supporting the proposed experiment. I have said why. No one has produced evidence that there is a possible disadvantage to the community. I know that we are a unique country, but I cannot see that we are so unlike other countries that we should be the one exception to all the others, and that if capital punishment were abolished for this short period we should run the risk of increased violence during those five years.
And there would be the possible advantage—we cannot put it higher than
2126
that—that some innocent man or woman who might otherwise be executed would have his life. We have heard references today to the case of Evans. There are other cases in recent years which have caused a good deal of disquiet. In view of the awful finality of the death penalty, this experiment is justified. There is no evidence that there would be any increase in murders in the five years, and we are quite certain that during the five years no innocent person would be executed.
Mr. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman is supporting this proposal as a five-year experiment?
Mr. de Freitas: That is so.
Mr. Osborne: What type of evidence would the hon. Member like at the end of that five years to justify the reimposing of the death penalty?
Mr. de Freitas: I do not believe that I can go much further than what I have said earlier. In those five years there will be a good deal more public discussion. I mean that. I want public discussion. I do not think the public understand the full implications of the matter, and the reasons for and against.
Mr. Osborne: It is important to those of us who are not absolutely certain about what to do to have an answer on this point. After those five years of experiment, and if the hon. Gentleman has not made up his mind conclusively, what evidence would he like from the statistics of those five years to convince him that it is necessary to go back to where we are today?
Mr. de Freitas: I have made up my mind on quite different grounds in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, but I believe there should be a period of public discussion of the matter.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who seconded the Amendment, referred to one or two European countries. That was an important point. I came face to face with the attitude of other Europeans when I had to help European lawyers to draft a Convention on Extradition which covered capital offences. One of the complications was the acute repugnance that those Continental lawyers had for anything to do with the death penalty.

2127
Many Continental countries have clauses in their extradition treaties saying that they will not extradite anyone if he is to be charged with offences which involve the capital penalty. In the case of Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, the Saar, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Italy Switzerland and Portugal, we find that not one of those countries has capital punishment. We should consider whether we differ so much in culture and outlook from the Scandinavian countries and Holland that we could not learn by their experience. Surely it cannot be said that we are any more industrially overcrowded or have greater social problems than Belgium. Belgium has much greater overcrowding and greater industrial concentration than we have. Surely we have something to learn.
Let us look at the negative side. We find ourselves in these islands bracketed with Spain and France as the only two countries in Western Europe which still have capital punishment. Surely that must make us think about the matter. It is no accident that it was during the time of Mussolini's Government in Italy that capital punishment was reintroduced by the Fascists. The Fascist Minister of Justice said, in reintroducing it, that he was not doing so because of statistical evidence of any value, but because it conformed to the whole spirit of Fascism. I do not want to press that point too far.
I support this Amendment because of the delicate balance of civilisation to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) referred, and because in this age of mass destruction—
Mr. Osborne: There is still capital punishment in Russia.
Mr. de Freitas: Of course. They have it in many totalitarian countries. I am delighted that my Lincolnshire neighbour has appreciated one of my points, which is that it exists in countries where the State seeks complete domination over the people. That is why the first thing the Italians did after the war, 'when the Fascist régime had gone, was to abolish the death penalty. That is why it was abolished in Germany immediately after the war.
In an age of mass destruction, and especially in the age of the hydrogen
2128
bomb, it is important that we should treasure anything which makes us regard human life as the greatest and most precious thing there is, as something which the State should not be permitted in any circumstances to take away.
7.8 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: I find myself very largely in agreement with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). I am particularly impressed by his reference to the concluding sentence of paragraph 65 of the Report about the effect of the abolition and the reintroduction of capital punishment on the homicide figures.
The hon. Member and myself have both served on the legal committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. I can endorse from personal experience what he said about the absolute and violent repugnance of most Continental lawyers to the death penalty. It is not so strange that I should feel as the hon. Member does, because I am proposing to speak in support of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), to which I have already put my name on the Order Paper. Before doing so, I want to say a brief word about the Report itself.
It is a very remarkable Report, particularly in its appendices. I am certain that it will be regarded for many years to come as a most important and valuable reference work on the great, controversial subject of capital punishment.
As the Report points out, there is perhaps no single class of offences which differs so much in character and culpability as that of murder as defined in our law. The murderers may be men, women, youths, girls, or they may be hardly older than children. They may be normal, feeble-minded, neurotic or insane. The crime may be understandable or pitiable or, on the other hand, callous or brutal. It may be unpremeditated or very carefully planned, or it may be committed in the course of carrying out another crime. There may be no murderous intent at all and the death of the victim may depend on an accident. Yet by the ancient doctrine of constructive malice, of which we have already heard something tonight, the killing is legally murder.

2129
Finally the underlying motives may show a wide range of human emotions, such as cupidity, revenge, fear, lust, jealousy, anger, and even political fanaticism, as I know from my experience in Ireland. Or there may be no intelligible motive at all. Yet for all these varieties of murder our courts today have no alternative but to pronounce sentence of death once the accused has been found guilty by a jury. And unlike some other countries where capital punishment is still imposed, such as the United States of America, there are no degrees of murder in the United Kingdom. Our law still demands a life for a life as it did in primitive times, regardless of the circumstances.
Of course, the law does not always get a life for a life, and that is due to two particularly mitigating factors. The first of these is the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy. If we look at the figures given in the Report of the number of murders between 1900 and 1950, we see that, so far as males convicted of murder were concerned, about 40 per cent. were reprieved and, so far as women, about 90 per cent. The details are all given in the Fourth Appendix to the Report with some interesting and striking examples. Then there is the second mitigating factor of the reluctance of juries in certain cases to see the death penalty passed. The Report quotes two distinguished judges—Lord Justice Denning and the Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard—referring to the fact that juries have refused to bring in a conviction where they have not thought it appropriate, although their verdict might be contrary to the facts of the case.
It has appeared from the interesting debate we have had so far this evening that there is a fairly widespread feeling in this country that the supreme penalty should be reserved for the more heinous offences. The Royal Commission has made a number of recommendations to which reference has been made. There is the proposal to abolish the doctrine of constructive malice, which is an ancient doctrine but which has now been completely outgrown by the needs of modern times. Then there is the proposal that the defence of provocation should also include a case where provocation is by words alone. Thirdly, it is suggested that the survivor of a suicide pact should
2130
not be regarded as guilty of murder unless he or she killed the other party.
I do not imagine that great exception can be taken to those relatively minor but by no means unimportant proposals. The proposal for the raising of the age at which an individual can suffer capital punishment from the age of 18 to 21 is perhaps more controversial. Of a major character are the proposals which were referred to in a particularly striking speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield), to revise the M'Naghten Rules in cases of insanity or mental abnormality.
Of the two proposals, it certainly seems preferable that, rather than sweep away the M'Naghten Rules altogether, there should be an additional proviso which brings in the conception of irresistible or uncontrollable impulse. A recent case which is in the minds of everyone in this House is that of Straffen, a young man who went to Broadmoor having killed one girl and, having broken out of Board-moor, proceeded to kill another little girl. There is no doubt that Straffen was fully conscious of the nature and quality of his act and that he knew that what he was doing was wrong. In that respect the M'Naghten Rules did not cover his case, but it was demonstrated to be perfectly clear that Straffen was an individual of a very low mental standard, and it would have been a monstrous miscarriage of justice to carry out the death penalty which was passed on him at Winchester Assizes.
Finally, there is the most controversial proposal in the Report, that which leaves to the jury a discretion, once the accused has been convicted, to decide whether there are any extenuating circumstances. The general opinion, which has been expressed tonight, was summed up in the leading article on the subject in "The Times" this morning, that this proposal may be taken as still-born.
The real issue, which is brought out strongly at paragraph 611 of the Report and has already been quoted, is whether capital punishment ought to be retained or abolished. If it is agreed that it should be abolished or suspended for a trial period, then all these other recommendations, admirable in their way, are not really necessary. Since, however, the Royal Commission was expressly precluded from considering the question of

2131
whether capital punishment ought to be abolished or not, in the circumstances it did the best job it could in establishing what has been called a half-way house.
This issue as to whether we abolish capital punishment or not is one which must be faced, however, and we must face it tonight. I propose to face it by going into the Lobby in support of the Amendment to suspend the death penalty for a trial period of five years. Let me say straight away that I have been impressed by the arguments from this side of the House that suspension for this trial period might be tantamount to abolition. The matter was very clearly stated in the leading article in "The Times" of today, which said:
"In practice, suspension and abolition are identical. If either was followed by—and considered by Parliament to have caused—a notable increase of murders, it would be necessary to repeal it without waiting five years; if there was no such increase the Act of suspension could as well be permanent, since nobody wants to preserve the death penalty for its own sake."
I have no intention of traversing the familiar ground of argument in any detail for or against capital punishment. I will content myself with stating briefly why I am against it and why I am in favour of the Amendment. This is a matter to which I have given considerable thought over a period of some years.
In the first place, I am not satisfied that capital punishment is a truly effective deterrent or has the unique deterrent effect which is claimed for it by its advocates. Those who support it claim that without the death penalty there would be an increase in murders, and those include—and our attention has been drawn to this by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary—the police, prison officers and some judges whose views are summarised in paragraph 61 of the Report. I must say that I am not impressed by this argument at all.
Similar arguments were put forward in the last century when it was proposed to abolish hanging for such offences as stealing 5s., cutting one's name on Westminster Bridge or impersonating an outpatient of Guy's Hospital. On the occasion of the proposal to abolish the death penalty for those offences. the then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Ellen-borough in another place, declared that
2132
if this Measure were allowed to pass into law, no man's property would be safe.
On the contrary, I think that experience has proved that the death penalty is not more effective in preventing murder than other penalties which can be substituted. such as life imprisonment. I know that some previous speakers have alluded to life imprisonment in certain circumstances as causing a deterioration in the prisoner's constitution. On that, I think it is worth while looking at what Mr. Pinker, of the Central After-Care Association, said in examination before the Royal Commission, in paragraph 655 of the Report:
"In the old days, if a man had served 10 years, I think there was a very great danger of his becoming institutionalised. … Under present conditions I think that a man could serve 10 years in one of our modern prisons and go out and fit in with modern conditions quite easily."
That view has been supported by the Howard League for Penal Reform, who consider that a prisoner could be detained for even longer than 10 years without any ill effect.
The value of deterrents can be assessed in two ways, first of all as it affects the individual, and secondly, as it affects the crime rate in general. On its effects on the individual, the Report has something interesting to say in paragraph 59:
"We have been told that the first thing a murderer says when he is arrested is often, 'Shall I be hanged?' or 'I did it and I am ready to swing for it, ' or something of that kind. What is the inference to be drawn from this? Clearly not that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, for he has not been deterred; nor that he consciously considered the risk of the death penalty and accepted it …"
On the second question, that of general deterrents, we should look at the experience of other countries, as the hon. Member for Lincoln said. All the major European countries, with the exception of France, have abolished capital punishment, as also have certain of the United States of America and certain of the Commonwealth countries. When evidence was given before the Select Committee which considered this matter some years ago, the Belgian Ministry of Justice representative said:
"The average of capital sentences has never been higher than it was during the period when the instrument of capital punishment was actually in use. … The lesson has been learnt that the best means of inculcating respect for human life is to refrain from taking life in the name of the law."

2133
More recently, before the Royal Commission, Dr. Paul Cornil, the Secretary-General of the Belgian Ministry of Justice, referred in his very interesting evidence to a series of robberies with murder which occurred quite recently and for which the death penalty was demanded in his country. The Secretary-General explained that the then Minister of Justice refused to accede to this demand, and then he said:
"And then a strange thing occurred. Almost suddenly that series of robberies died away without any apparent cause. … Whenever I relate this incident I cannot refrain from pointing out how narrowly we escaped a grave danger. Suppose for a moment that this man … had been put to death, and then that special kind of crime had disappeared almost immediately, what a victory for the advocates of capital punishment! They certainly would not have hesitated to conclude that this improvement was due to the deterrent effect of capital punishment, and it is quite probable that the death penalty for the common law criminal would have been reinstated and retained for a long time."
I only want to refer to one other person who appeared before the Royal Commission, and that is Professor Sellin of the United States who has made a special study of murder statistics all over the world. He gave as his conclusion that whether the death penalty is used or not, both death penalty States and abolition States show rates which suggest that their rates are conditioned by other factors than the death penalty.
That brings me back to the sentence from the Report which the hon. Member for Lincoln quoted—the sentence to the effect that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures which have been examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its reinroduction has led to a fall. That is all I wish to say on the subject of deterrents.
There are two or three other reasons which have actuated me to feel as I do on the subject. One is the reason to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Lincoln, namely the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, the possibility that an innocent man may go to the gallows. I am prepared to admit that this possibility is remote, even that it is very remote, but I do not think it can be dismissed. Until human judgment becomes infallible, there will always be a certain risk of an innocent person being hanged so long as we retain the death penalty for murder.
2134
Take the case of Oscar Slater, who was condemned to death in 1909 for a murder which he did not commit. Admittedly Oscar Slater was reprieved, but for weeks his life hung by a thread and he spent 19 years in prison before his innocence was conclusively established.
There are other cases—not very many of them, but there are other cases—one of which has already been mentioned, which are not free from doubt. There is the case of Timothy Evans, of which I will say little, because the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) mentioned it in his very interesting speech. I will say nothing of it beyond this: had I been a member of the jury which sat at the trial of Timothy Evans in 1950, and had I known the true facts about Mr. Christie, I might have hesitated before concurring in the verdict of "Guilty."
There is also the case of Norman Thorne, who was convicted of murdering his girl friend in 1925. His defence was that she had committed suicide and that in a fit of panic he had buried her body. Three expert witnesses gave very striking evidence confirming the suicide theory. But, in spite of that, Norman Thorne was hanged. Then there was the case of Walter Rowland, the murder in an air-raid shelter in Manchester in 1947. Rowland was executed in spite of the fact that another man confessed to the crime, subsequently withdrew his confession, but was convicted of another murder, found insane and sent to Broadmoor.
Reference has been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), to the effect of executions on prisoners and prison staffs, and in this connection a former Home Secretary, Lord Templewood, said that in his opinion
"there is no doubt that, in spite of much official evidence to the contrary, executions have a most disturbing effect upon the inmates of a prison, whether staff or prisoners."
If anyone wants to know what that effect is like, in my humble judgment he cannot do better than read the moving verses in "The Ballad of Reading Gaol." Although they were written 60 years ago, they are as true today as they were in 1896.
There is one other point which has not been mentioned, and that is the effect of executions on the relatives of executed persons. It inflicts the most terrible suffering on the innocent relatives of a con-

2135
demned person. The late Stacey Aumonier, the writer, put it like this:
"Have you ever tried to visualise the feelings of a mother on the night before her boy is to be hanged? (and no crime is going to kill maternal love; rather it will make greater claims on the protective instinct). The agony and horror which you and I, representing the State, must inflict upon this perfectly innocent woman must be more terrible than any pain the murderer can inflict upon his victim. And as with the mother, so may it be with the wife, the lover, the sister, the father, the brother, the children and even the loyal friend. To all these people life must become numbed and meaningless at the time, and for ever after a haunted wilderness where the demons of revenge for ever lurk."
I can bear that out from personal experience from my conversations with the father of Derek Bentley, whose life has been ruined by the terrible affair in which his son was involved and whose wife has had a complete nervous breakdown.
It may be said, "What of the murdered person's relatives?" But how can capital punishment alleviate their suffering? A second death cannot undo the first. Capital punishment does nothing for the murdered person's relatives. But to reorganise our prison industries and make the murderer work in prison to help to support his victim's dependants, as is done in Sweden, would be a much more sensible way of showing sympathy with the murdered person's relatives than merely advocating vindictive punishment.
I come to my conclusions. Tonight I will go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and others who support his Amendment, with a clear conscience. I am convinced that the retention of capital punishment is a retrograde action today and I believe in my heart that suspension for this trial period of five years would be a great step forward along the road of civilisation and humanity. I am certain that it is only a matter of time before we in the United Kingdom follow the more enlightened example of most Continental countries and relegate the hangman and the horrible tools of his trade to the barbarous past.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I have listened anxiously and carefully to the very long speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Belfast. North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde). Although he made his
2136
observations very well and as a forensic effort it was much to be admired, his speech has left me in the position of being unable to detect any cogent ground that justifies support of the Amendment.
The House should recognise the context in which we are having the debate on the Amendment. In the ordinary way, in a debate on the Report itself, there would be no vote at all. What we should do, quite properly, would be to scrutinise the contents of the Report and make suggestions and criticisms in order that the Government might have guidance; but the one thing which would not happen normally would be a vote.
What is the essential issue which confronts the House in this debate? Not this Report at all, but the Amendment which has been put down because an opportunity has been taken, through the present debate on the Report, to resuscitate a discussion which we had in 1948. As I shall show in a moment, there is no vestige of reason why we should change the opinion which the House finally then registered.
Mr. Paget: Hear, hear.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: Unless we can show that public opinion has changed between then and now, or some other good reason, we have no right, because of some sentiment, to do what we individually would like to see done and completely ignore what public opinion wants.
Mr. Paget rose—
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I will not give way. There is not much time. A good deal of time has been taken already.
We heard a speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice)—a most attractive pronouncement—but am I not right when I say that the appeal which he made was more to the heart than to the head? How did he approach it? I sympathise with him. I should not like anyone to think that I had not got feelings of humanity and mercy. Of course, "humanity" and "mercy" are holy words, but mercy should season justice and not weaken it. That is the aspect of it to which we must come.
What did my right hon. and learned Friend do? His whole case was based upon this sort of reasoning, and anyone

2137
who looks at HANSARD tomorrow will be able to confirm it. He said that the death sentence is repellent. We all agree that it is repellent, but what I say is that murder is also repellent. What we are faced with is not only the question of the death sentence being repellent but the question whether the death sentence has something of a deterrent nature which makes what is even more repellent—murder—less likely to happen.
My right hon. and learned Friend then said that we are confronted with the terrible picture that human beings are being killed by society. He said not a word about human beings being killed by other human beings. That sort of argument and that sort of sentiment will not really do in a grave matter of this kind when the House is not so much sitting as a popular assembly, as it usually is, but when, as it has to on occasion, it has changed its role and becomes, as it were, a judge in the matter.
Let us look at the next thing that my right hon. and learned Friend said. He urged us to picture the plight of the culprit, and he drew a picture of a hapless individual under the terrible ordeal of the death sentence. But what about the unfortunate victim and the victim's bereaved family?
My right hon. and learned Friend then went on to say that when these things happen we get gatherings of people and we see a morbid interest being taken by them in the murder which has occurred. I can think of another gathering. I can think of the melancholy gathering of the family of the murdered man. That surely must be considered as well. The conjuring up of the sentimental ideas to which I have referred really will not do. My right hon. and learned Friend said that ours is a society which is based on non-brutality. Certainly, and if we can prevent murder from happening, we are enforcing that very principle. What the House has to consider tonight is whether we shall contribute to brutality by removing the death sentence, instead of doing the contrary.
The most compelling test to decide the matter of suspending capital punishment has not really been developed tonight. It has been argued that there are no figures, or any evidence even to indicate that capital punishment is a deterrent. I beg to differ. I hope in a moment to demon-
2138
strate that there is very concrete and definite evidence in figures. The important thing that we have to consider in this respect is crimes of violence, and by that I include murder, which is the major crime of violence, but that is only a matter of degree. We must take into consideration all kinds of violence, because that is an element which is important in considering the question of the removal of the death penalty.
There has been a steady rise in the number of crimes of violence. I will give the House the figures, and I beg it to observe the steady rise because I believe this to be the crucial test of the whole question. The figures are: 1948, 3,183; 1949, 3,303; 1950, 3,839; 1951, 3,929; 1952, 4,127; and 1953, 4,285. The figures for 1954 are not yet available.
This is a responsible assembly, and hon. Members are here to protect the public and not to satisfy any personal sentiments that they may have about this matter. Let us start from that point. It seems to me that if we are dealing with murder and the removal of the sentence for murder, we have to look at the rest of the crimes of violence and see what effect they have on the question of murder and capital punishment. The figures which I have given include murder, manslaughter, wounding and other offences of violence against the person. I have given the House the figures which disclose a scale which is definitely upward. If we take the extreme figures we find that there is an advance of well over 1, 000.
Now let us look at the figures for murder. In 1948 there were 40 cases; in 1949, 33; 1950, 38; 1951, 22; 1952, 41; and 1953, 26. Again, the figures for 1954 are not yet available.
I submit that the question of the suspension of the death penalty cannot be separated from the question of the position as regards crimes of violence. It is clear on the official figures I have quoted that there has been a decline in the number of murders. Surely I am entitled to say that if there has been a decline in the number of murders, then capital punishment apparently has some deterrent effect, because it is perfectly clear on the other hand that imprisonment has not deterred crimes of violence other than murder, because the figures for other crimes of violence have all gone up steadily.
Mr. Ede: As I said in my speech, the convictions for the crimes of violence which were formerly punishable by flogging have gone down with the lowering of the penalty. The hon. and learned Gentleman is giving us the number of convictions for murder. It would have been interesting if he had given us the figures of murders known to the police.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not see the point of his intervention. I was dealing purely with the statistics for crimes of violence. I was not referring to crimes which were subject to flogging or anything of that kind at all.
I am dealing merely with the fact that the figures show a steep rise in the number of crimes of violence. I ask the House to note that it is quite obvious that imprisonment has had no deterrent effect on acts of violence. That is shown by the increase. Murder, however, has gone down. I am in my submission, therefore, entitled to argue that, as murder has gone down, there is some sort of deterrent somewhere, and I am entitled to believe on the facts that the deterrent is capital punishment. After all, death is the strongest deterrent, and there is no reason to suppose that it does not exert its dreadful influence in this lethal sphere. That appears to me to be an absolutely reasonable deduction to make.
Mr. Paget: Will my hon. and learned Friend tell us with what penalties we started?
Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is surely axiomatic that, as long as crimes of violence are upward, no legislative body responsible for public security and order could weaken the sanctions of the criminal law. We have no other interest in this grave matter except to do what is right.
Let us look at the serious problem of penology that will arise, if capital punishment is abolished. I put it to the House that we shall have to revise the whole penal scale. That may sound a very tall order, but it will nevertheless have to be done, because otherwise there would be such a disparity between the penalty for murder and the penalties for lesser crimes that the public would not tolerate the position of disproportionate scales of punishment.
2140
It must be obvious to hon. Members that the penalty for murder must be much more severe than the penalty for other crimes. In that context it is proposed, instead of having capital punishment, to substitute imprisonment for life, or, as it is put in the Report, during Her Majesty's pleasure. What does that mean? The answer, as will be found in this country and everywhere else. is that the offender will usually serve nine years' imprisonment at the most, and probably less.
I can give the House two cases in 1949, one where in the case of murder only four years was served and another in which only five years was served. It is on record that since 1949 no sentence, as a rule, has been longer than nine years. The reason is clear and reference to it has already been made. It is that such is the effect, of moral and physical deterioration, on the individual concerned that it would be cruelty and torment to allow the sentence to go beyond that period of confinement.
If it were made more severe than that, it would be substituting a punishment worse than capital punishment. It is accordingly, the duty of the House to compare this period of four to nine years' imprisonment with that given for other crimes. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when he was Home Secretary, introduced a very valuable Criminal Justice Act under which there were several important penal reforms. One of them created what is now known as preventative detention.
That is used in cases where there is such a persistent criminal that it is perfectly clear that, unless he is put away for a considerable time, he will be a menace to the public. He has to be sent to prison for a long term so that the public may be protected. It is quite common now, as those who are concerned with the administration of criminal law know, and as those who read their newspapers can easily ascertain, to send people to preventative detention for 10 years, or even longer.
Preventive detention may be for a series of crimes, such as housebreaking and breaking and entering premises, but all definitely below the gravity of murder. That is frequently happening and indeed it is necessary, because, as I have said, these people have to be put away so that

2141
the public may be protected. In manslaughter cases sentences of 10 to 14 years' imprisonment are in proper cases imposed. Look at the case of fraud. One does not like to recall unhappy memories, but the House will recall only recently that there was one familiar case where seven years' imprisonment was given. It is not many years ago when a sentence of imprisonment for fraud of 14 years was imposed. I do not want to mention names, because it would be cruel to do it. For housebreaking, particularly where there is the carrying of arms, the Court has to impose a very severe sentence indeed.
Is it right therefore in these circumstances to do away with capital punishment and substitute imprisonment for life and put murder in the same scale as these other crimes to which I have referred? That really is the issue and the simple fact and that is what the House has to face and decide. In my submission, public opinion would not tolerate the position for a moment. Public opinion would not tolerate there being a lesser scale than at present for crimes of violence. Is anyone going to persuade the House, in a position where crimes of violence are rising, that now is the time to reduce the present penalties? Yet that would have to happen, if the punishment for murder were approximated to the punishments for other crimes, because public opinion would rightly insist that other sentences should be reduced accordingly.
Therefore, I really do ask the House to consider that before it goes into the Lobby tonight on an Amendment which comes to us, not because anything more has happened than was the case previously when this House debated it, but comes to us, because of the discussion on this Report. It is an Amendment which has been put down by those who fervently desire to see the abolition of capital punishment. I do not criticise them for that. Their humane instincts apparently tell them that capital punishment is something to which they cannot subscribe and of which they would like to see the end.
But that is an abstract matter. It is not to be decided by that abstract test, but by this positive test and this test alone: is the removal of capital punishment in the light of crimes of violence as they are today going to make murder all the more likely? Are we to take away
2142
what in the figures appears to be a strong deterrent, namely the fear of the death penalty? That is the issue. Nothing I have heard tonight and nothing on record and nothing I have seen so far in the Report would justify me—although I abhor the death penalty as much as anybody else—in not carrying out what I feel to be my duty to go into the Lobby tonight and vote against the Amendment.
8.0 p.m.
Major H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has stated a case towards which I am sympathetic in principle, although I do not think I quite agree with some of the arguments he adduced in favour of it. Certainly, I do not suppose that anybody in this House likes the death penalty, and I have a feeling that this issue is one similar to many which we have to face up to in this House sooner or later—that if we cannot always have the best we ought to have the one that is least bad.
Tonight, I find when considering this matter that, however much one may dislike the death penalty, one has to consider whether anything which would be put in its place would be less barbaric. The right hon. Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) made an extremely moving and sincere speech which must have impressed the House, even those Members who disagreed strongly with it. He spent some time dealing with the appalling effects of life imprisonment, though life imprisonment is, in fact, not more than 10 or 12 years in the end.
I have looked most carefully through the evidence given before the Royal Commission by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the prison chaplains, because one thing we have to face up to when dealing with this subject is that murder is not merely a crime against the State. Many of the witnesses emphasised that this also is a crime against God as well as the State. So it seems to me that here we are automatically put in a difficulty, because if it is true that the crime is a crime against God as well as the State, then are we right in solely judging this matter through the State?
The Archbishop of Canterbury did say something before the Royal Commission which I think is of the utmost importance in this debate. He said, in answer to

2143
question 4130 on page 338 of the evidence given before the Commission:
"Positively society is upholding a fundamental principle and embodies it in its law—that the supreme, in the sense of the least reversible crime, is to kill a fellow citizen—and it upholds that law by the gravity of the penalty."
I think all of us would agree that murder is an extremely grave crime to commit. I am not the least impressed by those who say that the only reason for retaining the death penalty is as a deterrent to others.
I do not believe that to be the reason why we ought at this stage to retain it. I believe it is because there is no other form of penalty to be found which is going to be fairer to murderers of the future than that penalty which we have exercised in the past. It is a question of somehow matching the penalty to the crime, not in the sense of
"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"
because in my understanding of Christianity I should say that that cannot possibly be justified at all.
Mr. Philip Bell: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is necessary to be careful with that quotation. It does not really mean taking an eye for an eye, but that not more than an eye should be taken. One is not bound to take an eye, but one must not take more.
Major Legge-Bourke: I cannot resist the temptation of observing that I do not see what more we could take than a man's life.
Mr. Tom Brown: That is a new interpretation.
Major Legge-Bourke: What I am trying to emphasise is that, when a murderer is condemned, whatever the penalty is it ought not to be imposed in a spirit of vengeance, but the penalty which is imposed upon him ought to match the enormity of the crime.
There is one extraordinary omission in the evidence put before the Royal Commission by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the prison chaplains. Apparently none of them put before the Commission any evidence relating to the difference in the state of mind of a person after he has been convicted compared with before his
2144
conviction. I think—and I have thought about this a great deal—that one is inevitably faced with the fact that murder is a crime against society and that society has set up machinery to deal with the crime.
It is the responsibility of the State, as representing society, to prosecute the person accused of murder and either to secure his conviction or to establish his innocence. But once that stage has been reached, I wonder whether it is right solely to leave it upon the State to decide what ought to be done with him. I should have thought it was a matter of considerable interest to all Churches, irrespective of their denomination, to discover whether, when a person had been convicted, there was any sign of repentance or not.
I do not think that any jury could possibly judge that, nor can I believe that any judge should be asked to do it. The only people, in my opinion, who could possibly judge it are those who are experienced in examining the spirit of men and women. Therefore, I would argue that, if we are prepared to accept murder as a crime against God and the State, the Churches cannot wash their hands of what happens to a convicted murderer.
There may be those who say that no man, having committed an appalling crime like murder, could ever become sufficiently a new man in order to have truly repented for the enormity of his crime, and that he must be given a very long time indeed to become a new man so that someone can assess whether one murderer should be treated more leniently than another. Of all things about which we must be sure, however, what stands out is that whatever the law decides on the issue of convicted murderers, there should be no unnecessary delay.
I feel that if there is any deterrent in a penalty the conviction of life imprisonment is greater than the death penalty, though I will add that it is very hard for any of us here tonight—at least I hope it is—to visualise what would be our reactions if we had been pronounced guilty of murder. Our estimate here of the state of mind of a convicted person must be purely hypothetical. But my own feeling is that I would fear a long term of imprisonment more than the ending of the matter very quickly.

2145
I am supported in that view by the evidence given before the Royal Commission by one of the prison chaplains from Edinburgh. He actually quotes a man whom he calls "a lifer" as saying how much better it would be to have the whole thing settled by being hanged. That comes actually from a man who is serving a life sentence, and what he has said was conveyed to the Commission. I think it is something which ought to make this House think. There are men who believe it is more cruel to condemn people to life imprisonment than to hang them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members doubt that let them read the evidence which was given before the Royal Commission by this prison chaplain from Edinburgh.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has seriously suggested that this suspension of the death penalty for five years is worth a trial, and some hon. Members, who I think are supporting the Amendment, said that if it be a question of difficulty because of the present prison conditions, those conditions should be improved. If anyone admits that the conditions in the prisons are such that long imprisonment is likely to be more cruel in certain cases—not all—than hanging would be, I say that this is not the time to implement the terms of this Amendment.
However much I regret the fact that we are faced with this appalling issue; however much I feel that murder is an appalling crime which ought not only to be the concern of the State but also of the churches; however much, in other words, I may disagree with the present legislation, I say that what is proposed in the Amendment is infinitely worse. I do not believe that the prisons today are so organised as to make its proposal a humane thing to do. Although I believe that in the long run—perhaps 20 years ahead, who knows?—capital punishment will vanish from this land, I say that the arguments in favour of it being abolished now have not been made conclusively; and I do not believe that they can be so made for some time to come until even more thought has been given to this matter.
As the Government have asked for our views, which we hope they will consider, I would ask with all sincerity that they approach the leaders of the Churches. I
2146
ask the Government seriously to consider whether something should be done to bring in the Churches to consider whether a convicted murderer who is really penitent should receive better treatment than a murderer who is completely unrepentant. That is the great omission in the Report of the Commission and in the evidence of the Churches given before the Commission. I consider that to be essentially a Christian matter, for surely one of the greatest of the Christian principles is that a sinner who repents should be given another chance.
8.14 p.m.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: One of the suggestions in the Report is that the jury should be invited to say whether a man should hang or not. The judges have no option. Is it now seriously suggested that we should call in the Archbishop of Canterbury to decide a problem of that kind? That would seem to be the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).
Major Legge-Bourke: May I make it absolutely clear that I would leave it entirely to the State to decide whether a man be guilty or not? All I suggest is that the Churches should have a say in deciding what should happen to a convicted man.
Mr. Allen: I am obliged for that intervention. That is the point I was trying to make.
Of course the jury will decide, as they do now, whether a man be guilty or not. There is now an automatic death sentence by the judge. One of the suggestions in the report of which I heartily disapprove is that it should be left to the jury to decide the penalty. I think that would put far too great and grave a burden upon the jury. The duty of a jury, especially in a murder case, is burdensome enough without putting that dreadful decision in its hands, especially as some of us know how some juries come to a conclusion.
I doubt if there are any lawyers who have not had some inside information about what happens in a jury room, and most of us could surprise the House with stories. But to suggest that the Church should have any means of intervening or of deciding on the sentence—death or imprisonment—is a suggestion which so

2147
far is unique to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely.
Mr. F. Blackburn: And will remain so.
Mr. Allen: I do not know whether there are any hon. Members of this House who are in a state of mind to be persuaded one way or another. I made up my mind in 1931, and I have never wavered since, although I have given consideration to all the evidence. In that year I had the burden, the almost intolerable burden, of defending a murderer in circumstances in which no one could say whether he be guilty or not. Day after day, during the hearing of the evidence in the magistrates' court, I said that there was no evidence against the man, and it went on for seven days.
At the end of that period I was still convinced that there was no evidence against this man charged with murder, and I said so, but the magistrate did not agree. The case went before a jury at Liverpool. We had five more long days there, and in my view there was no evidence given then against that man. After an absence of less than an hour, a Lancashire jury found that man guilty of murder, and an audible whistle went through that court as they announced their verdict because members of the jury—[Laughter.]
Mr. Ellis Smith: I hope that HANSARD will record that.
Mr. Allen:—had made up their minds before the witnesses went into the witness box by statements made in the Press during the course of the proceedings in the lower court. Although people outside had changed their view, the jury were unconvinced.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) knows the circumstances. It was felt throughout south-west Lancashire that the man was doomed. Never had the Court of Criminal Appeal reversed the decision of a jury on evidence. It had reversed a jury's decision on matters of law or misdirection, but never had there been an occasion where a jury had convicted a man of murder and where the Court of Appeal had said, "There is no evidence whatsoever, and we are going to let this man off." But the
2148
miracle happened, and the Court of Appeal did say, "There is only suspicion, there is no evidence."
That was a case of touch-and-go, a case of a man whom many people believed to be innocent and many believed to be guilty, and who was saved practically at the last moment. I am convinced, from the cases of which I have read, such as that of Adolf Beck and the Slater case, that there is a sufficient chance of a grave miscarriage of justice in murder cases to justify at least the abolition of the death penalty for a five years' trial period.
Quite recently, in my court at Blackburn, an appeal came from the magistrates' court in the case of a man aged 70 convicted before the magistrates, and rightly on the evidence, of stealing lead. The evidence given by three witnesses—a man, his wife, and another person—was that this man had been seen coming away from a school with stolen lead in his possession. In the face of that evidence the magistrates could do no other than convict him, and they sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.
He had spent between six and nine weeks in prison before he came, on appeal, before the quarter sessions. His case throughout had been, "I am innocent. I was never there. I did not touch anything." When counsel for the prosecution rose he did not persist in saying that the man was guilty. He said, "The police admit that there has been a very grave miscarriage of justice here. All those three witnesses were wrong in their identification. A man has now come forward and has confessed, and this man, we say, is wrongly convicted, and the appeal should be allowed."
That was a case of stolen lead. The magistrates were quite justified in their decision, and, had that been a murder case, with three witnesses to identify the man a jury would have been justified in finding him guilty.
Mr. S. Silverman: That was precisely so in the case of Rowland.
Mr. Allen: Yes.
This happened at Blackburn Quarter Sessions. The police were quite satisfied that the man who had come forward and admitted having committed the crime was guilty, but that did not alter the fact that

2149
the other man had spent over six weeks in prison, convicted of a crime of which he was wholly innocent.
I would leave this thought in the mind of anybody who has doubts about this matter. Supposing that that man, instead of being accused of coming away from a school with stolen lead, had allegedly been seen coming away from the scene of a murder, and three witnesses had identified him and he had been found guilty? Is it likely that the real murderer would have confessed his guilt?
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Can you give Scottish Members some guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The Motion before the House is in the name of the Government, and it includes the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Many of us would like to know if there is to be a statement upon Scottish law by the Lord Advocate.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): That is not a point of order.
8.23 p.m.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: I think that I have heard something of every speech that has been made in this debate. I want to say at the outset that I cannot support the terms of the Amendment. I have heard some very convincing and sincere speeches in favour of it, but my feelings at present are certainly inclined very definitely the other way. I cannot help feeling that the House has to assume the responsibility of maintaining the peace, and I should certainly hate to feel that we were in any way responsible for allowing the death of some innocent person rather than the death of some convicted murderer. I cannot see any justification for the removal of the death penalty.
Before this debate began, I did not wish to discuss the broad topic which has taken up all but one speech—the question of abolition or no. I wanted to remark upon one or two points contained in the Report and some of the suggestions which have been made for Parliament to concern itself with. I should say, first, as a kind of declaration of interest, that I have been in practice as a psychiatrist, examining offenders on remand from the courts, although not on capital charges. Secondly, I was for a few years the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Home Secretary,
2150
and I should like the House to take it from me that I am not in any way briefed by him or by any of the efficient officials who served him. The opinions which I am expressing are personal ones.
Dr. H. Morgan: When did the late Home Secretary die?
Dr. Bennett: He is the late Home Secretary as seen from this place. His translation to another place brings effectively to an end his life in this House. I may be speaking somewhat parochially.
As the question of insanity and mental abnormality takes up 84 out of 212 pages in Part I of the Report, dealing with the liability of murderers to suffer capital punishment, I feel that this side of the question is one which should properly have attracted my attention, and I want to remark upon two points. One is the general problem of criminal responsibility and its assessment, and the other is the examination of the prisoner and the disposal and treatment of the abnormal prisoner.
The M'Naghten Rules have been discussed at great length in the Report and in this House this afternoon. It is generally understood that they are a help in dealing with the definitely criminal or definitely insane. They are clearly useful, but they have frightful shortcomings, and these relate not only to people who are borderline cases or are difficult of assessment. I should like to give one example to show how very misleading these Rules can be.
The case I have in mind is that of a man who was suffering from a depressive psychosis. This is a really thorough insanity, and the sufferer is sunk in gloom and obsessed with the belief that he has committed the unforgivable sin. He feels disgraced, full of self-reproach, and that he is unfit to live. That form of insanity is commonly of a temporary nature. It can occur in a perfectly decent citizen and is quite easily curable.
If such a man murders his wife and family in such a state of mind—as has occurred on more than one occasion—he certainly knows the nature of his act and also that it is unlawful, but he is driven to act by his own internal delusions and his belief in his divine inspiration, or whatever he may claim, and he feels that he can save his family from the contami-

2151
nation of association with himself only by ridding the world of them.
That man must be guilty of murder, and must be condemned to death under the M'Naghten Rules. It is very fortunate that juries are not bound by this rigid doctrine. In paragraph 234 of the Report, the Lord Chief Justice is quoted as having said:
"I think a jury can always be trusted to do justice, where it might be impossible to bring the case strictly within the M'Naghten Rules, but everybody would say that the man's acts were the acts of a lunatic."
In paragraph 322, the Lord Justice General is quoted as saying something similar, namely,
"However much you charge a jury as to the M'Naghten Rules or any other test, the question they would put to themselves when they retire is—'Is this man mad or is he not?'."
It is very fortunate that we have that discrimination from this otherwise inflexible rule, because if the really insane can be convicted of murder as being sane, it stands to reason that those deranged in lesser degree run much greater risk.
It must be faced that the M'Naghten Rules are dangerous and misleading, and only approximately do the job for which they were intended. But then comes the problem of what shall we substitute, and what alternative can we find, and the answer, of course, is "None." I have tried to think of formula, and I know that many much more intelligent men than I have tried, and that nobody has got anywhere near it. We are still where we were when Lord Blackburn wrote in 1874 these words, which are also quoted in the Report:
"To that I can only say that on the question what amounts to insanity, that would prevent a person being punishable or not, I have read every definition which I ever could meet with, and never was satisfied with one of them, and have endeavoured to make one satisfactory to myself; I verily believe that it is not in human power to do it. You must take it that in every individual case you must look at the circumstances and do the best you can to say whether it was the disease of the mind which was the cause of the crime, or the party's criminal will."
We cannot find a substitute formula, and of that we may be satisfied. We cannot do without a formula at all, and I think that is established in the Report. We cannot abrogate these Rules, so what can we do?
2152
The first thing we can come to is the concept of the irresistible impulse, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) referred earlier in the debate. That was suggested by the British Medical Association in paragraph 264, and, of course, when we talk about the irresistible impulse, we are immediately reminded of the unresisted impulse. So I think that it is not possible to argue that the irresistible impulse is the best way to evaluate the less obvious forms of derangement.
As my hon. and learned Friend also said, diseases of the mind should not only be referred to as defects of reason; the term should be broadened to cover defects of will. Most mental diseases, as we know them nowadays, are regarded as defects of the emotions, and in these diseases I think it is true to say that the emotions govern the will. The difficulty there is that, if the control is supposed, as it is, to be vested in the reason of man as a reasoning being, and the emotions are supposed to be controlled by the reason, I think that the will is supposed to be controlled by the reason, but when the will is controlled by the emotions, surely that implies a defect in the reason. Therefore, to that extent, the definition in the M'Naghten Rules will have to cover any other form of mental derangement. I hope I have not made that even more obscure than it was before.
The intention or idea of the principle of the irresistible impulse, I am sure, is a good one, and we all know that, but I think that it would entangle a jury in a welter of hypothetical motivations, and provide a happy hunting ground for the preferring of insincere pleas of irresistibility which it would be very difficult for a jury to refute. It requires altogether too much hypothecating and too much subjective imagining for a juryman to put himself in the other fellow's place. In fact, it is too subjective a test, even in the modified form which the Commission recommend in its Report.
Can we think of any more objective test? Juries are certainly not qualified to split hairs on psychiatric issues, but they are qualified, as I see it, to judge sanity and to recognise conduct within normal limits, and, therefore, they can be expected to see the prisoner objectively. I suggest to the House this idea as a modi-

2153
fication of the M'Naghten Rules in place of that suggested by the Royal Commission. I should say that, if the answers to the first two existing questions—whether the man knew the nature and quality of his act, and whether he knew it was wrong—is "Yes," it will be possible for the jury then to ask this further question: "Were the actions consistent with sanity?" If the answer is "Yes," the picture is clear, and the case goes along the ordinary course of justice.
If the answer is "No, "it would seem to me that it would then be possible for the jury to bring in a finding in some such terms as these: "We find the prisoner guilty on the facts of the actions with which he is charged, but we do not consider his actions to be entirely consistent with those of a sane man, and, therefore, recommend him to mercy."
If there cannot be any degrees of murder or a division of the trial into two parts on the question of sanity—and I am sure that there should not be—and if the judge is not to have the discretion, which I am sure he should not have, then he must pronounce the sentence of death in the modified form suggested and the Executive would then take note of the jury's opinion and of the judge's observations on it. I do not think that that would commit, limit or trammel the Secretary of State any more than would any other recommendations at present, and it would allow the finding of some form of partial irresponsibility which has not yet been postulated.
The other point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is that I certainly support the Commission's proposals that the prisoner should be examined psychiatrically by independent consultants. I have worked with the prison service, and I know that it is completely unjust to say, although it is a widely held opinion, that prison doctors are on the side of the prosecution because they form part of the custodial machine. I do not believe that, but that is the feeling. Therefore, it is most important that the examination of a prisoner should also be conducted by an outside consultant.
I think it equally important that senior prison medical officers who are qualified in psychiatry should also render a report. The report of the outside consultant and of a senior prison medical officer, together with the reports of the custodial staff,
2154
would, I believe, constitute a very strong body of psychiatric opinion on the prisoner. This would still, of course, allow the important right of the defence to call whom it pleased, but it would discourage attempts to produce psychiatric opinion for the defence which might not be particularly sound. It is well known that the defence sometimes tries out psychiatrist after psychiatrist until it finds one who is willing to try to sustain an unsustainable defence. It can be said, in fact, that many are chosen but few are called. I think, therefore, that this system would go far to meet these abuses which, I must say, disfigure our Sunday papers and do not do either the law or psychiatry any good.
In past years, I have spent a lot of time in trying to form some opinions about the psychopath. It is very difficult to identify him, and it is only in recent years that people have agreed that there is such an entity at all. Even now the definition is a very loose one. I am a little surprised that in the Report there is no reference to one quality which would help juries to determine what is a psychopath, and that is the fact that, although there are no typical psychopathic crimes, there is a thread which runs through all psychopathic misdemeanours, which is the lack of gain from what he has done.
In crimes committed by psychopaths, whether murder or lesser offences, the gain is nearly always negligible, and is outweighed by the loss in the not very long run. That being so, it surely adds to the belief that the psychopath cannot be regarded as sane. I think it important to bear that fact in mind if we are in future, as the Commission says we should, to regard the psychopath more readily as an abnormal entity.
Although I plead sincerely for this unattractive category, the explosively psychopathic or epileptic people, I am not pleading merely for their lives. It is often regretted that psychiatrists are inclined to do so regardless of the facts. I think that we should try to look after these chaps if they are to be condemned and sent to one of the special type of colonies such as that which has recently started building and which I welcome most wholeheartedly, the East-Hubert establishment, which has been wanted for a long time. One thing that

2155
I should like to say in that connection is that it is no use sending people to this kind of colony if they are not to have treatment. One thing about which I am sure is that we cannot carry out treatment if we do not get co-operation, and we shall not get co-operation if we cannot get some sanctions, and we shall not get any sanctions against these people unless we have indeterminate sentences. Dr. Stürup of Denmark has pointed that out.
It is easy to see why that should be so, because, after the prisoner has been through the ordeal of the trial, he is greatly relieved on being sent to a relatively pleasant colony. He then becomes rather high-spirited and entirely scornful of the surroundings, and he will then become intolerant of the administration. If he has received a finite sentence for a number of years he is going to wait for the end of that sentence, and good behaviour is not going to make it much better for him. He knows that the end is coming. If he knows that he has to wait to be allowed out on licence and that he will receive privileges only in return for good behaviour and a willingness to conform on his part, I feel that the chances of carrying out treatment and reforming and reclaiming the man are very much better than they otherwise would be.
So, although psychiatrists are commonly regarded as soft-hearted, and sometimes even as soft-headed as well, I put these two requests alongside each other. One is that the psychopath should be regarded more readily as responding to clemency, and the other is that he should be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not think that hanging or imprisonment will do any good with regard to the abnormalities of these borderline cases. I feel that he should have the opportunity to overcome them.
Those of us who occupy ourselves in psychiatry know very well how inexact a science it is. Indeed, many people say that it is not a science at all. Although it is obviously a very slippery and imprecise subject and very difficult to get a hold on, and, although many psychiatrists regard the law and its processes as very clumsy, I hope that the shortcomings of each of these professions will be regarded with tolerance by the other. I certainly cannot do better than refer to the final
2156
words of the minority Report of the Commission, which were:
"… as Stephen said 70 years ago: In dealing with matters so obscure and difficult the two great professions of law and medicine ought rather to feel for each other's difficulties than to speak harshly of each other's shortcomings.'"
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I was very interested in the hon. Member's attempt to explain the M'Naghten Rules, and I should like to know whether he realises that in asking that the jury should determine the sanity of the prisoner he has, in fact, reached the same conclusion as the majority Report of the Commission, that the M'Naghten Rules should be abrogated and the question left to the jury.
Dr. Bennett: I thought that I regarded it as an expansion of the M'Naghten Rules, not an abrogation, because they can still be used and their findings are still valid. But in the indeterminate case that adds a little more precision to what otherwise would be quite cloudy.
8.48 p.m.
Mr. John Paton: I do not propose to follow in detail the argument of the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), but I shall refer to the most important argument put forward when I am dealing with the subject of the M'Naghten Rules.
It seems to be the opinion in this House that one necessarily must be a lawyer if one is to speak with authority on a matter of this kind. The speakers to whom we have listened from the back benches today have been chosen from the legal profession. I wholly dissent from the idea that lawyers have any special qualification whatsoever for determining the issue involved in this question.
It is not a legal decision which we have to make tonight. It is a social decision, a political decision, a moral decision, and while it is true that lawyers who have special experience of the criminal courts are entitled to give us the benefit of their experience, I rather resent the attitude of so many of them that they have a monopoly of authority in a matter of this description. I protest against the idea that this is a question to be decided by legal pundits.
I want to use the time at my disposal to comment on the speech made by the

2157
Home Secretary. He said that he had been greatly impressed with the value of the Commission's Report. So have I, but I show it by treating the Report much more seriously than did the Home Secretary. After telling us what a valuable survey it was, the Home Secretary informed us that he proposed to do nothing about its main conclusions.
He emphasised properly that the main subject at the back of the discussion—whether or not capital punishment should now be abolished—was precluded from the consideration of the Commission, but it must have struck everybody who read the Report that that question overshadowed all the arguments and the discussion that took place during the deliberations of the Royal Commission over a long period of time. The Commission could never get away from it or divorce its discussions from it, although it was actually precluded from mentioning it in the Report.
At the time the Commission was appointed, I deplored that its terms of reference were so narrowly drawn that they would vitiate the work of the Commission and make it impossible for the Commission to come to proper conclusions on the matter it was examining. The Commissioners themselves comment that when they came to examine their terms of reference and tried to give effect to them they discovered that they were engaged upon an extremely narrow quest; and their conclusions bear that out.
Today the Home Secretary gave us what he called the "provisional" views of the Government. If the statement that he made, the arguments he used, the manner he adopted, and the precise form in which he gave us the information, express the provisional views of the Government, I ask myself what the expression would be of the Government's definite and final views. Nothing could have been more decisive than what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said.
He singled out three main points. One was the proposal of the Commission to raise the death-penalty age from 18 to 21. It was deplorable that he should have to inform the House that the Government proposed to set their face definitely against that quite reasonable proposal. Everything that the Commission was con-
2158
sidering and had been asked to do was concerned with limiting the application of death sentences and making hangings fewer rather than more. That was the purpose of bringing the Commission into being. When the Commission makes this proposal to the Home Secretary that we should cease to hang minors, young lads, and I suppose young women, the provisional reply of the Government is that they propose to do nothing about it.
Again, with regard to the M'Naghten Rules, the Home Secretary told us that he proposed to do nothing, although those rules were drafted upon a formula composed by judges 100 years ago, long before the immense modern development in psychology and psychiatric science. None of these things was dreamt of when the M'Naghten Rules were formulated. For many years there has been discussion in important committees on these matters. The Atkin Committee which sat 33 years ago under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Atkin was mentioned today. Its main proposal was that the doctrine of uncontrollable impulse should be added to the existing provisions of the M'Naghten formula.
I was astonished to hear the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham, who has left us now, no doubt in order to get some much-needed refreshment. The real logic of what he was arguing was in favour of the first proposal of the Commission, namely, that the M'Naghten Rules should be abrogated.
Everybody knows that they are incredibly rigorous and inflexible. Everyone knows that the result of their application in the courts is to confine evidence as to the sanity or insanity of the accused within too narrow limits. No one disputes that. The discussion which is taking place now is whether we are to extend the Rules, whether we can find a formula for their extension that will satisfy the judges. That is the point at issue.
Nobody would attempt to defend the present formula except that nothing better can be found, and the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham seemed to argue for the extension of the M'Naghten Rules, though perhaps not to cover what he said he found it impossible to find a formula for — the doctrine of uncontrollable impulse. But is there anything to prevent us expanding the formula in such a way

2159
as to allow a court, on a question of sanity or of insanity, to take into consideration all the extra factors and considerations that were brought within the examination of the prisoner's sanity by the Home Office Medical Commission subsequently appointed?
Why should that process not take place in the trial court, instead of it being deferred until there is a condemnation to death and someone is sitting in the condemned cell? I suggest that this is one thing to which the Home Secretary might have turned his attention, instead of giving us the completely negative reply which he gave us earlier.
Now I want to refer to the third main point made by the Home Secretary, that of giving a jury discretion, of allowing a jury not only to decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty, but, having reached a verdict of guilty, further to consider whether there are extenuating circumstances of such a kind as would justify that jury in deciding that a man or woman should not be hung.
I say at once that I share the doubts of all who have spoken about that proposal, because it does something that is revolutionary in the practice of our courts: it puts upon a jury not merely the burden of deciding on questions of fact placed before them at the trial as to whether or not the accused is guilty; but, having found the accused guilty, they are then asked to embark on a further examination of a totally different kind for which I think a jury is completely unfitted, because they are asked in the second examination to find out and assess the culpability of the prisoner.
In fact, they would be asked to apportion blame, to make an assessment of his moral responsibility. That is an enormous burden which no one who understands the jury system would suggest should be added to the existing responsibilities carried by juries. In condemning this proposal the Home Secretary said he did so because he believed it was unworkable and because he thought it represented a half-way house; in other words, that the Commission was proposing to try to limit the death penalty.
I want to bring to the notice of the House what the Commission said on this subject. In paragraph 595, the Commis-
2160
sion says—and this is the problem that we are trying to meet:
"It is not questioned that the liability to suffer capital punishment under the existing law is rigorous to excess. We cannot but regard it as a reproach to our criminal law that this excessive rigour should be tolerated merely because it is corrected by executive action. The law itself should mitigate it."
That is the problem that we are trying to meet by this so-called half-way house. It is "a reproach to our criminal law" that we are trying to remedy.
The Commission went on to say:
"We are satisfied that as long as capital punishment is retained, this"—
that is, jury discrimination—
"is the only practicable way of correcting the outstanding defects of the existing law."
The Home Secretary turned that down, but he made no mention of any possible alternative to correct those outstanding defects of the criminal law that the Commission was trying to meet. [Interruption.] I cannot stop in the middle of my argument. I have sat here all day. I have been waiting here about six hours trying to say this.
The point is that the Home Secretary, in rejecting that idea, offered nothing in its place. Therefore, apparently he is prepared to allow those grave defects characterised in those terms by the Commission to continue unchanged in our existing system. That is not good enough, and the Home Secretary will have to think again.
I have one further point to make, and then I will resume my seat, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) wants to speak. Sir Alexander Paterson's name has been quoted in this House. It was quoted by the Home Secretary when he said that in the 1948 debate his opinion had been influenced by discoveries that he had made about Sir Alexander Paterson's views. In my opinion, there is a profound misconception about what Sir Alexander Paterson actually said. Hon. Members may study the words for themselves in the 1930 Select Committee Report.
Sir Alexander Paterson was saying then that a lifetime of imprisonment under the penal conditions existing then was not a good alternative to the death penalty. But he was not arguing that the death penalty should remain indefinitely. What he was

2161
really suggesting was that the death penalty was better than the penal conditions then existing. It was, in fact, a criticism of our prisons.
Sir Alexander himself lived long enough to see the main objectionable features to which he was referring removed from our prison system, and I very much doubt, if he had been able to speak to us at any time during the last seven or eight years, whether he would have repeated the words he uttered in 1930. Therefore, let us not have him cited again in that connection.
It is surely a very significant thing that for 100 years now the continuance of this penalty has given rise to commission of inquiry after commission of inquiry. There has been a periodic heart-and-soul searching by large sections of the people about the nature and the consequence of this penalty, and I suggest that a penalty which carries with it such an utter repugnance among great sections of our community is a penalty that brings the law into contempt, and I hope the House tonight, on a free vote, will vote in favour of the Amendment.
8.59 p.m.
Sir Beverley Baxter: I have been asked to sit down at nine o'clock. It is not ten seconds to nine and I see no reason why I should not obey my orders. But perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—we are comrades for the day—will allow me a couple of minutes, however, because I feel very deeply on this subject, no less deeply than I felt six or seven years ago when we did away with hanging.
Today's debate has not been as emotional as the previous debate, and I think that very lack of emotion shows that we realise that the gallows are under sentence of death. I do not care what the result is tonight; the gallows have a short time to live, and I believe that is a splendid thing.
It would not be the first time that this country had shown a great example to others, although I know that other countries have abolished hanging. We are living in an era of the scorched spirit; the finest brains of our country are dedicated to the manufacture of implements to take life. It has to be done and we do not criticise it; we are thankful that they are there.
2162
But here is a chance for the House to give a declaration of faith in the human spirit. I profoundly believe that the hanging of criminals and the publicity which makes heroes and spectacular figures out of these wretched creatures is a bad thing. Once we take away hanging there will be a change in the criminal classes, too.
Just before the previous debate I went to see the governor of one of our prisons in which hanging takes place. I mentioned this in the previous debate. Let me remind the House what he said. It was, "I hope you fellows in the House of Commons will do away with the gallows because of the wild excitement which debauches the rest of the criminals when an execution is taking place. The man who kills is the aristocrat among criminals. Do away with the death sentence and he becomes the lowest form of criminal in the criminal world. The criminal world will turn against him."
The county chief constables have an association, and I can tell the House what was said to me by one of the most important chief constables of a county in Great Britain—and I will give the Attorney-General his name if he wants it. This man said, "We meet and discuss this problem. We have an association. I can tell you that 80 per cent. of the county chief constables want to do away with the death penalty."
I have thus quoted two men in the front line in the war against murder—a man who has to superintend the hanging and a man representing those who have to fight the crime. I would put that fact against all the utterances of bewigged and begowned lawyers who have spoken in the House today, and for that reason, among others, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Many times from this side of the House I have shouted to him to sit down. Today I hoped that he would go on, and he did.
9.4 p.m.
Mr.R.T.Paget: We have had a long and interesting debate, and I shall say something about the speeches of those who have taken the view different from mine. I will deal later with the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and I will also deal with the speeches of my hon. and learned Friend

2163
the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), whom I regret not to see in his place, and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).
As far as I could understand it, the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester was this: crimes of violence which were not capital had increased in number, murder had not increased; therefore hanging was a better deterrent than other deterrents. How the movement of two variants shows the different effects on two constants constant throughout the period I do not quite follow. However, actually that is not quite necessary, because my hon. and learned Friend's unique capacity for being wrong did not let him down. He got the statistics backwards. In fact, cases of wounding decreased slightly and cases of murder went up slightly. My hon. and learned Friend can draw what conclusions he likes from that.
I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely enter the Chamber, because I wish to say something about his point of view. Apparently, he was not particularly concerned with the death penalty as a deterrent. He wanted it because the penalty matched the enormity of the crime. I have heard that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it is news to me that imitation is the sincerest form of reprobation. I cannot for the life of me see why, because on religious grounds, on social grounds and on grounds of our emotions we regard killing in cold blood as the worst of crimes, we should choose for that very reason to imitate and commit the crime ourselves. That is a point of view which I have never been able to follow.
I also found it a little odd that the hon. and gallant Member should say, "Well, of course, I assume that capital punishment will be abolished in the next 20 years." Why should it fail to match the enormity of the crime less 20 years hence?
Major Legge-Bourke rose—
Mr. Paget: I am sorry, but I have too little time to allow me to give way.
I now want to turn to the speech which concerns me most and which certainly caused me the most distress, and that is the speech of the Home Secretary.
Major Legge-Bourke rose—
Mr. Paget: I am very sorry, but I have such little time that I cannot give way. I should like to have the attention of the Home Secretary.
Major Legge-Bourke rose—
Mr. Paget: Very well, I will give way to the hon. and gallant Member.
Major Legge-Bourke: I wanted to tell the hon. and learned Member that I certainly did not think that the argument that the punishment matched the crime would be any less forceful despite the fact that in the future the country might very easily abolish the death penalty.
Mr. Paget: Do not let us go on with that because time is rather short.
I want now to deal with the speech which, naturally, distressed me most. The Home Secretary told me that his vote on the last occasion was given because I had deceived him. That surprised me. I have been on the terms on which one is here with hon. Members on both sides of the House, but during the last seven years I had never heard from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or anybody else the suggestion that I had deceived him. I was also surprised because, in the days before 1948 when we were working on the amendment of the law that we then brought forward, one of the persons on our inner committee and one of the first signatories was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's sister. In those days I was certainly under the impression that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a firm opponent of long standing of capital punishment. I am sorry if I was wrong.
However, my surprise makes my regret none the less, and I want, if I can, to put my offence right with him. Let me see how I deceived him on the last occasion. Sir Alexander Paterson, in evidence in 1931 before a Select Committee of this House, said the then prison conditions were such that he regarded a life sentence, or a sentence long enough to be a sufficient substitute, as more cruel than death. That observation in Sir Alexander's evidence had a profound effect on the House. I informed the House that, as a result of the prison reforms very largely introduced by Sir Alexander himself, that no longer held good and that Sir Alexander was of opinion before his

2165
death that the prison system had so improved that the long sentence which would be necessary could now take place without the deterioration he had feared in 1930.
I gave the wrong reasons for that conclusion, although I still believe it was Sir Alexander's opinion at the time of his death. Whether that be so or not, the only relevant question was this: had the circumstances changed between 1931 and 1948 to such an extent that the long period of prison, which must be an alternative to death, was no longer crueller than death itself? That was the question in 1948. It is the question today.
On this, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Home Secretary need no longer rely upon the opinion of Sir Alexander Paterson. He has got the opinion expressed by his own Home Office. I refer to the Report, paragraph 653. Sir Alexander's evidence is quoted. It ends:
" 'I gravely doubt whether an average man can serve more than 10 continuous years in prison without deterioration'."
Then the Report goes on:
"The Home Office at that time did not dissent from that view. But in giving evidence before us. though they still said that 'prolonged detention for more than 10 or 12 years makes it increasingly difficult for (the prisoner) to re-establish himself in outside life and increases the risk of mental or physical deterioration, ' they added that developments in prison administration in the last twenty years have materially altered the conditions of confinement for prisoners serving long sentences, and continued:
'While therefore the Commissioners remain of the opinion expressed (in 1930) that a very long sentence of imprisonment is and always must be a dreadful thing, they do not consider that in present conditions its effect on prisoners would be such that it ought not to be contemplated'."
So I can therefore—
Mr. Osborne: Read the next four lines.
Mr. Paget:Very well.
"The Scottish Home Department were less sanguine. Mr. Cunningham told us that 'those with considerable experience of prison administration would view with grave concern a sentence of imprisonment extending beyond 10 years.' "
The Home Secretary has an assurance from his own Department which he said I wrongly gave him last time and which convinced him. I hope therefore that his
2166
conversion at the end of this debate will be as sudden and dramatic as he would make us believe it was last time.
I believe that there are three main reasons why we should abolish capital punishment. They are practical, legal and moral. So far as the practical is concerned, I think that there is only one question really concerned. Is capital punishment a greater deterrent than other forms of punishment? In other words, does capital punishment mean less murders? I would concede immediately that there may be cases—Professor Sellin gave this evidence before the Commission—in which the idea of hanging does actually and of itself stop the murder. There may be such cases, but they are rare. Cases where murder is caused by capital punishment are rare, but they exist. I will mention two or three of them.
First there is the case of Marjoram, who was executed in 1930. He was one of those types of persons who was imprisoned for a small offence, and while in prison had cleaned out the death cell which had been occupied by a man called Fox, who had murdered his mother. Marjoram had admired Fox, and he announced that he would commit a murder more dramatic than Fox's. When he came out of prison he tried to murder a policeman but lost his nerve. Then on Blackheath he murdered a perfectly innocent girl. He achieved his ambition to occupy the cell which Fox had occupied, and he was taken to the gallows making a joke with the hangman, which obviously he had rehearsed in his imagination for a long time before.
There was another man called Rhodes who deliberately killed because his exhibitionist complex made him wish to feature in an execution. Another case of quite a different sort was that of Heath, one of the most savage and horrible murderers of our time. Heath, a sadist, killed a woman called Mrs. Gardner, probably accidentally. He treated her most cruelly. He tied her up and beat her, and she suffocated. That probably was not his intention, because he had done that kind of thing before. Finding a body on his hands, he thought he could make a defence of insanity if he killed another woman. He attacked a young girl called Miss Marshall and murdered her in a wood with terrible savagery. He left clues to connect himself with the girl.

2167
There was no semen or anything like that to indicate that there was any sexual aspect to the second murder. This was a murder by a man to make a defence of insanity because capital punishment existed.
Those sort of cases are, of course, rare, but there is another type of case which exists more abroad than here, and that is the gang case. Nothing suits a gang leader better than capital punishment. Once a man has written his name in blood he is no longer in a position to betray his comrades, because both he and they know that if he betrays them they will all be avenged by the law. For that same reason, in a revolution how constantly does one find fearful atrocities committed because leaders want to commit their followers to actions so grave that there can be no turning back. In that sense capital punishment has been part of the cement of the gang and places where gangs rule, like Chicago, New York and Paris, are capital punishment areas. Those are examples where it is a direct cause.
But I think more important is where capital punishment is an indirect cause, one of the things that contributes to a murder, one of the things which brings a man to the emotional state in which he would commit murder. When, as we often hear it said, we can look to ourselves and say, "I am sure that the prospect of hanging would stop me, "we are making a completely wrong test, because it is quite unnecessary to have anything to stop ourselves. With the vast majority of us it would be possible to abolish the death penalty and to put a reward in its place, and still we could not be made to commit murder, because it would be horrible to us.
One of the natural inhibitions of mankind which makes our society possible is this incapacity, this national instinctive loathing of killing in cold blood. It is not peculiar to ourselves. If one watches two wolves fighting, one will find that the weaker wolf will suddenly stop and offer his neck to the stronger. The stronger wolf will growl and make a fuss, but he will not touch it, because this inhibition against striking when the most vulnerable point is offered applies to the wolf pack, as to many other animals, and to a great number of human beings. Therefore,
2168
when we look for a deterrent, we do not need to look for one which will affect the ordinary person; but one which will affect that very small percentage of humanity which, in any event, is capable of committing murder, that is, the unbalanced section of humanity.
In the Report on Capital Punishment, it was said by the psychiatrists who gave evidence that persons who are neither psychiatric nor mental but display a gross defect in reality sense include persons having strong suicidal tendences, conscious or unconscious, and persons within whom the urge to exhibit themselves is strong. Those are precisely the sort of persons who commit murder—people who have a suicidal urge, because a failure to respect one's own life is associated with a failure to respect the life of others. That is why we find a third of the murderers immediately commit suicide.
It may be said that they prefer that to hanging, but the same amount commit suicide in countries where there is no death penalty. There is that association between homicidal and suicidal tendencies. It is the egotist; the person who builds up his own drama; who dramatises himself; who brings his own emotion up to the exaggerated importance that brings him to action; that is the man who can kill. It is the death penalty in its dramatic aspect, the masochistic idea of the gallows and its drama, that helps to build up the state of mind which makes that man kill. It is a contributory cause.
Many of us who have defended murderers have found this statement recurring, "I made up my mind I would swing for her." The average murder is by a man of a woman in circumstances of self-dramatisation—"I made up my mind I would swing for her." That is what helps to build up the state of mind which can do this essentially abnormal act, an act abnormal to humanity.
Thus I say that when we look at these statistics we find that the Commission has not faced what the statistics really reveal. It has merely said, "In these statistics we can find no evidence at all that the death penalty reduces murder." If we look at those statistics we shall find, as a recognisable statistical trend, that there is less murder and less homicide when the death penalty is not imposed.

2169
I have dealt with the practical alternative. The Commission who examined this question has no doubt at all that the present system—not of 1931 but of today—is adequate to deal with these long sentences. If there is any doubt about that, is it to be suggested that our prison system is so much worse than that of all the other countries who have abolished the death penalty and who have experienced no difficulty in connection with it? Again, is our character so much worse than the characters of those across the sea who have had no difficulty: in dealing with the matter since they abolished this terrible penalty?
That is my practical objection to the death penalty. I am convinced in my heart and mind that, so far from stopping murder, the death penalty is a cause of murder. In the last debate, it was put with tremendous force that an innocent man can never hang in this country. I am not going to add to what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon. Certainty is not available to mankind. God may know; mankind can only assess the probabilities. Our law is not based upon certainty; it is based upon a balance of probabilities, and when a jury finds a man guilty it says very little more than, "On the balance of probabilities we believe him to be more likely guilty than not guilty." It is not a question of certainty, and juries are directed that they need not be certain. They have not got to exclude every other possibility.
Let me read the summing up of Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones in the Merrifield case, which resulted in an execution. The Judge said:
"Counsel for the defence has said to you more than once that the prosecution must exclude every chance and every possibility that the inferences they ask you to draw are mistaken. That is not the law. You need only deal with such possibilities of error as you think reasonably likely."
Sir L. Heald: Would the hon. and learned Member say whether there is a reference to the balance of probabilities in that summing up? If not, from where does he get it?
Mr. Paget: What else does what I have read mean? Let us examine the evidence in that case. Professor Webster, who had been chief of the Forensic Laboratory at Birmingham for 20 years; who had been the prosecution's witness in every
2170
murder case on the Midland Circuit since I and, I believe, the former Attorney-General came to the Bar, and had been relied upon by the prosecution as the foremost pathologist in the Midlands, gave evidence in that trial that the deceased lady had died a natural death. Against his evidence was that of another pathologist, who said that she had been poisoned.
The jury, coming to a conclusion upon an issue between two experts—and an issue upon which, frankly, they were not competent even to express an opinion, upon the direction which I have read— found Mrs. Merrifield guilty, and she was allowed to hang for a murder which Professor Webster said had never taken place. There is the finish of it. So much for certainty.
Now, in conclusion, I want to say—and I am absolutely frank about this—that, whatever others feel, I shall still feel the way I do because I believe that murder is wrong, that killing in cold blood is wrong, and that we do not make a right by putting two wrongs together. In our hearts and souls we know, when we see these executions taking place—and all who take part in them know—that we have been in contact with something that is profoundly evil. I believe profoundly that we do not match good by doing evil and that which we know to be evil. To kill unnecessarily—here is the word which is wrong—and here I will deal with the point of the former Attorney-General's argument—[Interruption.] I gave five minutes to the other side.
I will now deal with the arguments of the former Attorney-General, who said: "You want to change the balance of proof. It is for you to prove your case. It is you who want to change the established law." In a deeper sense, it is not we who want to change. It is the Government who want to change. They want to make the most vital change of all—the change from life to death. That is the change which the Government ask us to make, and I would say that before we have a right to kill people in cold blood, we must be sure—not doubtful, not wondering—that there is a real and over powering reason for that which we wish to do. Nobody has suggested such a reason. The burden of proof should be squarely on the Government if they want

2171
to kill. That burden of proof has not been taken.
9.35 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) thought it proper to conclude his oration by saying that the burden is on the Government if they want to kill. I do not accept that as a correct description of this debate, and I may say to him, too, that he has given me less time in which to answer the debate than he said he would.
I have a task to fulfil for which I do desire to have a little time—because not only have I to reply to what has been said on the main debate on the Commission's Report, but also to what has been said in the course of the debate of the Amendment. It would, indeed, be discourteous of me if I did not spend a little time in making some reference to the main recommendations of the Report, which, after all, is what we started out to discuss today.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary referred to the three main recommendations of the Commission and to the Government's position with regard to them. I was interested to see that, assuming that the death penalty remains, there was no real criticism of the Government's provisional decision in regard to the recommendation about youths between 18 and 21. I was also interested to see that the Government's view upon the Commission's recommendation with regard to jury discretion has really been accepted in all quarters of the House.
The discussion that did take place upon the recommendations of the Report was upon the M'Naghten Rules. I must say that I wish that we had had a longer time to discuss these rules, because they are of great importance, and I should have liked to have said a good deal about them myself. All I can say now is that what has been said will, of course, be most carefully considered. I think the House agrees that if there is a formula—and I think that the balance of opinion is that a formula is useful to a jury—it would be extremely difficult to find one which improves upon the M'Naghten Rules and so could be used to replace those rules.
2172
With those preliminary observations, I now turn to the main issue of today's debate, the question of the Amendment. Opinion in the House, so far as I can judge, having heard most of the debate, really falls into four distinct groups. There are those who are in favour of the abolition of capital punishment and who support the proposal for suspension, perhaps because they think that that is more likely to be accepted by the House. On the other hand, there are those who holding equally sincere convictions, who are opposed to the abolition of the death sentence because of what they believe would be the serious results which would follow that step. Then there are those who are not convinced one way or the other, but who think that this so-called experiment should be tried; and there are those who are also not convinced one way or the other but who are satisfied that this is no time for such an experiment.
The Home Secretary expressed the Government's view, and there is no need for me to repeat it. I wish to say, however, that I hate murder trials quite as much as does the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. I have never attended one unless it was my duty to do so, and I have never understood the desire of some members of the public to witness the spectacle of a person being tried for his life.
I doubt whether there is anyone with experience of such trials who is not affected by them, and who does not thoroughly dislike them. But, in approaching this question, we really should try to put our personal feelings on one side and not let them affect our judgment on what, I believe, is a most important issue, and one which may affect not only the lives of a number of people in our land, but also the maintenance of law and order.
The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) said, and said correctly, that we all have a hatred of brutality. We all wish that there were no murders committed in this land of ours, and one hopes that the day may come when that will be the position. But before I deal with the detailed arguments, I wish to say that I do not think that the real issue before the House is raised by the terms of the Amendment quite as clearly as it could be. I think that the

2173
real question before the House tonight is the question of whether or not this House is in favour of abolition.
The Amendment asks the Government to introduce legislation, the effect of which could only be to take away the death sentence. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who moved the Amendment, said that in five years the situation should be reviewed. Of course, Parliament can always review the situation in less or more than five years, but that is something which, I believe, is put in to make the pill a little more attractive to those who are a bit uncertain about it.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, "We suggest suspension so that the Government of the day will not have to bring in a Bill to bring back the death penalty." But I feel sure that those who are now supporting the Amendment would certainly take action just before the period of that suspension lapsed, and that then we should probably find some of those who have made such eloquent speeches tonight saying, "You cannot put back the death penalty. The experiment has been for far too short a period." This is what we say in answer to the proposal so eloquently put forward by the hon. Gentleman: The issue really is—are we to suspend the death sentence now? Is the House in favour of that, whatever may happen in the future, because we cannot bind another Government. The Amendment is, I think, put in this form to make it attractive to those who are not convinced, but who say to themselves, "Why not try it?" I hope to satisfy them that there are, indeed, weighty reasons for not doing so.
I am sorry that the Royal Commission was not invited to give its conclusions on this question. As has been said in the debate, the members of the Commission were deliberately precluded from doing so. The Leader of the Opposition made the reason quite clear. The reason he gave was that the Commission would be bound to produce a majority report and a minority report, a somewhat odd and unconvincing reason to me. But if we had had a majority and a minority report, we should, at least, have known with certainty which way the majority went and what their reasons were.
The Commissioners were, however, led by their terms of reference to have regard
2174
to some evidence on this issue. Their Report as to that evidence and what they say about it, is, I think, most valuable. If they had had to express a conclusion on this issue, they probably would have had to go into it much more fully and deeply instead of treating the evidence as incidental to their main inquiry.
I hope that no one will think that I do not regard those who have voiced objections to capital punishment as not being entirely sincere and as not having voiced them on conscientious grounds. Before I say anything about the objections, may I summarise quite briefly what I believe to be the only possible ground, and the true ground, for the retention of the capital sentence. It was put quite briefly by Lord Waverley in this House in 1948. He said that the
"justification for the capital sentence … must be sought in the protection of society, and in that alone."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 998.]
That is the gauge, that is the test. That of course, raises the question: Is it a deterrent, and if it is to what extent is it a deterrent?
The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend said in his speech that the onus is on those who seek to retain it to justify its retention. His view was that it has not been proved to be a deterrent and, therefore, that it should go. I would urge, on the other hand, that the correct approach is surely this: we have had this law for many a long year, and those who wish to change it have to prove their case for the change.
When we read the conclusions of the Commission and the evidence, we see how difficult it is to prove the case either way conclusively. We get a different answer according to whether we ask the question one way or the other. I would say myself that if it is a deterrent it is only if it is an effective deterrent, that it can be regarded as a weapon for the protection of society. When we read the Report and the passages cited in it we see that the view is held by a large number of responsible people that if it has a deterrent effect at all it has a unique deterrent effect.
I will not take up time by reading the whole of the passage written nearly 100 years ago by Sir James Stephen, which is set out in the Report, in paragraph 57.

2175
It is said there—and I will not quote the whole of it—
"No other punishment deters men so effectually from committing crimes as the punishment of death. This is one of those propositions which it is difficult to prove, simply because they are in themselves more obvious than any proof can make them."
He was talking of the death penalty as a deterrent. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may not agree with him.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Why was the penalty abolished for sheep stealing?
The Attorney-General: He was dealing with the death penalty generally as a deterrent, as contrasted with other deterrents. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to address this argument to them in answer to the arguments that have been advanced. They may not accept it and they may disagree with it, but I hope that they will allow me to put it in the short time available to me.
My view, and the view that has been expressed throughout the years, is that there is no other punishment under our laws that has, or can have, such a deterrent effect. One knows that that cannot be proved up to the hilt, but surely it must be so, as a matter of common sense, when one contrasts the death penalty with a term of imprisonment.
It is no answer to that statement to say, "We have so many murders committed each year, and it is no deterrent at all." One might equally say that because we have so many burglaries committed each year imprisonment is no deterrent at all. I have never heard it suggested until tonight that the imposition of the death sentence has increased the risk of murders being committed, and I do not think I could find anything in the Report in support of that statement.
The truth is—to summarise the position—that the death sentence has a deterrent effect which varies according to the nature of the individual. The Commission has said, in paragraph 68, that that was its prima facie conclusion. It also refers, in paragraph 59, to the general indirect effect of the death penalty.
The police say that there is one particular category to whom the death penalty is a deterrent, and that is the criminals. The view has been expressed
2176
that criminals are directly deterred by it from using lethal weapons to accomplish their purpose or to avoid arrest, and that, indirectly, it induces them not to carry weapons lest the temptation to use them be too strong. That is the view of the police, whose duty it is to protect society, and whose experience and knowledge of the criminal classes should be accepted. Great weight should be attached to their considered view.
It is also the view of those who are in the prison service. Let me give the example of a reprieved murderer serving a life sentence, a violent brute; and there are some. Suppose that while serving his sentence he kills a prison officer. If there is no death sentence, the worst that can happen to this double murderer is that he goes on serving the life sentence which has already been imposed upon him. Surely we should not weaken the protection which the law gives to those in the prison service. We owe them a duty not to do that. We rely upon them to see that those who are reprieved do not escape.
Some murderers will commit a second murder. [Interruption.] Yes. Does anyone on the Opposition side doubt that if Straffen escaped there would be another small girl's life in danger? Surely we should not weaken that protection.
Take another instance. What about the professional criminal who knows that the next time he is convicted he will be sentenced to preventive detention for maybe 10 years. If capital punishment goes, may he not be tempted to use violence to avoid capture, violence which may result in death? A reprieved murderer now usually gets from nine to 10 years. Of course it may be said, "Well, if the death sentence is abolished, the life sentence will really mean a life sentence and not a sentence of from nine to 10 years." That, I gather, is what hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest.
The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend drew attention to the fact that in the Amendment which bears his name there is no reference to the alternative. With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he dealt with that very vaguely. He said that, of course, these people must be kept in custody for a long time, but that they must not be kept in such conditions or for so long that deterioration to health results.

2177
But the problem which would confront us is not the problem that now arises in relation to persons who because of mitigating circumstances are reprieved; the problem with which one would be confronted would be the detention in safe custody, and maybe for a very long period, of those who would not now be reprieved because of the brutality of their crimes, and who could not be allowed any liberty because of the risks that might be involved.
It does not really matter whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes to give those institutions names other than prison institutions; it does not matter whether special provision is made in special places for that category of person, because I find it difficult to believe that prolonged detention in such places, maybe for 10 or 20 years, would not result in deterioration in health. Reference has been made to what Sir Alexander Paterson said on that issue—it was quite clear—and what the Commissioners said has also been referred to.
I think the Commission was a little optimistic as to what would be the result of prolonged detention. In my view, there is no satisfactory alternative at the present time to the death sentence, either as a deterrent or as an alternative punishment for the convicted person, an alternative which would satisfy the public conscience.
I am cutting my remarks as short as I can, and I say in conclusion that one cannot ignore the increase in crimes of violence to which my right hon. and gallant Friend referred in moving this Motion. I submit to the House that, in view of the figures he gave, this is not the time to try the experiment proposed in the Amendment. It is not the time either to abolish the death sentence or to suspend it, and it is not the time to reduce the protection to society, whether it be the protection that the law affords to warders, to men, women, or children.
Those in favour of abolition base their arguments on many grounds, and chiefly on the use of statistics, as I think the House will agree after listening to this debate. They compare country with country and statistics before and after abolition in a particular country. However, I am sure the Commission was right when it said that it is almost impossible
2178
to draw valid comparisons between different countries, that interpretation of the relevant statistics involves doubt and difficulty.
We are asked now to take a chance, for it cannot be proved—and I think the House accepts this—that in this country the suspension or abolition of the death sentence—its removal as a deterrent—would not result in some person being murdered who would have remained alive if the death sentence had remained. That, I say, cannot be proved. It cannot be proved that that will not happen, and we are asked to take a chance, to run the risk that some such persons will be murdered.
I do not believe that the mass of the people in this country want us to take that risk. I do not think that they want the protection of society weakened in any degree. I think they regard the death penalty as essential for the preservation of the security of life in our society. Before any such drastic change is made, there should be clear evidence that it is the public desire. I do not think that there is any indication that public opinion on this issue has changed at all since 1948.
Mr. Paget: Still give them Barabbas?
The Attorney-General: Over the years our history has shown us that we have continually reduced the severities of our criminal law. There was the reference earlier to hanging for sheep stealing and so on. That is our history. We have pruned and pruned, and now we are being asked to prune still further. In the present state of our society, I do not believe that that can safely be done.
We are, as I say, invited to take a chance. Indeed, that is recognised, because it is recognised by this Amendment that it is not proved that abolition will not result in someone being murdered who, if the death sentence stood, would remain alive. I ask hon. Members opposite in all seriousness to consider this point. I know, from listening to their speeches, how they feel. But have they considered at all what the results would be if the experiment which they are asking the House to make failed? I do not suppose that any one of us would suffer as a result of it, but if there are cases where the death sentence is now a deterrent, then I suggest that suspension of the death sentence is a most dangerous

2179
and risky step in the present state of our society.
Knowing, as we do, the rising figures of crimes of violence, and that the figures for the first nine months of 1954 are much bigger than the figures for the first nine months of 1953, I suggest that we really should not run this risk with others at this time. The Government's view is that
it should not be run, and I therefore ask the House to reject this Amendment, which I am sure is contrary to the wishes and desires of the vast mass of the electorate.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 214.

Division No. 34.]

AYES

[10.0 p. m

Aitken, W. T.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Wrwk & Lgtn)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Alport, C. J. M.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Longden, Gilbert

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Errington, Sir Eric

Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

Arbuthnot, John

Finlay, Graeme

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Armstrong, C. W.

Fisher, Nigel

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Assheton.Rt. Hn. R. (Blackburn, w.)

Ford, Mrs. Patricia

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Baldwin, A. E.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Barber, Anthony

Fraser, Sir Ian (Mcmbe & Lonsdale)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Barlow, Sir John

Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Beach, Ma]. Hicks

Gammans, L. D.

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Glover, D.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Gooch, E. G.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Bennett, Sir William (Woodside)

Gough, C. F. H.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Graham, Sir Fergus

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Bishop, F. P.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Marples, A. E.

Black, C. W.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Boothby, Sir Robert

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maudling, R.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Mellor, Sir John

Braine, B. R.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

Molson, A. H. E.

Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Heald Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Heath, Edward

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Higgs, J. M. C.

Neave, Airey

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Nicholls, Harmar

Bullard, D. G.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Noble, comdr. A. H

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nugent, G. R. H.

Butler.Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Oakshott, H. D.

Campbell, Sir David

Hope, Lord John

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Carr, Robert

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

Cary, Sir Robert

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Osborne, C

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Horobin, Sir Ian

Page, R. G.

Clarke, Col. Sir Ralph(East Grinstead)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Perkins, Sir Robert

Cole, Norman

Howard, Hon. Greville (St Ives)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Colegate, Sir W. A.

Hudson, Sir Austen (Lewisham, N.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Cooper, sqd. Ldr. Albert

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hughes Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.

Hurd, A. R.

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Profumo, J. D.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Crouch, R. F.

Iremonger, T. L.

Ramsden, J. E.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchiey)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Rayner, Brig. R.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Redmayne, M.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Davidson, Viscountess

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Renton, D. L. M.

Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Ridsdale, J. E.

De la Bere, Sir Rupert

Kaberry, D.

Robertson, Sir David

Deedes, W. F.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Digby, S. Wingfield

Lambert, Hon. G.

Robson-Brown, W.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lancaster, col. C. G.

Roper, Sir Harold

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Leather, E. H. C.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Donner, Sir P. W.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Russell, R. S.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Drayson, G. B.

Lindsay, Martin

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Drewe, Sir C.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Duthie, W. S.

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Scot, Sir Donald

Sharples, Maj. R. C.

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'le'bne)

Shepherd, William

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Wall, Major Patrick

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Heref'd)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Snadden, W. McN.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Soames, Capt. C.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Watkinson, H. A.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Webbe, Sir H. (L'nd'n & Westm'r)

Speir, R. M.

Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Spent, Rt. Hn. Sir P (K'ns'gt'n, S.)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Tilney, John

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Tuche, sir Gordon

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Turner, H. F. L.

Wills, G.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Storey, S.

Turton, R. H.

Woollam, John Victor

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Vane, W. M. F.

Studholme, H. G.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

Vosper, D. F.

Sir Robert Grimston and Mr. Nield.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

NOES

Adams, Richard

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Messer, Sir F.

Albu, A. H.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mikardo, Ian

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mitchison, G. R.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Monslow, W.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Grimond, J.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Hale, Leslie

Mort, D. L.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Moyle, A.

Baird, J.

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Mulley, F. W.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Hamilton, W. W.

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Hannan, W.

Oldfield, W. H.

Beswick, F.

Hargreaves, A.

Oliver, G. H.

Sevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Orbach, M.

Bing, G. H. C.

Hastings, S.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Blackburn, F.

Hayman, F. H.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Blenkinsop, A.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Oswald, T.

Blyton, W. R.

Herbison, Miss M.

Owen, W. J.

Boardman, H.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Padley, W. E.

Bowden, H. W.

Hollis, M. C.

Paget, R. T.

Bowles, F. G.

Holman, P.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Brook, Dry den (Halifax)

Holmes, Horace

Palmer, A. M. F.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Holt, A. F.

Pannell, Charles

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Hudson, James (Ealing. N.)

Pargiter, G. A.

Callaghan, L. J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Parker, J.

Parkin, B. T.

Carmichael, J.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Paton, J.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Peart, T. F.

Chapman, W. D.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Chetwynd, G. R.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Popplewell, E.

Clunie, J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Porter, G.

Collins, V. J.

Janner, B.

Powell, J. Enoch

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Cove, W. G.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Proctor, W. T.

Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Rankin, John

Crosland, c. A. R.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Reeves, J.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech

Rhodes, H.

Daines, P.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Kenyon, c.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Deer, G.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Ross, William

Delargy, H. J.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Royle, C.

Dodds, N. N.

Lawson, G. M.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Lee, Miss Lennie (Cannock)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Skeffington, A. M.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lewis, Arthur

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Fernyhough, E.

MacColl, J. E.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Fienburgh, W.

McInnes, J.

Snow, J. W.

Finch, H. J.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Sorensen, R. W.

Follick, M.

McLeavy, F.

Suskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Foot, M. M.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Sparks, J. A.

Fort, R.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Steele, T.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfd, E.)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Freeman, John (Watford)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Manuel, A. C.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Galtskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Maude, Angus

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Gibson, C. W.

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Greenwood, Anthony

Mellish, R. J.

Swingler, S. T.

2182

2183

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Warbey, W. N.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Thomas George (Cardiff)

Weitzman, D.

Williams, W. R. (Droyisden)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

west, D. G

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Willis, E. G.

Thornton, E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Wyatt, W. L.

Usborne, H. C.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Yates, V. F.

Viant, S. P.

Wigg, George

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Wade, D. W.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Wilkins, W. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wallace, H. W.

Willey, F. T.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson and

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde.

Resolution agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (Cmd. 8932).

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  WAYS AND MEANS [9th February]

    TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (PENSIONS)
    Resolution reported,
    That any Act of the present Session relating to the superannuation benefits payable in respect of service with trustee savings banks and their inspection committee may exclude relief under the Income Tax Acts in respect of contributions to be made towards the cost of pensions payable tinder provisions corresponding to Part I or Part II of the Superannuation Act, 1949.

    LEGAL AID SCHEME (EXTENSION)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]
    10.11 p.m.
    Mr. Barnett Janner: I venture to suggest that, in spite of the importance of the debate which has taken place earlier, the subject which I wish to raise for the consideration of the House this evening is also of great importance and should not be overshadowed by the earlier debate. It is of the utmost importance that those who are entitled to legal remedies shall not be deprived of the opportunity of exercising their rights and of obtaining a just result.
    I have always urged in the House and elsewhere that the cause of the person of humble means must not be allowed to go by default because of his inability to get proper legal advice or assistance. It was recognised, when the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, was passed, that such
    2184
    was the case and that there was an obligation to help needy litigants who have a reasonable case.
    Under that Act conditions were laid down requiring the establishment of a proper prima facie claim or defence on the part of the person who applied for legal aid. It is, therefore, only in those cases in which a competent lawyer has given his opinion that such a prima facie case is established that legal assistance is provided.
    Under Section 4 (6) of the 1949 Act, to which I have referred, the National Assistance Board is responsible for operating the means test which has been laid down by the Act. It has to take into consideration the capital and income of the applicant for aid. It is only after the Assistance Board has assessed the disposable capital and income of the applicant that a legal aid certificate is granted to him. The National Assistance Board is bound by Regulations to take into consideration the total income and expenditure of the applicant and his wife in calculating his disposable capital and income.
    As a result of this calculation, it has become clear that under the conditions which are laid down in many cases where the applications have been acceded to and a certificate granted that it is absolutely impossible for the applicant to proceed with his case under the legal aid scheme. In the course of my professional experience I have come across cases where applicants had been called upon to agree to pay very substantial contributions towards the cost.
    Often they find it impossible to do this, and in some cases they have had to abandon their applications for legal assistance and to proceed as best they can without it, or not proceed at all. May I give an illustration of one case? An elderly woman whose husband earns about £6 a week, who has no disposable capital at all, was called upon to contribute £51 at the rate of £4 5s. a month towards the

    2185
    cost of an appeal which had been made against a decision in her favour in the county court.
    I would ask, therefore, that the rules relating to disposable income and disposable capital be reconsidered by the Government with a view to a much smaller call for contributions being made upon the applicant.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, and I want to give him as much information as I can. But it is fair to indicate that these rules have statutory authority and I shall be necessarily limited in my reply, if he asks me to change the rules.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) is asking for a change in the law, he is out of order on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Janner: I appreciate that, but I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will also consider the Regulations in the context of the Act, and if he does he will find that there are ways and means by which he can improve the position. I am sure he would want to create a state of affairs which would enable an applicant to proceed with his case, and that he will do all he possibly can with that end in view.
    It is true that a large number of people have, in fact, availed themselves of the benefits of the Act. I think the best way in which I can illustrate the complaints I have to make is to refer to what an authoritative body, which has been given the duty of dealing with the Act, has to say in view of its experience in the course of the last four years. Under Section 8 of the Act, the responsibility for making reports is given to the Law Society, which is also responsible for seeing that legal aid and advice are available as required by Part I of the Act, and generally to administer that part of the Act.
    The Law Society has issued four Reports on the operations and finance of Part I of the Act, and the Advisory Committee set up by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with Section 13 of the Act has commented upon and offered recommendations on these Reports from which I should like to quote for the benefit of the House and for the full consideration of the Solicitor-General.
    2186
    The Third Report was published in the early part of 1954 or late in 1953, and it says:
    "In our two previous Reports we strongly urged your Lordship to bring into force those parts of the Act which make up the Legal Advice Scheme and we set out at some length our reasons for recommending that course. We consider that the present truncated Scheme can never be satisfactory while it remains in isolation and for that reason we would welcome any extension of the scope of the Act, whether to provide for Advice or Legal Aid in the County Court or the Magistrates' Court. For the reasons we have already given we are still of the view that first priority should be given to the Legal Advice Scheme. We wish to reiterate that the position of those who require legal advice is worse now"—
    I emphasise this—
    "than it was when the Rushcliffe Committee reported in 1945, and it is steadily deteriorating. The enactment of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, unexpectedly followed by the prolonged failure to implement its sections relating to Legal Advice, has indeed aggravated the position.
    Many of those who, by their services and contributions, maintained the legal advice centres existing before 1949, have ceased to help, in the reasonable belief that advice was about to be provided under the Act. The admirable organisations which still render this important service have no security of tenure and are financially living from hand to mouth so far as legal advice is concerned. We earnestly hope that those Local Authorities which have continued to subsidise these organisations will still do so and that more Local Authorities will make grants. We venture to suggest that consideration should be given to the possibility of making grants from Government funds to legal advice centres …"
    This advice was not taken by the Government, and the Fourth Report states:
    "Since we last reported our views reiterating that the Legal Advice Scheme should be brought into force as soon as possible, the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Housing Repairs and Rents Act have been passed."
    I pause here for a moment. These Acts affect a large number of people in this country. These people are in need of immediate advice, because if they do not have it they will find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to pay higher rentals for their homes. In many cases these rentals will be over and above what the courts consider as reasonable for, say, flats of a similar size in the same building.
    That is not quoting an isolated case, because there are many such illustrations throughout the country in respect of flats. In many flats in the same house

    2187
    the tenants have been put in the position of being compelled, if the landlord chooses to enforce it—and in many cases he does—to pay as much as 30 per cent. more than their neighbours when the courts say that is not reasonable. It is due to the fact that they have not had an opportunity to consult any solicitor about it but have accepted the position outlined in notices presented to them by the landlords who have not complied with the requirements of the law.
    To continue my quotation:
    "Both these Acts involve the public in legal matters of the greatest complexity, and failure to appreciate the provisions of the Acts may have the most serious consequences. As a result of the Acts, legal proceedings will frequently be brought in the county court in which many parties will be unable to afford legal representation in matters in which it will be almost impossible for the litigant to do justice to his case in person. In these circumstances we cannot but think that the Government must be giving every consideration to the question whether they can continue to deny the facilities of legal advice and legal aid in the county court to the poorer class of litigants. We would add whatever weight our views may possess to the growing volume of opinion that these facilities should be made available without further delay. We are more convinced than ever that the provisions of legal advice, already authorised by the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, is urgently required."
    All the eminent people who have been asked to advise and to recommend in respect of the provisions of these Acts have made that point. It is not only their opinion. It is the opinion of practically every lawyer who has had anything to do with the Acts. It is the opinion of the legal aid committees. That is what is happening today, as the hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt is aware, and it cannot be denied. It is an injustice to men and women who are entitled to have their cases dealt with properly because they are just as important as any other cases taken in the High Court or any other court.
    I ask first that legal advice should be given which would mean a saving of a considerable sum of money. Were persons properly advised, they would know when they should not enter into litigation as well as when they should. Knowing that such advice has been given, the opposite party would in many cases undoubtedly refrain from taking proceedings. It is essential that this aid should
    2188
    be given at once. The county courts and the magistrates' courts deal with the lives of many people. Today we have debated life and death, but this assistance means near life and death to thousands of people in this country. Their homes, their matrimonial affairs, their domestic affairs all come to the county courts and within the civil sections of the magistrates' courts and they are without advice essential to protect them.
    I know that one of my hon. Friends wishes to speak on this subject before the hon. and learned Gentleman replies. Again, I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is a matter of considerable importance. I would also ask him to consider what happens when a person who has been successful in the county court is appealed against in the High Court. First, he has this trouble with regard to the assessment of the amount which he has to contribute. If he is successful in the court of appeal his opponent can still take the case to the House of Lords, if permission is given. In that case, the poor litigant, who was successful in the county court and in the court of appeal, is in the position of not receiving any assistance in presenting his case before the House of Lords.
    I would refer the hon. and learned Member to what his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said over three months ago. He said:
    "I hope … that we shall not have to wait so very much longer before we concede the full recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee, embodied as they were, in the 1949 Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 1898.]
    It is well over three months since those words were spoken. I venture to hope that, after what I have said tonight, I shall receive an assurance from the Government that relief will be given. They have no longer any excuse.
    No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman will have a conflict with the Treasury, but let him ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember what he has said time after time in this House—that the country's economy is now flourishing. The Chancellor can no longer plead that the million pounds needed to mete out justice to the people concerned is too much. If an attempt is made to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman doing the right thing, he can put forward a convincing argument

    2189
    against the Treasury. I hope that he will consider the suggestions which I have put forward.
    10.28 p.m.
    Lieut. - Colonel Marcus Lipton: I urge as strongly and as briefly as I can the need to introduce the advice part of the legal aid scheme at the earliest possible moment. It will save money, because it will obviate much unnecessary litigation which is now being undertaken through the lack of suitable advice. It so happens that the Lambeth Borough Council has been trying to carry on a legal advice centre. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has ruled that any expenditure by the local authority for that purpose is illegal and cannot be allowed any longer.
    Realising the danger to one or two very worthy institutions in the London area which are providing legal advice, the London County Council has been giving subventions, and will continue to do so for another two or three years in order that such useful organisations as Cambridge House, in south London, may continue their very much appreciated legal advice facilities.
    I very much hope that the Solicitor-General will use his good offices to ensure that the advice part of the scheme is put into effect at the earliest possible moment. It will cost a little more money, but it will save a certain amount and to that extent a strong case may be made out. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to give us a sympathetic assurance tonight.
    10.30 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) knows that I am, and would of necessity be, sympathetic. I hope to satisfy him that we are doing all which reasonably could be hoped for in the direction of getting on with the implementation of this Act. I am not sure, because of the din which succeeded our chief debate today, that I have grasped every single word that he was so courteously directing my way, but if I did not, and if I fail to deal with some matters with which I should deal. I hope that he will be good enough to drop me a hint.
    I will deal, first, with what is being done, because it is the extension of legal
    2190
    aid to the county court which has a direct bearing on what I shall have to say about legal advice and on the question of contributions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is now the intention to extend legal aid to the county court without any possible avoidable delay. I want to say, because there has been some confusion in the Press about it, that it is not only the county court, but certain local courts, and so that no misunderstanding may remain about this I would point out that they are the Chancery Court of the County Palatine of Durham, the Mayor's and City of London Court, the Liverpool Court of Passage, the Salford Hundred Court, the Bristol Tolzey Court and the Norwich Guildhall Court. That completes the extension to local courts.
    Mr. Janner: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to say a word about magistrates' courts.
    The Solicitor-General: In due course I will. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I desire to say, in regard to the county court, that we cannot extend legal aid in a flourish of magic lightning for this reason. New rules and regulations have to be drafted, and administrative arrangements made for the extension of county court jurisdiction. When that has been done provision has to be made for legal aid in county courts and the Law Society has to make arrangements about area and local committees and to rearrange its accounting and to deal with the National Assistance Board.
    That is a large labour and we hope—whether it is possible or not I do not know; I am not giving any pledge—that we may have time to make legal aid available in the county court by the time the county court gets its extended jurisdiction. The hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulties because no one knows better than he that whereas in the county court one may get a summons issued and heard within 14 days—and the bulk are heard within five weeks of the issue of the summons—the fact is that the average time taken to obtain a legal aid certificate for proceedings in the High Court is seven and a half weeks, and how that timetable is to be adjusted to provide the defendant in the county court with legal aid is a matter of extreme difficulty.

    2191
    We are fulfilling to our utmost the pledge that there should be no undue delay in extending legal aid to the county court. That measure in itself is costly in terms both of finance and of administrative endeavour, and rearrangements have to be made by the Law Society of which the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member. We could not place upon the Law Society or indeed upon public funds the difficulty of having at one and the same time to take not only this extended step, but the further and vastly important step of providing legal advice as opposed to legal aid.
    In my belief, it would really be unreasonable in terms of cost and administration to take these two steps at once because the extension of legal aid to the county court is in itself a very large measure, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. The cost is not negligible. I like hearing the hon. Gentleman talking about the prosperity—I do not desire to enter into any inter-party matter—of the country and acknowledging the splendid improvement which has been made.
    Mr. Janner: I did not say that. I said that the Chancellor ought not to make any excuse for preventing him from doing what he wants to do.
    The Solicitor-General: I shall get into trouble if I wander into the field of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, speaking as one humble servant of the law to another, I would suggest that one of the reasons why we have prosperity is because we do not wander round like the hon. Gentleman, talking about the one or two million pounds which it may involve. We have to look at the pence if we want the shillings to be sound, and at the millions if we want the Budget to be sound.
    I therefore think it is right to tell the hon. Gentleman—so that the public and he may know—that nobody has made any very accurate estimate about the additional cost of legal advice. However, one of his hon. Friends mentioned in the House an estimate of an additional £1 million a year. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will think that I am being reasonable if I say that it is quite beyond proper practice to suggest that we should undertake that step simultaneously with the extension to the county court.
    2192
    If that is the right view, then, obviously, the Government are confronted with a matter of priorities here; and we thought it right to decide largely on the grounds that the hon. Gentleman himself was urging, that the Housing Repairs and Rents Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, have added greatly to the difficulties of the county court litigant. He quoted the very words of the Advisory Committee Report which pointed out the difficulty that the litigant, unassisted, might have in conducting his own case in those matters. We thought the right thing to do was to give priority as between those two alternatives in expenditure and administrative arrangement to the extension to the county court. I hope to have the agreement of the hon. Gentleman in that matter as being an obviously right step.
    What about the other courts? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the magistrates' courts and I understood him to be speaking about those quasi-civil matters, as we call them, which I might describe for the record as the things in paragraph 3 of Part I of the First Schedule to the Statute. The group of additional courts to which this legal aid could be extended would involve on a very tentative estimate, which is the best one can get, certainly yet another £1 million a year and yet more administrative arrangement. I am afraid, therefore, that the Government cannot at present see their way towards adding that extension in addition to the county court extension which they now undertake.
    In the moments which remain, I want to say a word about this question of contributions. I respectfully agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are cases in which the contribution required is too high, and I think the Report of the Advisory Committee would confirm that. I hope that if he has in mind some special individual cases, he will be good enough to let me know about them and I will cause them to be investigated once again by the Assistance Board to see whether Something can be done to make the assessment easier.
    This is not as easy as it may seem, because the more legal aid costs the less are we able to extend it, and the more we reduce the contribution the more legal aid costs. This is not a negligible factor. Perhaps I can give an instance. In the

    2193
    year ended 31st March last, 17, 000 persons litigated as assisted persons paying contributions and all except 1, 500 of them paid contributions of £10 or more. So it is plain, without allowing for any extension of the class of assisted litigant which might arise from the county court extension, that just letting off the contribution to the tune of an average of £10 a case means an expenditure of over £100, 000. These are large matters.
    It is not easy to estimate the size of this though since the hon. Gentleman spoke to me yesterday I have tried to see if I could do so. There seemed to be
    2194
    two ways of looking at it. One was by taking all the written complaints that the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Head Office of the National Assistance Board have received in this matter. These amount to only 31 in the year 1953. The other aspect would be—
    The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wages and Dividends
  Wages and Dividends
  Public Service Pensioners' Council
  Public Service Pensioners' Council
AGRICULTURE
  Dispossession Orders
  Dispossession Orders
  Transit of Animals
  Transit of Animals
  Landrace Pigs (Atrophic Rhinitiss)
  Landrace Pigs (Atrophic Rhinitiss)
  Rural Electricity Supplies, North Devon
  Rural Electricity Supplies, North Devon
  Fertiliser Subsidy
  Fertiliser Subsidy
  Tuberculosis Eradication Areas
  Tuberculosis Eradication Areas
  Farm Roads
  Farm Roads
  National Service (Advisory Panels)
  National Service (Advisory Panels)
EMPLOYMENT
  London Docks (Labour Recruitment)
  London Docks (Labour Recruitment)
  Rabbit Trappers and Gamekeepers
  Rabbit Trappers and Gamekeepers
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CALL UP AND DEFERMENTS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (CALL UP AND DEFERMENTS)
  COST OF LIVING (PURCHASE TAX)
  COST OF LIVING (PURCHASE TAX)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Pensions (Deputation)
  Police Pensions (Deputation)
  Dartmoor Prison
  Dartmoor Prison
  House of Commons Precincts (Disorder)
  House of Commons Precincts (Disorder)
  Obscene Publications
  Obscene Publications
  Lambeth Juvenile Court (Cases)
  Lambeth Juvenile Court (Cases)
  Motoring Offences (Emission of Smoke)
  Motoring Offences (Emission of Smoke)
EDUCATION
  Mathematics and Science Teachers
  Mathematics and Science Teachers
  Post-War Schools (Fuel Consumption)
  Post-War Schools (Fuel Consumption)
U.N.E.S.C.O.
  (U.K. Contribution)
  (U.K. Contribution)
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Indian Collection)
  Victoria and Albert Museum (Indian Collection)
  Maintenance Grants
  Maintenance Grants
  Education Act (Cost of Implementation)
  Education Act (Cost of Implementation)
  Local Authority Schemes
  Local Authority Schemes
  School Population (Classes)
  School Population (Classes)
  Teachers' Salaries (Expenditure)
  Teachers' Salaries (Expenditure)
  University Students and State Scholars
  University Students and State Scholars
  Forces Further Education and Training Scheme
  Forces Further Education and Training Scheme
  TRANSVAAL AND SWAZILAND (COMMUNICATIONS INVESTIGATION)
  TRANSVAAL AND SWAZILAND (COMMUNICATIONS INVESTIGATION)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Commonwealth and Colonial Export Duties
  Commonwealth and Colonial Export Duties
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Exports to U.S.S.R.
  Exports to U.S.S.R.
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TECHNICAL INSTITUTES)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TECHNICAL INSTITUTES)
  HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE (SENTENCED SERVICE MEN)
  HONG KONG AND SINGAPORE (SENTENCED SERVICE MEN)
  KENYA (DEPENDANTS OF DETAINEES)
  KENYA (DEPENDANTS OF DETAINEES)
  VALIANT AIRCRAFT (MODIFICATION)
  VALIANT AIRCRAFT (MODIFICATION)
  IRONSTONE WORKINGS (LAND)
  IRONSTONE WORKINGS (LAND)
SCOTLAND
  School Dentists
  School Dentists
  Slaughterhouses (Committee's Report)
  Slaughterhouses (Committee's Report)
  INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NORTH-EAST ENGLAND
  INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NORTH-EAST ENGLAND
  FIRING RANGE, CARDIFF (COMPLAINTS)
  FIRING RANGE, CARDIFF (COMPLAINTS)
  RETIREMENT PENSIONS (PURCHASING POWER)
  RETIREMENT PENSIONS (PURCHASING POWER)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  3.6 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, before the debate begins, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to make a statement about the Business for next week. As your Lordships will have seen, a very large number of Amendments have been put down for the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill, which is certainly likely to occupy more than two days, particularly as we wish to find time for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, on air pollution, which I should not like to displace from its position. I understand that that Motion is not likely to take very long.
  I would therefore propose that we should take the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I suggest that on Tuesday and Wednesday the House should sit till about seven o'clock. We must finish the Committee stage on Thursday, and therefore I would ask the House to meet as usual, at three o'clock, and to sit on on that day until the Committee stage is completed. In order to lighten our programme on Thursday, I would propose that we should postpone the Report stage of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill and the Second Reading of the Cocos Islands Bill, which are down for Thursday, until Tuesday, the 22nd, in the following week. I will place the necessary Motion on the Order Paper to enable that to be done. I have had some talks through the usual channels and I think those changes will meet the general convenience of the House.

THE SITUATION IN KENYA
3.8 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON LORD MILVERTON rose to call attention to the situation in Kenya with particular reference to the recent surrender terms offered to Mau Mau terrorists; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name, I am anxious to make it clear from the start that a growing anxiety about the capacity of the Kenya Government would probably never have found public expression, at least so far as I am concerned, had it not been for what I regard as a disastrous gamble with principles—I mean, of course, the recent surrender terms offered to the Mau Mau terrorists. Naturally, one is reluctant to embarrass any Government which is making an attempt to deal with an emergency, but when a Government seems to be gambling with the principles and the public respect upon which its own position must finally rest, then a protest seems to me to become a public duty.
In looking at the situation in Kenya, I propose to confine my comments, in so far as it is possible, to the emergency which was declared in October, 1952, and which is still with us in February, 1955. We pay a lot of attention nowadays to world opinion and it seems to me not unreasonable to pay at least some attention to public opinion in the country where the trouble has occurred. If the Government has not succeeded, or has forfeited public confidence in the country where it functions, then surely it stands condemned. A much clearer picture is possible to-day than in 1952, of the way in which the Mau Mau rebellion was planned and the reason why its aims and objectives have obtained such a hold on the Kikuyu tribe. Leakey and other authorities have made that quite clear. If I may repeat them, the main aims were: to drive out all foreigners; the destruction of Christianity; the seizure of all land for African use; the restoration of ancient customs and independent self-government. There was thrown into those aims a strange one, which was the cessation of soil conservation. In fact, as has been explained, that was a clever appeal to the women of the tribe, because most of the work in relation to the soil conservation is done by the women. It is, of course, easy to see why

1129
the destruction of Christianity occupied such a high place in their aims, because any study of this emergency cannot hep attracting one's attention to the fact that the core of the resistance amongst the Africans to Mau Mau has been among the African Christians.
The movement was planned for many years under the guidance of Jomo Kenyatta and his chief lieutenants and others, and arms were being collected and stockpiled against the great day. An elaborate organisation existed with a system of deputies ever ready to take over in case the heads were arrested. As long ago as 1941 the Kikuyu Central Association had been banned as a subversive organisation, but when that Association was banned the task was taken over by the Kenya African Union which, with its preponderant Kikuyu membership, increasingly became a mere mask for the Mau Mau movement. How the movement for so long escaped the attention of the Kenya Government remains a puzzle. The ground was psychologically fertile for the evil crop sown by Kenyatta and his group. The impact of Western European economy, in all its many ways, upon a primitive tribal system had fatally shaken it disrupting the discipline and the tribal control upon which Kikuyu lives had been based. A generation was growing up which was adrift from its spiritual moorings.
Some of their cherished tribal customs, such as polygamy, female circumcision and so forth, were condemned by the Christian churches; so there sprang up separate African churches based upon Christianity as acceptable to the Kikuyu. It was then that the diabolical brain which was planning the Mau Mau rebellion gave it the clever religious twist which founded a new religion. Sedition and worse were spread by means of hymns, written to the old familiar tunes of Hymns, Ancient and Modern. When Kikuyu meetings were apparently swaying in religious fervour to the strains of "Abide with Me" or "Onward, Christian Soldiers," or even the National Anthem itself, the congregation was in reality being exhorted to wipe out Europeans and all foreigners. We now appreciate that Man Mau is a rebellion with a devilish emotional appeal to men and women alike. As I have tried to indicate, it stepped into a spiritual vacuum and filled it with promises which
1130
cleverly embraced the elimination of almost every social, economic and political discontent.
Leakey tells us that the taking of even the first Mau Mau oath is a major mental shock to the Kikuyu, while the oaths grow increasing foul and obscene in their rites and ceremonies up to the utter degradation of the eighth oath. The oath-takers apparently become outcasts, unclean and uncleansable, utterly degraded in the eyes of native law and custom. They are therefore doubly bound to the association with others equally depraved. Furthermore, this authority is of opinion that the first oath can be cleansed and redeemed; the second and third oaths possibly may be; but in all probability redemption from the other oaths is utterly impossible. That is an important point. I have ventured to give this slight and inadequate sketch because it is essential to know something of the special background of Mau Mau in order to judge whether these new surrender terms can make sense, apart from any question of principle. The Government of Kenya have many difficult problems arising out of the pressure of rapidly increasing population, the need of a new wage structure, and, above all, the need of moral sanctions to enforce decent social behaviour; but these things cannot be tackled adequately until the Mau Mau movement has been crushed.
How have the Kenya Government fared in the past two and a half years of growing enlightenment about the power and nature of Mau Mau? Not very well. They have been unhappy in their judgment, slow in action and lacking in firmness, self-confidence and decision. To an outside observer, the long-drawn-out tolerance of conditions in Nairobi and of Mau Mau dominance in the capital city, the absence of a clear lead from the Government in matters such as the organisation of the Home Guard, of land policy in its various aspects, villagisation and so on, indicate, I suggest, a lack of grip and understanding. The hesitations of the Government are reflected in the Police and the Home Guard, and even in unofficial dissensions. Kenya, to me, resembles a ship at sea in a storm, with no-one on the bridge. When the storm broke in 1952, and caught the Government unawares, the blindness of the group of men in charge of Government came in for some merited criticism from

1131
the public, but the matter ended there. There was little indication that the Government had learned their bitter lesson. The men who had forfeited the confidence of Kenya apparently retained the full confidence of Whitehall.
It is true that the key to Kenya lies in Nairobi. "Operation Anvil" last year dealt a long overdue blow to the Mau Mau organisation, but there is growing uneasiness about the time taken over screening those who are detained and the uncertainty as to their future. One has to remember that the bulk of the Kikuyu tribe are sitting on the fence waiting to back the winner. Most of them, either willingly or under compulsion, have taken at least the first Mau Mau oath. Even among the loyalists, many disapprove of the methods of Mau Mau, but they have much sympathy with many of their aims and objects. And what have they seen during the past year? They have seen loyal chiefs and members of the Home Guard arrested and prosecuted for maltreatment of the enemy in one way or another. They have seen a Government apparently so preoccupied with the enforcement of their incomprehensible law as to exclude justice as understood by the people.
We are told that the hold of Mau Mau on the Kikuyu tribe is failing and that increasing success against them is due in no small measure to the help and co-operation of the Home Guard. But it also appears that the morale of the Home Guard was severely shaken by the actions of Government so that it became necessary to declare an amnesty for past offences—that is, offences committed before January 18. Prosecutions, already Initiated before that date, however, were to proceed. To appreciate the full nature of the Kenya Government's descent, let us look at the first parleys of this nature in August, 1953. The Mau Mau gangsters were offered life but not liberty, except that the offer did not apply to men against whom there lay a prima facie case of murder. The Government's conditions then were: no negotiation with any gang leader, no general amnesty, no cessation of military operations. The treatment of Mau Mau in detention was to be in no way affected by the offer.
Then in April, 1954, came the notorious negotiations through the captured
1132
Mau Mau leader known as "General China," after which the promise of life and no trial for murder was apparently extended even to murderers who surrendered by a given time. And now, three weeks or so ago, there has been made the definite offer to those who surrender of no prosecution for any offence committed before January 18. It is said that the offer was forced on Government as the only way out of the legal mess in which it had become involved: that the morale of the Home Guard had been very gravely undermined, and that administrative officers were deeply concerned over the Government's clumsy handling of a body of men who had risked their lives, and the lives of their relatives, by opposing Mau Mau. All this muddle had arisen over the obstinate refusal of Government to declare that a rebellion or a war was taking place. And so one emergency regulation after another has been piled up, until even a Supreme Court judge, with the expert assistance at his disposal, can hardly find his way about them. How much less can a district officer or a native chief be expected to digest them!
And to expose the disingenuousness of refusing to call this trouble a rebellion, let us look at the figures since its start in 1952. Civilians killed have amounted to 30 Europeans, 19 Asians and 1,316 Africans. For security forces killed the figures are: 38 Europeans, 2 Asians, and 470 Africans. The wounded totalled 62 Europeans, 12 Asians, and 392 Africans. The figures relating to Mau Mau are: Mau Mau killed, 7,811; Mau Mau captured wounded, 844; Mau Mau captured unwounded, 349; Mau Mau surrendered, 828; Mau Mau terrorists hanged for murder, 223; Mau Mau terrorists hanged for other capital offences, 568; Mau Mau terrorists hanged for non-Mau Mau capital offences, 30. These figures, I may say, do not include Mau Mau casualties in air attacks, or the many thousands now in prison or under detention. It is estimated that there are upwards of 6,000 or 7,000 Mau Mau supporters lurking in the forests of the Aberdares and Mount Kenya.
If there is no rebellion and no war, what then are the Mau Mau gangsters? Surely they are just crime-sodden murderers, or, at best, accessories to murder, who have broken the criminal law. And it is with criminals of this kind

1133
that the Kenya Government propose to do their immoral deal. As I see them, the terms are never likely even to induce any leaders to surrender. They hold this new religion of theirs too deeply and are too seriously committed. If the leaders do not surrender, it does not matter how many thousands of others surrender, because with the leaders still in the forest it has been amply demonstrated that those who surrender can be made up by fresh adherents.
Elspeth Huxley, who is herself from time to time a resident in Kenya and knows the country intimately, has pointed out that the Government claim that they cannot halt the process of law; yet, when they wish to treat with the Mau Mau gangsters, they can altogether suspend them.
"It is such sophistries as these"—
I am quoting now the words of Elspeth Huxley—
"which, unfortunately, have brought the British code of law, framed for men at peace, in a country long civilised, into so large a measure of contempt and distrust among Africans to whom we bring it as an untarnished offering."
I suggest, with the deepest regret, that the Kenya Government have not been loyal to their loyal supporters; nor is it reasonable that the security forces, in handling a situation of this kind, should be subjected to the commissar-like activities of the C.I.D.
The defenders of the Governor of Kenya say, in effect, that the end justifies the means and that no price in principle and prestige is too great to save Kenya from further agony and ultimate financial collapse. What a confession of failure! Such an amnesty could, at its most inconceivable best, purchase only a temporary lull, while the undefeated forces of evil went underground and planned for another effort later. It is no use, as I see it, proclaiming that the worst of these men will be held for periods extending to a life sentence. How can they be detained in the face of the popular clamour which is certain to arise in this country, that we are detaining hundreds or thousands of men who have never been given the privilege of a trial? It is very easy to say that these men will be detained indefinitely, but I suggest that our experience is that the Government would not be able to withstand the clamour here that they should be either
1134
tried or released. It is an interesting comment, too, that now, three weeks after the offer, the number of surrenders is negligible, and I see, I think in yesterday's papers, that it has been necessary for the authorities to throw a cordon round Nanyuki, where 1,000 Kikuyu have been detained as suspect Mau Mau.
I have said nothing about the alleged irresponsibility and lack of discipline of the Kenya settlers. I do not want to enter into Kenya politics here, but I am tempted to remark that the resentment of the Kenya settlers seems to have some justification in the continued inadequacy of the Kenya Government. Lest I be misunderstood, let me say that in my eyes the Kenya Government are the heads of Government in Nairobi. To my own personal knowledge, the field administrative staff and the staff of many departments, such as especially the agricultural and educational departments, are doing splendid work in most discouraging circumstances. Lastly, at the time of what I am tempted to call the "Lyttelton Unsettlement," the Secretary of State stated quite clearly that the Governor's powers remained undiminished, which means, in effect, that only the Secretary of State can control his decisions. It is therefore in this direction that one must look.
The strange volte face of Mr. Michael Blundell in his views about surrender terms, and the change which twelve brief months have wrought, are a relatively minor matter, since he is manifestly in no position to affect the issue except by resignation. But I think it is relevant to quote the views of this unofficial member of the War Cabinet only ten months ago at the time of the "General China" proposals. He was then the leader of the unofficial Europeans in the Council in Nairobi. This is a quotation from the Official Report. He said:
"It would be perfectly legitimate to treat with enemies but it is utterly wrong to treat with criminals. If this Council would examine the records to which China has been a party, the murders, the butcheries, the arson and the filth of the oaths, I believe that honourable Members on this side of the Council will inevitably draw the conclusion that honourable Members opposite have the hallmark of expediency as the principle of their Government and to principles at all. The ordinary citizen of this country of any colour will become inevitably convinced by this action that Government has become a party to these brutalities, to these murders and to these filthy oaths."

1135
Those were the views of Mr. Blundell ten months ago. We are not given any reason why there has been this complete change in his attitude towards such action by Government.
The situation in Kenya is grim in the extreme. If I may quote again the lady whose knowledge of Kenya warrants some quotation from her views, she said recently:
"The Kenya situation does not arouse confidence. There is little unity of purpose, little team-work, not only among settlers but between the regular police, the police reserve, the administration and the Army."
She goes on to say:
"But it is amongst the heads of the civil Government that changes must come, both of heart and of personnel, and come quickly, if the war in Kenya is to be won."
I agree with that opinion. When open hostilities are over, immense problems await the Kenya Government in every aspect of administration, apart from the need to re-educate the Kikuyu tribe, which, in itself, as I view it, will represent at least twenty-five years of concentrated work by specially trained officers. A change will have to come over the civil high command, and the impression of almost leisurely approach to problems clamouring for instant decision and sure unhesitating action must give way to a more vigorous approach. The present pressures have no doubt been built up over the past twenty years, and, indeed, warnings must have been received and disregarded. Formerly we could charge the Kenya Government with inadequacy, but now, in addition, one must regretfully add a charge of lack of principle and lack of loyalty to its own supporters. To-day any Englishman looking at this record might well turn and say to the British Government:
"Indeed, the Idols I have loved so long
Have done my Credit in Men's Eye much wrong:
Have drown'd my Honour in a shallow Cup,
And sold my Reputation for a Song.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.41 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I thought it right to rise at this early stage in the debate in order that I might declare, on behalf of Members on this side of the House, quite plainly and unambiguously what their position is; and also because, having held for a longer time
1136
than any other living person the great office which the Lord Chancellor now dignifies, I thought it would not be inappropriate that I should say something about the questions of law that are here involved. In doing so, I feel sure that I shall say nothing with which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will not find himself in complete agreement.
I cannot claim anything like the experience of the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I have this connection with Kenya: I did go out when I was Lord Chancellor to open the East African Court of Appeal. I was there for some time, and I had the chance of seeing the country and meeting a large number of the settlers, who were very kind to me and looked after me. I was there again at this time last year, when I was able to see the change that had occurred between 1951 and 1954. Before saying anything else, I should like to pay tribute to those people who went out from this country and settled in that land. When they went out there, what was it? It was malaria-infested; it was largely swamps; it was the scene of inter-tribal jealousies and wars; it was a constant area for slave trading. They went out there and tilled, worked and drained the land, and planted the trees; and they restored prosperity to what was absolutely barren and waste land. I thought, speaking by and large, that the European settlers there showed that they were rather acting as fathers to the people, who were very primitive people, and that they were deeply concerned with their welfare. Indeed, by reason of the hygiene and health which they introduced, they brought upon their shoulders this particular problem, because the population started increasing enormously, and the pressure on land went up. I formed a high view of the attitude which the settlers were taking, though I confess there were a few, as I thought, in 1951–they were a small minority—who took rather that view which we associate with the view taken by the Union of South Africa in regard to these matters.
After two and a half years of this struggle, it would not be in the least surprising to find that some of these people had been under great and constant strain—I saw it myself last year. It is easy for us to criticise from a comparatively safe distance. I want to make

1137
that position perfectly plain. I have no illusions about these matters. It was quite obvious to me that the Kikuyu were a very primitive people. I know, of course, as everybody who has read those filthy oaths which are in the Library of this House must know, how dreadful and depraved and absolutely intolerable are the Mau Mau people. But as I see the problem, it really can be put in this way. The population of Kenya is over 5 million Africans, of whom over one million are Kikuyu, and the other communities number 155,000. Those are the figures quoted in the Report which was published last year. It is impossible to govern the African millions by force: the important thing is to gain the respect and confidence of the native people. The Mau Mau are even worse enemies of the Kikuyu than they are of the white settlers, and the problem, as I see it, is: How can we win over the mass of the Kikuyu people against the Mau Mau?
There went out in January, 1954, a small Parliamentary committee consisting of six members, three from each side of the House. They made a unanimous report in almost record time. It was, I think, a most valuable report. It might be worth while to ask them to go out again to see how they think things are going now. After they had gone out, Mr. Lyttelton (as he then was; Lord Chandos, as he is now) went out and introduced a system of multi-racial Government. So far from referring to that as the "Lyttelton unsettlement," I believe that was a courageous thing to do, and that he was entirely right in the course that he took. I think there must be no going back from that policy. On the contrary, I believe that we must expand and develop it, gradually and sensibly, as time goes on.
That brings me (I am not going to discuss now the details of that policy; it would be rather beside the point) to the offer of January 18 of this year, that any person voluntarily surrendering would not be prosecuted—not, as the noble Lord said, that he would be set at liberty, but that he would not be prosecuted—coupled with an amnesty for offenders against the forces of law and order. I believe that the Government were right to take that course. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in his letter to The Times, and in his speech to-day—though it was more pronounced in his letter to The Times—viewed it with "profound horror and
1138
shame." He referred to it as a "sordid bargain," "a breach of faith" and "an immoral deal"—from all of which I gather that he does not agree with it. I should have thought that the language which the noble Lord used would have been regrettable on the lips of an immature schoolgirl; but I think that, coming from one ex-Colonial Governor to another, who is confronted with an appallingly difficult problem, the language in which he couched his objection was altogether deplorable. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that quite definitely.
It is natural enough that strong feelings there should be. If the noble Lord goes back to history, he will remember reading at the time of the Matabele Rebellion that General Carrington, after there had been great atrocities there, made a similar sort of offer; and he will remember that the settlers there showed strong resentment. But fortunately in those days there was a very remarkable man on the scene. Cecil Rhodes. Disregarding those protests and showing his great courage, he rode out from Bulawayo to the Matoppos with a few friends, virtually unarmed, raking care to go in single file so as to impress the others that there was no hostile intent. There he sat, on an anthill nearby the site where his body lies buried now. After a long time—because the Africans move slowly—the African chiefs came in; they put down their assegais at the feet of Cecil Rhodes; and the revolution was over and peace ruled in the land. I would ask the noble Lord who has criticised this offer: what is his alternative to this course? Because it seems to me obvious that there must, sooner or later, be a political settlement. The problem will never be solved in any other way. In the long run, our great asset is our reputation for justice and fair play, and it is the belief in these qualities which will ultimately enable us to triumph.
The second feature of the noble Lord's speech, and also of his letter, which I regret is that I think he made light of some of the dreadful things which have been done by the loyal Kikuyus and even sometimes, I regret to say, by Europeans. They have been terrible deeds which have stained our reputation. Far more easy, as I see it, is it to excuse those deeds when done by the Kikuyu than when they are clone by Europeans. I do not say that

1139
they are widespread—I do not know. I do not think they are common—again I do not know. But that they have occurred on occasions, however rare, is all too true, and I intend to read to your Lordships two short passages from judgments of judges of the High Court recently delivered. I consider that for a man in the position of the noble Lord to gloss these things over as a mere instance of being too enthusiastic or too indiscriminately loyal is doing no good service to the cause of law and order.
It may be natural enough for the loyal Kikuyu who have suffered from the brutalities of the Mau Mau to pay them back in their own coin. We must try, however hard it may be, by way of example to show that that is not our method. Whilst making all allowances, we must do our utmost to see that these things stop. We must paint these events in their true colours. There is nothing whatever to be said for massacring disarmed prisoners or for employing torture to exact confessions. These things are repellent to the Christian ideal and repellent to the British system of justice. He who tries to gloss them over as a mere excess of loyalty, or to make light of them, is doing no good service to our good name.
I refer, if I may, to a case which was decided on December 10, 1954. I have the judgment in my room, and I quote from the judgment of Acting Judge Oram. In a case before him—and I want your Lordships to realise how grave these things are—he said:
"It appears that there exists a system of guard posts manned by the headsmen and chiefs, and that these are interrogation centres and prisons to which the Queen's subjects, whether innocent or guilty, are led by armed men without warrant and detained and, as it seems, tortured until they confess to alleged crimes, and then are led forth to trial on the sole evidence of these confessions."
The place of detention was Ruthagathi. The judge went on:
"What sort of a place was Ruthagathi? It was a barbed wire enclosure surrounded by a stake moat and provided with a drawbridge. It was presided over by a team of men who had one function in life, that was to extort statements or confessions by fear, and if necessary by violence, from every hapless person sent or brought there, the innocent with the guilty."
The judge then went on to describe a so-called "confession book" to which was
1140
attached the thumb mark of the prisoner. He said:
"It is easy to write the lies one wants to write and deliberately force the thumb of the witness on it when he was half-conscious"—
he was half-conscious because he had been brutally beaten. Then the person from whom a confession had thus been extracted was taken before an African court sitting at Karatina. The judge said that that court is
"abysmally perverted. It is a travesty of justice. It is not justice at all but naked oppression, and throughout the year"—
this passage deals with the quantity of these cases—
"hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pleas of guilty and convictions on the one charge were secured."
The one charge, I think, is consorting with the Mau Mau. The judge went on:
"From the patent injustice of this court, which was known to every tribesman in the reserve, flowed fines at the rate very often of 6,000 shillings per sitting, that is thousands of pounds in the course of the year. One would have thought at least that the steep incline upwards of fine money would have attracted attention at District Headquarters, or the African Courts Officer would have sat sometimes with the court to see how it operated, but no European ever sat with this court."
Then, with regard to the particular prisoner before him, the judge said this:
"Let me conclude therefore by saying that the loyalty of the accused was more apparent than real, and he was using his reputation for loyalty to cover criminal activities."
I suppose that that is what Doctor Johnson meant when he said that patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel. I merely tell your Lordships that, after thus being tortured and confessions extracted from them, two of these men were shot in cold blood.
The next short citation I make to your Lordships is a decision of the East African Court of Appeal, reported in The Times of December 24 of last year. The judges said:
"What legal powers of detention these teams have, or under whose authority they act, we do not know. But whatever be the authority responsible, it is difficult for us to believe that these teams could continue to use methods of unlawful violence without the knowledge and condonation of that authority. Such methods are a negation of the rule of law which it is the duty of the courts to uphold."
It is in that context that I find disquieting the sending out of Colonel Young to investigate the affairs of the police and his

1141
coming back for some reason which I do not fully understand. I appreciate that with regard to pending cases it would be wrong for the Administration to interfere with cases which are already before the courts, but obviously such cases may be dealt with, in substance, by the prerogative powers of which, after conviction, the Governor would, of course, be possessed.
What, then, ought we to do? It is quite obvious that the fight, the battle, against the hard core of Mau Mau must go on. I think, also, that there must be a careful consideration of this Police problem; there must be some reorganisation of the Police. Internment is, of course, inevitable; but do not let our internment become indiscriminate. Do not treat the innocent, or even reluctant initiates, as though they were the hard core of Mau Mau. I have an uncomfortable feeling that the internment to-day is altogether too indiscriminate.
Recently there was a case of an African chief called Mundia who was tried in the Nyeri district. He was accused of murdering a prisoner, and was acquitted. I do not question the decision. I know nothing about it, but during the course of that case evidence was given as to the system of this internment. It gives me great anxiety. It appears that the native chiefs prepare rough dossiers of suspected persons, which are typed out by an African clerk. The district commissioner then prepares from time to time the number of vacancies in each detention camp. District officers allocate so many vacancies to each chief. The dossiers are not checked by any European officer. Detention orders are signed on the strength of the information contained in the dossiers. No check is made from the dossiers and the sources of information are completely anonymous. It is true that an appeal tribunal exists under Detention Regulations, but it is very little used; and, from the information I have—and I have the means of getting rather reliable information—I am able to say that I doubt whether one in a thousand of the internees knows of the existence of this appeal tribunal.
The result is that masses of innocent people are herded together with the guilty, and there is only too great a likelihood of their becoming infected with Mau Mau. General Erskine estimated
1142
that of 60,000 internees, 20 per cent. (that would be 12,000) were "white"—that is, completely innocent—and yet after nine months only 300 have been released and 2,000 added. That is not satisfactory. Regulation 18B was a very unpleasant necessity, controlled during the war, first by Sir John Anderson (as he then was) and later by Mr. Herbert Morrison. It was very carefully watched. There were complete facilities for appeal tribunals; the cases were gone through and screened. This method of shutting people up may be necessary, but if you are going to resort to it, it is incumbent upon those employing the method to see that every possible safeguard is used. I have quoted the evidence in this case of Mundia—I am not able to say whether or not the evidence is true, but it has not, as yet, been contradicted—and I should like the noble Lord to deal with it in due course.
It seems to me that a far better system of screening must be introduced. It must obviously be under the control of European officers, and it must be much speedier. Unless this is done, our long-established reputation for British justice will become impaired. So, in addition to the fight against Mau Mau, which has to go on, there should be a positive side of our policy. Political reform and political advancement for the loyal Kikuyu must be undertaken. The Report of the Parliamentary delegation of January, 1954, said
"African leadership will certainly be required and means of developing this are indispensable."
That is taken from paragraph 20 of their Report. What steps are the Government taking to develop African leadership? because their only chance of winning the souls of the masses of the Kikuyu is to do it by their own leaders.
My Lords, we believe that the future of this community lies in a multi-racial community, in maintenance of law and order and the observance of law and justice, enforced by an honest and not a corrupt Police. We believe, further, that there must be an opportunity for everyone, whatever his colour, to succeed, so long as he possesses the necessary character, education and technical skill. I will add only this. I believe that one of the most important tasks before the Government of Kenya is to develop an educational system. The teaching in the schools was, I believe, in the past largely

1143
tainted by subversive doctrine. According to the best of my knowledge and information, there is no evidence yet that the Communists have got their finger in this particular pie. But if this sort of situation exists, it is obviously one which the Communists might begin to exploit. We have, I think, very little time to lose. I believe that the well-being of Kenya depends on the observance of these principles and the re-establishment of that system of law and justice for which this country is famous and which has been the most precious gift that we have handed down to our various dependencies.
4.8 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: My Lords, the Motion before us draws particular attention to the surrender terms offered to Mau Mau. On that special topic I do not wish to add anything to what the noble and learned Earl has just said. I entirely subscribe to every word with which he rebutted the observations of the mover of this Motion. The Motion also refers to the general situation in Kenya. It is about that that I should wish to say one or two words, drawing attention to matters of very great importance which have been urged by Christian leaders in Kenya constantly for the last two years.
The noble Lord who moved this Motion said it was essential to take into account the views of the people in Kenya; and, indeed, that must be done. He said that one of the chief motives of Mau Mau was to destroy Christianity. That is also true. It follows that we must give careful heed to the opinion of leaders of Christian communities in Kenya. I may say, in passing, with regard to the amnesty offered to Mau Mau, that so far from regarding it as a surrender of any kind of principle at all, Christian leaders put out a statement that they welcomed it. They welcomed it on a condition to which I shall come, that it is properly followed up—but that is another matter. If I go on in some sense to criticise the Government, I do it not in the least to reproach them but to encourage them to do better what I know is their fundamental principle and purpose. Only on January 28 last, the leaders of the Christian Churches saw the Acting Governor and had a conversation for two and a half hours with him.
1144
I mention that to show that there is real contact and co-operation between the Governor and the Christian forces, and an understanding and a true desire on both sides to carry this thing through to a possible conclusion.
The first point I wish to underline is that, again and again, the leaders in Kenya complain that the loyalists among the Kikuyu get no recognition and no encouragement, but are, on the contrary, exposed to continuous injustices—and the noble and learned Earl has indicated what is meant by "an injustice," and how horrid it is. Many of these loyalist Kikuyu who are loyal to law and order, and many of them also because they are loyal to their Christian faith, have suffered martyrdom. One would at once think as a result there would be every kind of encouragement to look after the loyalist Kikuyu; but, in general, they are still made to suffer hardship and injustice. Some members of the Administration forget that there can be such people as loyalist Kikuyu. Some of them assume—I say this on evidence from those who have observed the situation in Kenya—that every member of the Kikuyu is guilty, and they do not look for or accept evidence put forward to show that they are innocent.
The East African Standard, which I gather is the principal European-owned paper in Kenya, in a leading article on Friday last referred to these loyalists and said:
"They find themselves bracketed with the suspects when there is any incident or screening operation. They have very little sense of real security, and in some the spirit of bitterness is developing."
It goes on to deal with the problem of the screening, and says of those who are declared to be "white" or trustworthy:
"They should be given every possible help to get back to their employment."—
from which, incidentally, they have been swept without any regard.
"It is reported that they are first called upon to serve a period with a Home Guard unit, 'just to prove their loyalty.'"
The article goes on:
"A person proved 'white' should suffer no further disabilities. He should be sent back to his job at once and prove his loyalty there."
We all recognise the terrible difficulties, but I would emphasise again the figures to which the learned and noble Earl drew

1145
attention. General Erskine said he thought that 20 per cent. of the detainees would be found to have a clean record, that is to say, out of 60,000 something like 12,000 would be "whites." The noble and learned Earl said that so far, nine months later, only 300 have been released. I am able to correct that figure it has grown to 400 out of 12,000. There must be something wrong in the way in which this particular problem is being dealt with. Beyond doubt, many who are ready to be loyal have been swept up in these detention camps, and if the process had been more deliberate they would never have been arrested at all. They are detained month after month; they are exposed to bitterness against the Government and to direct infection by the Mau Mau and their agents. I do not think I need underline that particular point any further. But surely this is the moment, when the Mau Mau are on the defensive and very largely driven back into the forests, when every possible means must be employed to encourage security and trust in the hearts of those who are ready to redeem the situation. Therefore, on behalf of those who know the situation at first hand in Kenya, I would first urge that the Government should go a long way—run risks if they like—towards speeding up more releases of the "white" and "near white," many of them "grey," and showing to the loyalists that they are really trusted and appreciated and can live their lives in security from the forces of law and order.
That brings me to the second point upon which I wish to say a few words. As the noble and learned Earl has said, the supreme task at the moment is the restoration of law and order, and the removal of fear—European's fear of the African, the African's far more subtle and manifold fear of the European. How can that fear be removed? Here, I can only repeat that many things have been done by the forces of law and order which violate the first principles of law and order and make those who might trust us regard even the principles of ordered society as hostile, untrustworthy and hateful to themselves. I cannot put the case more forcibly than the noble and learned Earl has put it. He has produced evidence from the legal side. Those who are Christian leaders
1146
would merely endorse that evidence and say that they have seen these things with their own eyes.
Let me say here that I have the fullest sympathy for all those who have found themselves faced with this crisis. When the storm broke a small body of high-minded and devoted administrators and trained personnel had to deal with the deluge, and all they could do was to recruit any additional forces they could find from anywhere—that was the only possible course, and nobody could blame them for it. But what was the result? Inevitably, there was brought into the forces of law and order a great number of persons, untrained and unequipped for the hardest task that could be given to any man to do—namely, to control his own passions in the heat of a cruel war against horrible and dastardly things. We cannot be surprised if there were breakdowns under such a strain. The Government, two years ago, recognised that there was the greatest possible reason for anxiety and that there were many horrible things which were being done by the forces of law and order. Ever since then they have been trying to correct them. But what alarms us and the Christian leaders out there is that apparently the Government's efforts have been comparatively unsuccessful. The results remain disturbing up to this present time.
Again, as the noble and learned Earl said, Colonel Young's resignation cannot but increase that sense of disturbance. The Government's statement on Colonel Young's resignation is a strange one. It says that the common aim between the Government and Colonel Young was that
"the Kenya police should be regarded as impartial custodians of the law and should command the trust and confidence of the public."
Then the statement goes on:
"Colonel Young thought that for this end the police must be given more independence and power to deal with abuses in the Home Guard arising from lack of discipline."
One would have thought that to be an unexceptionable consequence, but the Government appeared to take a different view, which I will paraphrase in this way: to think that the Police would be impartial custodians only if they were handcuffed to the Administration and to the military. That is a very queer way of securing that they shall be guardians of law and order.

1147
At that moment came the amnesty. It is to be remembered that it was an amnesty not only to the Mau Mau but to all those in the forces of law and order who had committed crimes and offences against law and order. The mere fact that there had to be such an amnesty is evidence that there was a real evil there, doing untold damage. Obviously, it is a strange thing to have to give an amnesty to one's own defenders of law and order just as an amnesty is being given to the Mau Mau. Both amnesties are to be welcomed in order that there may be a chance of starting with a clean sheet, on two conditions: first, that this time the Governor's stern warning of January 18 shall be obeyed to the letter. May I remind your Lordships of what he said:
"From this moment onwards any of you or any other person who commits any offence will be prosecuted with the full strength of the law."
That is right. It means that the forces of law and order have to rise to the challenge and determine that they will free themselves from any chance of accusation and will back the Governor in that critical situation.
The second condition I would make is this. There must be a considerable number of people—European, alas! and African—who have profited by this amnesty and who will have no fear of consequences for acts they may have committed; but one cannot suppose that they will necessarily change their nature. They remain the people they were before, whether in the forces of law and order or outside. They are centres of poison and infection. Are the Government going to set up rehabilitation centres for such people? I am perfectly certain it is a positive and real need that those who, within the forces of law and order, have shown themselves suspect of betraying their own principles should be honestly subjected to a rehabilitation process as real and effective as that through which the Mau Mau are put; otherwise they cannot contribute anything to the one necessity of to-day: the restoration of trust all round and liberation from fear.
The chief problem now is one of reconstruction, helping the loyalists, re-educating some of the security forces themselves and greatly hastening the process through the detention camps. May I say here, in fairness to the Government,
1148
that my evidence is that they are doing splendid and imaginative work in the schemes which are now in progress in the work camps, bringing all the resources of modern understanding to bear to ensure that those camps shall be healthy and wholesome places in which reconstruction of character and outlook is done effectively. The purposes are the same throughout, and success here can be achieved only by full co-operation, in a spirit of faithfulness and trust, between African and African—for that has to be restored—between African and European and, not least, between European and European. Perhaps the worst feature of this whole business would be any sign of disunity or ungenerous spirit of division between Europeans in Kenya.
I would add only that the Christian Churches are anxious and ready to do anything they can to help bring about the spiritual renewal which is necessary. They have plans for a wide variety of rehabilitation work in prisons, in detention camps, in newly-established villages, in Nairobi and in other towns, among youth, among women—who are not the least important people in this context—and among potential African leaders. That work will cost the Christian Churches a great deal, and doubtless there will, in time, be an appeal to the Christian people of this country to enable that work to be done. But perhaps even more necessary will be the supply from this country to the Government and to the Churches of men and women who can bring with them the healing and constructive spirit without which there can be no future at all for Kenya. Finally, may I say that, regarding it as a sign of our goal and a Sacrament of the Faith with which we pursue it, I look forward, God willing, to consecrating in Uganda in two months' time two Africans, one of whom is a member of the Kikuyu tribe, to be assistant bishops to the Bishop of Mombasa in Kenya.
4.25 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, the Kenya Government has come in for some pretty rough handling by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, this afternoon. As we are all aware, the noble Lord has had long and varied experience of Colonial affairs and his views on these

1149
matters will, I know, always be listened to with respect by you. This fact adds to the serious nature of the criticisms which he has made this afternoon, criticisms which are not confined merely to the recent surrender offer made by the Kenya Government but which extend to the whole handling by that Government of the present emergency in Kenya. Moreover, since the ultimate responsibility for affairs in Kenya—including the surrender offer—rests with Her Majesty's Government, the noble Lord has in fact criticised the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government; and in view of the source and the nature of those criticisms it is certainly essential that your Lordships should consider them with the greatest care.
The history of the emergency is well known to your Lordships and I need not deal with it in any detail this afternoon; but, considering and weighing the criticism which the noble Lord has made, it is important that noble Lords should have regard to the nature of the problem which has confronted, and which continues to confront, the Kenya Government. We must face the fact that over the last two years there has been in Kenya not merely a series of individual crimes nor a mere crime wave; there has been organised terrorism on a gigantic scale in which the whole of the population have been put in fear of their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, asked why this development had not been treated as a rebellion. There are various practical reasons why that has not been done; it is partly because, technically, there is no such offence known under the law in Kenya, and also because considerable difficulties are created by the fact that the Kikuyu tribe is split and the question arises as to who is rebelling against what.
Whether or not the noble Lord calls it a rebellion, it is perfectly clear (and I do not think Her Majesty's Government have ever said anything different) that there has been what amounts virtually to a civil war in Kenya. No police force in the world could protect the public against such a danger. To their great credit, a small part of the Kikuyu tribe, in which Christians have been prominent, has openly stood out against the terrorists; and round this nucleus there has gradually been built up a Home Guard pledged to defend their own homes and to wipe out the Mau Mau. Many
1150
of the loyalists have paid the price of their loyalty—1,300 Africans have been murdered by Mau Mau; but as the movement has gathered strength, they have been able to present real resistance to the terrorists and have stood up to protect their own homes. This has led to a situation approximating to civil war, not only within the Kikuyu but extending beyond the tribe to the British settlers and other communities. The mere containment of this situation is employing not just the whole of the Kenya Police but no fewer than nine battalions of troops—including battalions of the King's African Rifles and the Kenya Regiment—and some 22,000 men of the Kikuyu Home Guard. That is the scale of the emergency. It is in the light of these quite exceptional circumstances that I should like to deal with criticisms of the Kenya Government that have been made in respect of its administration of justice during the emergency.
We all believe in the rule of law as practised in this country, whereby the law is completely independent of the Executive and pursues the ends of justice without fear or favour of any man. And, believing as we do in our domestic system, we wish—and rightly so—to see it established in other parts of the Commonwealth, just as we wish to see established democracy and constitutional government. But I submit that just as in the establishment of these other things, so in the maintenance of law and order, we have to take account of local conditions. And as far as Kenya is concerned I would remind your Lordships that until the coming of the emergency the Kenya Police virtually did not operate at all in the tribal areas.
The administration of the African areas has been based upon a policy of developing African institutions and upon an established procedure of working through African tribal authorities and other African local government bodies. The Provincial Commissioner is, within his Province, the principal executive officer of the Government, and under him are established, as the executive of the central Government, the district commissioners, the accepted hierarchy of headmen and the tribal police. These authorities have statutory powers under the Native Authority Ordinance. The Provincial Commissioner is responsible to the Governor for the peace and good

1151
order of the Province and the efficient conduct of all business therein, and law and order in the areas has been maintained through the chiefs and the unarmed tribal police.
Therefore, before the emergency there did not, and in the nature of things could not, exist a system of maintaining law and order in Kenya exactly similar to our own; and it is virtually only since the emergency that the Police have been introduced into the African areas to reinforce the other authorities responsible for the maintenance of law and order. It may one day be possible to introduce into these areas a system more nearly similar to our own, but, like most things in Africa, this will certainly take time, and a number of prejudices and ancient customs will have to be broken down. Up to now, for example, the police constable, generally speaking, has not been traditionally looked on by the inhabitants of the African areas as a friend of the people, in the way the constable is so looked on in England. On the contrary, he is often regarded with some suspicion by the people whom he serves. He is frequently a member of a different tribe and is regarded as an alien. Nor is there any tradition in African society of the responsibility of the citizen to support the forces of law and order.
The conception of the common constable is based upon the assumption that the community is a homogeneous one with a common language and a common background, that the law is commonly accepted and observed as the will of the people, that the responsibility of the citizen towards the maintenance of law is accepted and that the police force operating in the country is drawn from men whose background and training enable them to be completely impartial. None of these circumstances at present exists in Kenya. In any circumstances it would have taken time to change these concepts and to remove from the Administration its responsibility for seeing that law and order is maintained; certainly a sudden change in them in the depths of the emergency would, in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, be quite impossible.
But in addition to the factors to which I have just referred there have been superimposed the circumstances of the
1152
emergency. The police in this country could do nothing without the co-operation of the public. Imagine a situation in which everyone is too frightened to come forward to tell what he knows of a crime for fear that he will be murdered tomorrow; imagine a situation in which you cannot know who is your friend and who is your enemy. If one considers all these things one must surely come to the conclusion that the methods of keeping the peace in the form in which we have it here are not possible in Kenya at the present time. Let it not be thought by this, however, that I am implying in any way that injustice reigns to-day in Kenya. All terrorists against whom formal charges have been made are given a fair trial, although, I admit, owing to the nature of the emergency capital punishment has been imposed for a number of offences for which it could not be imposed here. I would add that at the present time the question of the offences for which capital punishment should be awarded is under review.
There are two problems to-day in Kenya which do not exist in this or, so far as I know, in any other civilised country. The first is a problem occasioned by the fact that any member of the Kikuyu tribe who is not known to be your friend may turn out to be your enemy, either through fear or through contamination by the Mau Mau. In a majority of cases it will be impossible to prove in a court of law that a man is associated with Mau Mau, either because of lack of suitable evidence or because witnesses are too frightened to give evidence. The Government, whose main duty, after all, is to protect the loyal elements in the community, and who if they fail in this, their first responsibility—and this is a point I would emphasise—can never hope to rally waverers to their cause, could not well leave these elements at the mercy of men who might well commit a revolting murder without qualm. Hence the necessity, which I think your Lordships have generally accepted, of screening suspects and of detaining those who are shown to be supporters of the movement. As your Lordships are aware, the object of the screening is broadly to separate the sheep from the goats.
Screening involves three categories of people. First, there are the "irreconcilables"—dangerous Mau Mau adherents

1153
such as executioners, court officials, oath administrators, and active gang members. Such people are either tried in court for Mau Mau offences, if sufficient evidence is available, or detained under Governor's detention orders. Next, there are the "contaminated" Man Mau supporters, not regarded as sufficiently dangerous to be classed as irreconcilables. They are detained first in detention camps, and are progressively being moved to works camps in the Central Province, where they undergo additional local screening, usually by their own elders, to see whether they can eventually be released, and are given every opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. In this connection I should like to express my gratitude to the most reverend Primate for the tribute he paid to the work that is being done in these camps for irreconcilables, and, in exchange, I should like for my own part to pay tribute to the work which is being done by the Church to help in that task, which is, as he said, the vital one before us in Kenya. Finally there are the "harmless," who are returned either to their employment or to the Reserve, where relief work is provided for those in need.
Here I am reluctantly compelled to draw your Lordships' attention to a Church Missionary Society pamphlet which has had wide circulation and which no doubt some of your Lordships will have seen. It is entitled Kenya—Time for Action. I do this with great reluctance, but I feel I am bound to do it. I do it with great reluctance because I am very sorry that a Society for which I have such great respect, a society which has co-operated with us in the Colonial Office in so many fields and which has done such wonderful work in Africa and elsewhere, should have published this document. My own views on this pamphlet were well expressed by the Bishop of Mombasa, Bishop Beecher, a man of the highest reputation in Africa, with deep knowledge and experience of its problems and an acknowledged expert on the Kikuyu tribe. The Bishop, after making it clear that the document was published without his knowledge, criticised it as being "one sided and particularly unfortunate." I do not think that anyone with any knowledge of the Bishop could fail to attach great weight to his opinions on such a matter. I do not want to question for one moment the sincerity of those who wrote this
1154
pamphlet, but I cannot help feeling that in a delicate situation of this kind those concerned might have come to the Colonial Office before publication, to hear the other side of the story, or that at any rate they might have consulted the Bishop on the spot.
In this pamphlet, along with other allegations, there is contained the charge that completely innocent people have been arrested as suspects and that, further, many people have been detained for months without screening. So far as these allegations are concerned, I should like only to say this: first, that in the circumstances I have described it is inevitable that some innocent people may be arrested for screening. This is certainly very regrettable, but it is difficult to see how in the circumstances this possibility could be eliminated. As regards the keeping of people for months in detention camps without screening, here again there is always a possibility of such an abuse. It is directly contrary to the regulations and everything possible is done to avoid such cases and to ensure that the regulations are strictly obeyed. Your Lordships will appreciate that screening has to be done by elders of the Kikuyu tribe, who are the only people who are in a position to carry out such a task. I think the noble and learned Earl said that he had heard that the screening teams operated without any control from the administration. Here, again, I am very ready to investigate any cases he has to bring forward, but that is certainly not what is intended. The intention is that all screening teams should operate under close control from the administration.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I do not think I said to the contrary. What I want the noble Lord to deal with, however, is the matter of the time which is being occupied. Of course it is inevitable, when one takes in people in an emergency, that one must take in the net some innocent people. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to have an efficient system of screening which operates quickly, so that the innocent ones may get out.
LORD LLOYD: I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl, and if he will listen to me for a minute longer I think I shall be dealing with his point. The pamphlet also suggests that the screening process is unjust. Here, again, I am prepared to admit that any process of this

1155
kind inevitably leaves open the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. After all, that is why we have the whole apparatus of law in this country. I can only say again that every possible step is taken, by checking and cross-checking, to eliminate this possibility to the maximum, and an inquiry is now being conducted, at the Governor's request, into the whole system of screening. This inquiry is being made by Sir Vincent Glenday, the Speaker of the Central Legislative Assembly. So we have that point in mind. I agree that the object of screening is to try to separate the sheep from the goats as quickly as possible, in order to return the sheep to civilisation, but the noble and learned Earl must appreciate the difficulty of this process in the circumstances of this emergency.
Admittedly—we all should agree about this—the whole system of detention is one we all instinctively dislike, but noble Lords must be aware that it is one which has been forced upon us only by the circumstances of the emergency. I am bound to say that those who have suggested that the system could be abolished at the present time have a duty to propose some better system which will safeguard equally well the lives of the law-abiding community. As regards the future of detainees, this is generally admitted to be one of the greatest problems which confront the Government of Kenya today. Clearly the object must be to release as many as possible as fast as it is safe to do so, as the noble and learned Earl has said. But the question of rehabilitation is a question of changing men's minds, and of eradicating the Mau Mau oaths and attitude to life, and inevitably this will take time.
At this stage, I feel your Lordships will probably wish to know the present situation as regards the numbers of detainees. Of the 46,200 persons held in detention, 15,000 are already in works camps, and 31,200 are in the reception centres of Manyani, Mackinnon Road and Langata. By June this year, the accommodation available in the works camps will have risen to 30,600. The most reverend Primate will appreciate that it is in the works camps that rehabilitation is carried out. Releases from works camps back to normal life are now planned to take place at the rate of 1,000 a month, which I think is in excess of the figure given by
1156
the noble and learned Earl. This figure will be somewhat offset by newly detained persons, mainly the organisers of the "passive wing" and those arrested in operations, and by the success or otherwise of the present surrender offer. Another point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is that all those regarded as harmless, except ten convalescents, have been released from the reception centres, and that already 9,500 of those whose loyalties are, or may be, divided, but who are not irreconcilables, have been passed from the reception centres to works camps on their way to eventual release. To those concerned about this matter, I hope that these numbers will provide a certain comfort. I think it shows a much improved situation.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how many "whites" have been released?
LORD LLOYD: I have not the figure by me, but I will find the answer for the most reverend Primate.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Lord does not challenge my figure of 400?
LORD LLOYD: Not yet. It is hoped that by June of this year the process will have been completed, and that all at present in detention camps who qualify for transfer to works camps will have moved to works camps where, by their behaviour, they can earn their eventual freedom. So much for the problem of the detainees. I am sorry to detain your Lordships, but this is a matter of great importance.
The second problem to which I have referred is the fact that in Kenya today it is not the Police alone who have the power of arrest. This, obviously, is due to the fact that the emergency has placed a burden upon the shoulders of the police which they cannot carry by themselves. In consequence, the Kikuyu Home Guard now have the power of arrest in the capacity of tribal police, although this will be considerably reduced when steps at present being taken to absorb the Kikuyu Home Guard into the regular tribal police reserve and into watch and ward units have been fully implemented. Clearly the putting of this power into the hands of those who have not been accustomed in the past to its exercise has increased the

1157
dangers of malpractices. As your Lordships may know, the Kikuyu Home Guard have orders to hand over to the Police within twenty-four hours any suspects arrested, but I am bound to confess that the fact that Home Guard posts and Police posts are often widely separated means that there are occasions when some delay in this regard is inevitable.
Once more I must mention the C.M.S. pamphlet, which not only refers to such malpractices but suggests that the Government of Kenya have condoned them. I do not dispute that it would be impossible to deny that serious malpractices have taken place, though here again I cannot entirely forget the circumstances in which such malpractices have arisen. In this world violence is apt to beget violence, and when one remembers all the atrocities and brutalities which he has seen inflicted, often upon his kith and kin, it is perhaps not entirely a matter for wonder that there should have been occasions on which the loyalist African, with his still primitive background, should have stepped outside the law. But I feel sure that your Lordships will share my view that even if it can be comprehended, it is not a matter which could possibly be condoned. And I feel sure that your Lordships will also agree that anyone making a charge that such practices have been condoned by the Kenya Government should, in all fairness, produce the evidence on which that statement is based. Such facts as are public would, I submit, seem to prove that this has not, in fact, been the policy of the Kenya Government. Otherwise, how came it that a number of loyalists were prosecuted on charges of this kind?
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has mentioned the case of Chief Mundia—and I, too, should like to refer to it—a loyalist Chief who, in the judgment on his case, was declared to have brought hard work, energy and courage to the discharge of his duties in combating terrorism. He was nevertheless accused, together with a headman and two Kikuyu guards, of murdering in July, 1954, a prisoner who had been detained as a suspected terrorist. Before the trial he said that he trusted British justice and was glad to stand his trial. His confidence in British justice was not misplaced, since, after a trial lasting no less than three weeks, he and the other accused were all acquitted.
1158
In connection with this particular trial, the noble and learned Earl mentioned certain irregularities which came up in the evidence. All I can say on that is that, so far as I know, although they were alleged to have occurred, no proof was ever produced that they did occur. However, I will certainly look into that again, although the case is dead, to see whether there is any evidence to show that that was so.
EARL JOWITT: It was not so much irregularities: it was rather that the evidence explained the system which was employed in order to put people into internment. I went through the system in the dossiers, which was that given in evidence in that case.
LORD LLOYD: That was certainly alleged by one witness in the case, but I do not think it was ever substantiated; and certainly it was not in accordance with the system as I understand it to exist. I thought I should deal with that point, because it is totally at variance with the system as laid down and as I understand it to be practised.
Furthermore, on the question of condonation of these offences by the Kenya Government, I must draw attention to the fact that between the beginning of the emergency and May, 1954, twenty-six persons were convicted of killing or maltreating Mau Mau suspects. In addition, three Europeans were convicted by civil courts of the offences of common assault. A Kikuyu guard leader and five other Home Guards were convicted of murder, or of being accessories after the fact, for shooting two suspects who were probably innocent. I mention this in order to show that action has been taken by the Kenya Government in cases of ill-treatment and assault which have been clearly brought to their attention. In those circumstances, I feel that to suggest that the Kenya Government deliberately condone such malpractices is without foundation. Certainly that has not been suggested this afternoon by any speaker—I am referring, of course, to this pamphlet, which does, by implication, suggest that. I think it is important that that point should be made.
Nor is it fair to say that the Kenya Government are satisfied with the present state of affairs or complacent in this

1159
matter. In a situation such as exists in Kenya to-day it is of course always possible that some malpractices may have escaped the attention of the authorities. No doubt such cases have occurred, and there is always the risk that they may occur again in the future. But to argue from this that the Government are prepared to condone such things is really a travesty of the truth. Indeed, at the present time fresh steps are being taken by the Government to try to reduce to an absolute minimum the possibility of such abuses.
The Kikuyu Home Guard have been reorganised on a more regular basis. Nine hundred have been recruited into the tribal police of the Central Province, 6,400 forming a tribal police reserve, and the remainder are being converted into unarmed village protection units. Home Guard posts will in future be sited wherever possible next door to Police posts, in order to avoid delay in the transfer of prisoners from the Home Guard to the Police. Methods used to hold and interrogate persons in the course of Kikuyu Home Guard operations are being revised, and a new system for the reception, examination, subsequent custody and disposal of suspected captives, surrendered terrorists and potential detainees is being worked out at the moment.
Special holding camps and interrogation centres under the control of the provincial administration and under close responsible European supervision are being established. Steps are being taken to ensure that no persons should be held in these camps or centres for longer than is required to enable the necessary inquiries to be made. Persons who have been examined are to be disposed of in one or other of the following ways: first, by transfer to the district commissioner for decisions as to whether or not the issue of a delegated detention or a restriction order would be justified, and to what works camp the person concerned should be sent; secondly, by transfer to the Special Branch for further interrogation; thirdly, by transfer to the C.I.D., with a view to prosecution before the courts; and, lastly, by release. In telling your Lordships all this—and I apologise for detaining you so long—I hope to show you, in the first place, the difficult con-
1160
ditions in which the Kenya Government have had to operate; secondly, that the Kenya Government are not, and never have been, complacent about these matters; and thirdly, that the Kenya Government do not condone, and never have condoned, malpractices amongst Kikuyu loyalists.
Let me turn now to the question of the resignation of Colonel Young which, not unnaturally, has aroused considerable comment. The reasons for Colonel Young's resignation are set forth in a statement made recently by my right honourable friend and agreed by Colonel Young, to which the most reverend Primate referred. This statement appeared in Hansard of Februrary 2. In the circumstances, and since this was an agreed statement, there is obviously little that I can add to it, beyond pointing out to your Lordships that it must be considered against the facts which I have put before the House during my speech.
The most reverend Primate suggested that it was an odd statement in that the Government did not agree with Colonel Young that the complete integrity of the Police, and the preservation of law and order, would be served by altering the present relationship in the tribal areas between the Administration and the Police. I have tried to follow up that point in my earlier explanation of the system that had existed hitherto in the tribal areas. It is against that general background that this statement should be considered. Personally, I would wish to express the regret of Her Majesty's Government that Colonel Young, who has rendered such valuable service in other fields, should have felt unable to continue as Commissioner for the full year, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the valuable work he has done during the tenure of his post.
Having dealt with the difficulties which confront the Kenya Government over the question of law and order, I feel that I ought now to turn for a minute, as briefly as I can, to the most important thing in Kenya to-day, the supreme objective of the Kenya Government and of Her Majesty's Government—that is to say, the steps to end the emergency. The growing strength of the Administration and the Police and the building up of the Home Guard have freed the military to take the initiative against the gangs, and the number of incidents recently initiated by the

1161
security forces has begun substantially to exceed those initiated by the gangs, in contrast to the position in the earlier period of the emergency. Coupled with the increasing difficulties which the gangs have been experiencing in obtaining food, both as a result of the control measures taken by the Government and through the increasing reluctance of some sections of the tribe to give them support, their position in the reserves has become more and more untenable.
As the noble Earl said, it is believed that the bulk of them have again withdrawn to the forest areas in the Aberdares and Mount Kenya. Last month, therefore there was launched against them a concentrated drive known as "Operation Hammer," in which General Erskine has been able to employ more troops than ever before—nine battalions in all. At the same time, there have been a number of signs that the terrorists are beginning to crack. For instance, in Nyeri and Fort Hall men have surrendered who have been in the forest for over a year, unlike the hangers-on who, up to now, have formed the bulk of surrenders and whose disillusionment had come fairly quickly after joining the gangs. There have been other indications over recent months that many terrorists are tired of the struggle and the life they are leading, that their morale is declining and that it is only the fear that there is nothing waiting for them but the scaffold which prevents them from discontinuing the struggle.
These signs, which it had become impossible to ignore, gave rise to the hope that the time was ripe for encouraging large-scale surrenders and thus hastening the end of the emergency. Obviously, if the terrorists are now thinking of surrender, "Operation Hammer" is a very opportune moment to bring in waverers or terrorists worn down by the hard life of the forest, since it will break up the already disrupted gang organisation and make their life harder still, whilst the influence of hardened gang leaders over their followers will be at its lowest ebb while they are being chased by the troops. It was in these circumstances, and in the light of these considerations, that the recent surrender offer was made. The terms of the new offer, which is more favourable than either of the previous surrender offers, are, I think, familiar to your Lordships and I need not go into them now.
1162
As your Lordships will be aware, the amnesty which has been extended to the terrorists has also been extended to those loyalists who were believed at one time or another to have been guilty of serious malpractices. I do not think I need say a great deal about the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, on this aspect. He has been dealt with very adequately, if I may say so, by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and by the most reverend Primate. But if I must say anything, let me say this. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has suggested that it was an offer made out of weakness, and a breach of faith with the loyal population of Kenya and a sordid bargain—to use the words of his letter to The Times. It is not difficult to understand the feelings of those, both in Kenya and elsewhere, who have seen and experienced the atrocities committed by the terrorists and who feel that full retribution should be exacted for all crimes committed by the Mau Mau. Those are natural feelings, and one can sympathise with them. But, at the same time, surely our first consideration must be for the well-being for the loyal community in Kenya as a whole. As long, as the emergency continues, there can be for them no security, no prosperity, and no real advance, either constitutional or economic. Surely, in these circumstances, it is our duty, and our first duty, to take every step within our power to bring this grim situation to an end. The offer, after all, was not, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, suggested, made out of weakness, but as a deliberate attempt, carefully timed, to accelerate what was believed to be the beginning of the crack in the morale of the gangs.
Whether or not the attempt will succeed it is too early to say, though the latest results give some grounds for encouragement. Up to February 8, seventy-three terrorists had surrendered, and I heard before I came into the House that this figure has been further increased. Taking the figure of seventy-three up to February 8, this averages twenty-four weekly, compared with a weekly average during 1954 of eleven; so it is more than double. But the chances of the success of a step of this kind must always be a matter, surely, for the judgment of those who have the responsibility, and whether success comes or not, they would surely have been wrong to neglect

1163
any step which appeared to them likely to achieve so important a goal.
Let me now turn for one moment—and I am coming now to the end—to consider the future. For although, inevitably, the main energies of the Kenya Government have had to be devoted to the emergency, they have been able also to devote some thought to the future, just as we in the war were able to start plans like the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the benefit of the Colonies. As the noble and learned Earl rightly said, the main problem of Kenya in the future will be the solution of her multi-racial difficulties; and he asked what we were doing to teach the Africans leadership. The multi-racial problem is a serious one in any Colony and, clearly, the situation is not made any easier, so far as making progress over such a problem is concerned, by the emergency. Nevertheless, I must again draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that a new Council of Ministers has been set up, for the first time in Kenya on a multi-racial basis. I agree that it has not gone very far, and that there is much more to do and many problems to be solved. But it has been set up in the emergency. It is apparently satisfactory, and that is one thing we have done to teach leadership to the various communities in Kenya. Of course, at the same time, the Government in Kenya are studying the problems of reconstruction and rehabilitation, and much good work is being done now, despite the emergency, towards the improvement of African agriculture.
I close with these words. We must all hope that within a measurable space of time the emergency can be brought to an end, and that it will be possible to put into operation these plans which are now being prepared for the benefit of Kenya and its people. In the meantime, until that day arrives, I hope that this afternoon your Lordships will give a measure of encouragement and support to the Kenya Government which is facing tasks of such difficulty and such magnitude with great courage and determination.
5.8 p.m.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, I had the honour for some years to be a missionary of the Church Missionary Society, not, indeed, in the diocese of Mombasa, but in the neighbouring
1164
diocese of Uganda. And, while congratulating the noble Lord who has just sat down, I should like to take up the cudgels on behalf of that Society and to examine a little more closely the charge which the noble Lord has brought against it. Before I do so, may I make it quite clear that I had no part in the councils of the Church Missionary Society at the time when it was preparing this pamphlet, or in its production.
The noble Lord was very careful in his words. He was careful to say that the Society seemed to suggest, by implication (I hope that I am quoting him correctly), that the Government of Kenya condoned crimes among the security forces. Now may I read a passage in the pamphlet which I think must be the passage to which the noble Lord was referring:
"In the absence of an adequate official statement, rumour has it that under Colonel Young's direction, an increasingly vigilant police force had uncovered an alarming number of contraventions of the law and of elementary standards of decency and reasonable restraint by some whose duty it was to be upholders of civilised standards against barbarism; but that Colonel Young found reluctance in some official quarters to support the taking of proceedings against these offenders."
I do not know whether that is the passage which the noble Lord had in mind.
LORD LLOYD: Perhaps the noble Lord would read a little further. If he will read the next four or five lines, he will come to the pith of what I had in mind.
LORD HEMINGFORD: Before I accede to that request, may I point out that there is a very great difference between "the Government of Kenya" and "some official quarters." The passage goes on:
"A correspondent of Kenya Weekly News referred to the matter thus in the issue dated January 14, 1955."
I am afraid I do not know where the paper the Kenya Weekly News emanates from. So far as I know, it is not a production of the Church Missionary Society. I imagine that it is one of the weekly papers in Kenya, but I am open to correction. This correspondent in the paper says:
"I am reliably informed that members of the administration have attempted to take a reasonably flexible attitude to alleged Kikuyu Guard malpractices. It was the Police who took the sterner, more inflexible line. Colonel

1165
Young, before his departure for England, is believed to have considered that Kikuyu Guard malpractices were widespread and that the attitude of the Provincial Administration towards these matters was not all that it should have been—particularly from the Police viewpoint."
LORD LLOYD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. That is all I wanted him to read.
LORD HEMINGFORD: What is necessary is to point out that what the Church Missionary Society's pamphlet does is not to make the assertion made in this paper by a correspondent, but to quote. That they did quote it is not, I think, entirely surprising, in view of the statement which Government itself has agreed with Colonel Young. Perhaps I may read an extract—it is reported in Hansard of February 2, 1955 (Vol. 190, No. 15, col. 969):
"Colonel Young explained to the Secretary of State that in his view no progress towards this aim could be made unless the Police were given a greater measure of independence in the performance of their functions than they at present possessed in the Emergency areas and unless it was recognised that the respect of the public for the impartial administration of the law was seriously jeopardised by the activities of the Home Guard whose powers were liable to abuse owing to their lack of discipline."
It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that the Bishop of Mombasa describes the pamphlet in question as being "one-sided and particularly unfortunate," "One-sided" it may be, but what about the allegations made on the one side? There has been no suggestion that the Bishop of Mombasa impugns any of the facts that are asserted in this C.M.S. pamphlet; and it would be surprising if he were to do so, for only a few days after that pamphlet had been published he and other leaders of Christian churches in Kenya went to see the acting Governor, Sir Frederick Crawford. This is what The Times reports about their meeting:
"Last month reasons for concern"—
the Church leaders said—
"were set out in a memorandum submitted to the Government. The issues discussed have included the continued use of the system under which the Governor's power to make detention orders is delegated to senior administrative officers. To-day's delegation put before Sir Frederick Crawford some evidence of alleged reprehensible activities still being carried out by security teams. The Church leaders emphasised their view that the entire rehabilitation programme for scores of thousands
1166
of Kikuyu, Embu and Meru in detention camps must be considerably speeded up. They were also concerned about the treatment of loyal members of these tribes,"
et cetera.
"Sir Frederick Crawford gave the deputation a renewed assurance that indiscriminate action against the Kikuyu population because they were Kikuyu was entirely contrary to Government policy, and that there was every intention of encouraging the loyal and punishing the subversive elements."
Nobody learns with any surprise that that is what Sir Frederick Crawford said. Of course, we know that that is the attitude of the Government of Kenya; that is known by the leaders of the Church Missionary Society and by the other leaders of the Christian churches in Kenya.
The noble Lord asked: "Why, before publishing this pamphlet, did not the Church Missionary Society consult the Bishop of the diocese?" I think it is a reasonable question to ask. But if I had been on the Committee of the Church Missionary Society which was dealing with this matter, this is what I should have said: "The Bishop, together with the leaders of other Churches, is engaged in negotiations with the Governor of Kenya. We believe that it is our duty to draw attention to certain allegations before the forthcoming debate in the House of Lords. Shall we write to the Bishop of Mombasa and ask him to approve this pamphlet? No. We know his views. We know the reports that we have received from his diocese. We will issue this upon our own responsibility without troubling him and without in any way running the risk of embarrassing him in his dealings with the acting Governor of Kenya."
Then, says the noble Lord: "Why did they not come to the Colonial Office to hear our side of the case?" The burden of the charges that have been brought to-day by the noble and learned Earl on the Bench opposite and the most reverend Primate is not that the Government's attitude is wrong, not that the Government have done nothing, but that what has been stated time and time again has not been successfully fulfilled. We know the difficulties: it would be unfair in any way to minimise them—I certainly should not wish to do that. But we have been hearing for two years now that it was the Government's determination to

1167
stop bad things happening in the security forces in Kenya.
I think that the Government of Kenya and Her Majesty's Government here owe a very great debt to the Church Missionary Society, and to the other Christian bodies in Kenya, for the restraint which they have shown. They are, by the nature of their work, in very close touch with Africans—in closer touch, I venture to say, with African opinion than are the majority of Government officials or settlers. They have, as your Lordships know, a deep concern for Africans, as have others, as persons; and yet, in spite of the things that have been happening since October, 1952, these societies and leaders, while they have made repeated representations in private to the Government of Kenya, have refrained from any kind of public or concerted public protest. Why have they done that? They have shown that restraint—a restraint which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would agree has been imitated widely in this country, by the Press and by others—because they know that Mau Mau is wicked, because they know that it is necessary to use force against the gangs, and because they know that in the heat of war it is inevitable that some injustices should occur. But this restraint has now been ended by the publication of this pamphlet. Why did the Church Missionary Society publish it? I imagine that there were two reasons: first, because their missionaries know the conditions in Kenya, and are deeply disturbed by them—and who can wonder after the evidence that has been brought to this House to-day?—and, secondly, because they have been deeply shaken by Colonel Young's resignation. The Governor deplores the bad things that he admits have been done by the security forces. He declares that the Government intends to stop them. But has it not happened too often in our Colonial history that the right thing has been done too late? What assurance have we that the sincere determinations proclaimed by the Government over the last two years are now really to be carried out?
The noble Lord who spoke last has a fluency and rapidity of speech which I myself greatly envy, and I am afraid that I am not fully seized of the practical measures which he assures us are about to be taken. One, I gather, is that the
1168
Home Guard are to be absorbed into the tribal police. Obviously, that is going to be a considerable operation. But I wonder whether it is going to cure the evil habits into which some of the Home Guard appear to have fallen in recent years? I myself did not feel that anything that the noble Lord told us gave us very strong security that things would be so much better than they have been in the past, although I hope that I am wrong. It is, of course, necessary to liquidate the gangs. The physical force of Mau Mau can be conquered only by might; but the psychological aspect of Mau Mau—because Mau Mau is an attitude of mind; or as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I think rightly, calls it, a religion—can be conquered only by right.
It is impossible for your Lordships to emphasise too strongly how essential it is that all who perform, in admittedly difficult circumstances, the tasks of preserving law and order in Kenya, shall not only be strong but shall also be clean. Mau Mau will not be confined to the Kikuyu, a happier future for Kenya will not be begun—indeed, I doubt whether the emergency itself will be ended—unless the injustices that have been referred to today are rooted out. I hope that we have better things to look forward to in the future; but do not let the noble Lord, who, if I may say so, should be deeply grateful to the Church Missionary Society for the restraint which they have shown for two years, turn to them and say "Why did you not come and ask us what our policy was?" That policy has been stated time and time again. It is not a statement that we want; it is not understanding of the desires of Government that we want; it is to see visible results of that policy on which we are all agreed.
Ought we then to consider whether it would be desirable, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton has suggested, that there should be changes in high places in Kenya? Who are we to judge? How can we judge? We have not the full facts before us. But we have had this statement as to the reason for Colonel Young's resignation. It does not seem to me to be a full enough statement, and I should like to suggest, not in order to embarrass the Government but in order to assist them in their difficult task in Kenya, to invite Colonel Young—so well known in

1169
this country for his work in the City of London; so well known for his work in Malaya; sent out to Kenya because we knew what a great man he was—to make a far fuller report than this agreed statement, on conditions in Kenya and the remedies that he would suggest. I believe that that might be of great advantage to the Government of Kenya in prosecuting their difficult task of seeing that we conquer not only the force of Mau Mau but also its hold on the imagination of the people of the Kikuyu tribe.
5.28 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I am in complete agreement with the last words that have been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down. We shall not win this battle purely in the field; we shall win it in men's minds as well. This has been a most interesting debate so far. I have the greatest regard for Lord Milverton's experience and knowledge. I think this is the first time that I have ever found myself in somewhat serious disagreement with him, but I am sure he will forgive me. Those who have spoken after him have taken the line that I propose to take: that we should spare no possible human effort to smash this Mau Mau snake. I believe that we are approaching a rather favourable moment. In the last six months our affairs have greatly improved. We are acting now, with this amnesty, not out of weakness but out of a strength that, six months ago, we did not possess. I believe that this amnesty is right, not only in conception but in timing as well. I hope it will not be left to hang in the air; I hope it will be prosecuted vigorously—by leaflets, by radio, by broadcasting aircraft, day after day if possible, in order to bring home to the minds of these people the fact that they would do well to surrender.
I hope the surrender offer will be left open for quite a long time to come. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in his speech earlier, drew a parallel with Cecil Rhodes' journey into the Matoppo Hills which stopped the Matabele rebellion, recalling how Rhodes, with a few companions, almost unarmed, went right into the Matabele country and was approached by the warriors, apparently bent on war. When the warriors saw Rhodes they dropped their arms to the ground, and conversations began. The
1170
noble Earl stopped there, but I should like to add a postscript to that story. Cecil Rhodes, even with his incomparable authority, and with the advantage of being known by the whole Matabele tribe, had to confer with that tribe on terms almost every day for two solid months. So I feel that we should keep this offer open for a good long time.
It this offer is not put forward, what are the alternatives? Are we seeking, or just hoping, to win outright by the slow steps of a war of attrition? The rains are coming on in the Aberdare Forest. There are probably other noble Lords besides myself who have been in that forest. I believe that an amnesty will become intensely telling in the last weeks of next month when the rains approach, a time when war-like operations by European forces become not so easy. Supposing that an offer were to be made couched in terms requiring them to come in waving a green branch, with the warning "You will be tried and then hanged," I think that would have no very great response. If, by a miracle, it did, could we contemplate hanging between 5,000 and 7,000 men?
The principle of detention has been generally accepted by every speaker, so that I do not think I have to defend it myself. It is a most regrettable necessity. There are about 46,000 men in camps, and some people feel that they should all be brought to trial. But law is a mechanism, and if one overloads any mechanism its movement is choked and may be brought to a halt. I asked an eminent legal expert how long it would take, say, twenty-three judges to bring 46,000 people to trial. And he answered, "Approximately six years." Anyone who was innocent, and whose trial came on last, might therefore have to wait six years—and would have served a six-year sentence—before his innocence was proved.
I entirely agree with those who say that we should show the most immense care in our screening. Great responsibility rests upon those charged with this work. As I see this detention, it is like dealing with an infection, such as smallpox, by which those who can quickly be proved to have had no contact with a sufferer should be quickly released. Those who obviously have the symptoms of disease would be detained, and those who have been associated with those who had

1171
the disease would also be detained until it was clear whether or not they were going to catch it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, referred at some length to a C.M.S. pamphlet, which has also been mentioned by other noble Lords this afternoon. I have the greatest respect for the C.M.S., but reading this pamphlet I regret the somewhat restrictive use of the word "Christian" which occurs all through it. This pamphlet has been quoted in the Observer, by the most reverend Primate this afternoon, and also by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, to these words:
"That was nine months ago and General Erskine himself announced that it was estimated that 20 per cent. of the detainees at a typical camp would be found to have a clean record."
The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, mentioned the Kenya Weekly News. I can supply him with knowledge that he might wish on that point. This is a very responsible Kenya newspaper, and on February 4 it said this:
"The Kenya Weekly News is authorised to state that General Erskine never said that 'a proper inquiry would show that one-fifth of those held at a typical camp had a clean record'."
That is a very important mis-statement coming from one side or the other.
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, I should like to point out that this is covered by inverted commas preceded by the words "in the letter quoted above." I have yet to find which is the letter referred to, but I think it is the one to The Times, published on January 22. Is that so? The officers of the Society, the president, chairman of the executive committee and chairman of the Africa committee, wrote a letter to The Times newspaper which many noble Lords will have seen on January 22. In that letter they say, "That was nine months ago," and then the passage quoted by the noble Lord. Whether they are correct or whether the Kenya Weekly News is correct I am afraid I am unable to inform the noble Lord.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that explanation. I should be very surprised if the Kenya Weekly News went so far as
1172
to say it was "authorised to state" without cause, and it is a point which should be cleared up because it could mislead many people in an already misleading situation. But let nothing that I have said on that last point concerning detainees be held to suggest that I agree with those who feel we should shorten, streamline, or in some way abrogate the process of law, when a man is brought before a court charged with a specific crime. I do not think you can ever shorten the full processes of law in a case before the court. It has been said that the African does not understand our legal processes, and that may be true; but I would never be on the side of those who favour any abrogation of our process of law. Many loyalists who stood up for us, and for their religion, have shown courage well nigh saintly. But, as in politics, extremists on the one side will always beget extremists on the other; so brutality begets brutality and undoubtedly shocking incidents have occurred among men who were loyal and on our side. If we have an amnesty for the terrorists it would, of course, be only just and fair to have one as well for those of our loyalists who are charged with crimes.
When King Charles II returned to the Throne in Britain in 1660, noble Lords will remember that an Act was passed which was intended to soothe away the bitterness of the Civil Wars by pardoning all those who were not regicides. It was called an "Act of Indemnity and Oblivion." In the years that followed, his disgruntled followers came to call it an Act of indemnity for his enemies and of oblivion for his friends. Let us keep a balance here. We took a necessary risk in recruiting forces of untrained levies into the Home Guard and other units on our side; for, as the most reverend Primate has said, we had absolutely no alternative. Where brutality has occurred—the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, put it into words for us all—"We can comprehend it but we cannot condone it."
I do not think I am being patronising in saying that in the last twenty years the general opinion of the White settlers on political matters has become vastly more moderate. I do not think I am being patronising, because the views of the two major political Parties in this country have also changed considerably during that

1173
period, and perhaps they, too, have become more moderate. It is very difficult for us to put ourselves in the position of the Kenya settlers. It is easy for us to understand their fury, their hatred at the bestial murders of their own kith and kin, their white neighbours and loyal Africans who have stood up for them. It is greatly to their credit that they have not taken the law into their own hands. I say that advisedly, because in many countries in the last hundred years where similar circumstances have occurred, that was exactly what happened. Many hard things are said about them. It is not surprising if they say many hard things back.
The Kenya farmer is unlike the Malayan planter or many other people with whom he is often associated, for all he possesses is sunk in the land he farms. He is sensitive, hypersensitive, about that land. If he has not got that land, he has nothing—unlike the Malayan planter, who is nearly always employed by a large company on the management of their land. What the Kenya settlers produce from the land has created an economy for Kenya, and the result of their work and production has produced the standard of living—or a large part of it—that the African now enjoys. They dispossessed no one when they took that land: it was vacant and empty. I would say to them, with great respect and humility, that I do not believe that the principle of the White Highlands can continue inviolate forever. I believe the time will come when, on terms as between willing seller and willing buyer, men of other races must be allowed to have land there, on condition that they show they can make the best use of it. The Royal Commission on Land will be reporting, as I understand, in about two months' time, and I shall be very surprised if they do not deal with this subject. This is an undiscussable subject to many of my friends in the White Highlands. I beg them to think about it. No action will take place until 1960–there has been a pledge on that. Let them turn their minds to it, and see whether some reasonable solution cannot be found before the matter becomes one of bitter recrimination.
In conclusion, I should like to pay a very great tribute to Mr. Michael Blundell who, in the most difficult times, has done a very fine job. We will certainly smash the Mau Mall snake. We all hope that it will be possible to do so at a not very
1174
distant date. But our optimism should always be guarded. Snakes remain lethal even when they have ceased to breathe, and we shall have a long and difficult time rebuilding that country. We are now witnessing the last fight of the Old Gods—and just how strong they are we have had bitter reason to know. This is a glimpse of the old dark heart of Africa, which was there before we went there and would return to it if we left. The reconstruction of this country, once the snake is slain, will be matter for men of all races. Never let it be said that any man who was really loyal to us, and upright, was ever forgotten for his loyalty.
5.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, it would be superfluous for me to join the many noble Lords who have expressed criticism of the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, but, having been one of the two Members of your Lordships' House who were privileged to take part in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Nairobi, I think it is suitable that I should say a few words. The first thing that in my view needs saying, because it is very little realised in England, is that the emergency does not cover the whole of Kenya. Travelling through Kenya, after the strain, tension and bitterness of Nairobi, the White Highlands, the Rift Valley and the Central Provinces, when one came to the Coast Province at Mombasa or the Nyanza Province at Kisumu it was most marked to find a totally different atmosphere, the atmosphere of a normal, well-run Colonial Office territory with no racial bitterness such as you get in other territories. So let us remember that what we are discussing now, the Kenya emergency, applies only in part of the territory.
But in that part there is this very acute problem of the active Mau Mau terrorists, organised in gangs operating in and from the mountainous districts of Mount Kenya and the Aberdares. Through the courtesy of one of your Lordships, Brigadier Lord Thurlow, I and some other delegates were motored into a corner of the Aberdares to see the administration by the King's African Rifles in the operations that have to take place. When the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, expresses his disapproval of an amnesty offer, I wonder whether he realises what it is he is asking for. He

1175
is asking for this campaign to go on almost indefinitely. What is this problem? It concerns 7,000 men in an area of several thousand square miles. The greater part of the area is covered by tropical forest such as Lord Milverton probably knows much better than I do. The part through which I was motored was peculiar, I think, to that part of Africa, in that at that altitude—7,000, 8,000 or 9,000 feet—there is a bamboo forest containing trees 40 ft. high with stems as thick as one's arm. This forest is so dense that it is almost impossible for armed men to get through it. And operations like that are being conducted by, we are told, some 22,000 men, I think some twelve battalions. To cover an area like that would need, not twelve battalions but ten times that number. It is an operation that would be quite out of the question. So all that could happen, if there had been no amnesty offer, would be that this campaign would drag on and on and on.
We know what it is doing to the Kenya Government. We know of their ten-year plan under which they planned to devote 52 per cent. of the resources year by year to the economic development of the country, 24 per cent. to social services, and 4 per cent. to security measures—police, prisons and so on. In the last two years the proportion spent on security has gone up to 20 per cent. We know also that Her Majesty's Government felt compelled to come to the help financially of Kenya, and in December, 1953, Mr. Lyttelton announced that £6 millions would be made available to the Kenya Government by the Home Government. Incidentally that was intended to cover their needs up to the end of the Financial Year 1954–55. As we are approaching that now, I wonder if the noble Viscount who is going to reply could say whether any further financial provision is intended after the ending of the grant and the loan that were announced a year ago. I am afraid I have not given the noble Viscount notice of that question, so I shall not expect him to answer to-day.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): I will find out if I can. I do not know at the moment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The financial strain of the emergency is, obviously, one
1176
very strong reason for ending it as quickly as possible, because Kenya can never be a settled country and develop to the full for the benefit of all races living in it unless there is money for development, for opening up territory, for improving water supplies, and for bringing fresh land into habitation. But apart from the financial need there is the question of detention, about which many noble Lords have spoken. There is no doubt that when there is an emergency, with emergency legislation, it is accompanied by very undesirable circumstances, particularly by screening. There seems to be no safeguard for a man who might be accused by a lifelong enemy of having communication with Mau Mau. He is brought before a screening team, and nobody knows how disinterested or judicially minded they are or how impartially they will examine a man's record. There is possibility of endless malice and injustice, and indeed corruption, in any system where people are examined and detained on the word of a few members of the general public. It is a most sinister feature that any Kikuyu or other African can be accused and put in detention on the word of a screening team, without the possibility of an appeal or a fair trial in open court with proper evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned the figure of 46,000 in detention. Other figures have been given—I have heard 58,000. We know that the process of sifting the innocents from the others is very, very slow, and that the process of rehabilitation is slower still. That seems to me to be the second problem facing Kenya: how to deal with the detainees. If rehabilitation is going to be a process of individual treatment in camps, lasting a long time, the number of converts resulting from that rehabilitation will be numbered in dozens and not in thousands, as would need to be the case to make any serious inroad into the detained population. And the 50,000 are nearly all men: not only is their labour withdrawn from the Kenya economy but their wives and families are left in the reserves and represent a further drain on the economy, because often they have to receive assistance from the Government in order to maintain life. I think the progress in the works camps must be speeded up, and that sooner or later the fact will have to be faced that men who are only

1177
mildly contaminated, who have been persuaded or intimidated into taking one or two oaths, can be released from detention.
Beyond that there is a further problem, to make sure that the Mau Mau movement does not arise again once it has died or been crushed. A number of eminent people have expressed opinions on what has caused the Mau Mau rebellion and on what has been its history, but nobody among all those I met in Kenya—and they were people with lifelong experience of the country—was ever so dogmatic as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, in saying exactly what were the motives behind the movement, what was its history and what were its causes. All the opinions I heard in Kenya were to the effect that there was a variety of motives behind Mau Mau, no One of which could be cured by any one remedy. There was a mixture of nationalism, the land grievance and the frustration and uncertainty caused by the breaking up of the old tribal beliefs and civilisation. These motives have acted on members of the tribe in different ways.
The fact that the land grievance is a real one was brought home to me very clearly when every one of half-a-dozen men I questioned in one camp said that the argument advanced to him for joining the Mau Mau movement was that he would get more land—that land would be taken away from the Europeans and given to the Kikuyu. If the Kikuyu tribe fell for that kind of argument in the numbers in which they did, it shows that something much more than the ambitious plotting of a few wicked men was responsible, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, would have us believe. There is this deep-seated grievance. While it is not possible to solve the land problem in Kenya easily, and we shall not know the recommendations of the Committee for some time, there is no doubt that one measure will have to be the better utilisation of the land resources of the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir said, by some modification of the system in the White Highlands, in conjunction with the opening up of large tracts of country which need only capital expenditure to make them habitable. That and the relaxation of tension that will follow the end of armed rebellion seem to me to be the only prospects of a satisfactory settlement.
1178
I hope it will not be thought in Kenya that the fact that this debate has been held on the terms on which it has been held means that there is any doubt in this country about the actions of the Kenya authorities. I am sure that in his Service days the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, often said, "Trust the man on the spot." I think we should follow that motto. I think also that in this House we should beware of making personal attacks on Ministers in Colonial Governments. I hope very much that the general expressions of opinion in your Lordships' House which have been so markedly in favour of amnesty will overcome any ill-effects that the Motion might otherwise have had.
5.59 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I should be more impressed by what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said in his closing sentences if he and other noble Lords on that side of the House, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, had not themselves criticised most fiercely the Kenya Government and their actions. The noble Earl is living in a glasshouse when he throws stones at the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who inaugurated this debate. One of the things that I deplore about this debate—I do not suggest that the debate should not be held; that would be impertinent on my part—is that the unfortunate Kenya Government and the unfortunate Administration have been attacked from all sides of the House. I cannot believe that that will strengthen their hand. We in this country can persuade ourselves that black is white and white is black, but I cannot believe that a debate in which practically every speech has criticised the Kenya Government, who are doing their best in most difficult circumstances, and has inferentially criticised the Secretary of State, and inferentially criticised Her Majesty's Government, is going to have a reassuring effect in Kenya.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: May I ask the noble Earl what I criticised the Kenya Government about?
EARL WINTERTON: The noble Earl criticised them because they permitted these alleged outrages to take place.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Earl must have misheard me. I never mentioned that subject in my speech.
EARL WINTERTON: The noble Earl certainly mentioned regrettable occurrences that had taken place.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: No, I did not.
EARL WINTERTON: If the noble Earl did not, then I must have misheard him—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Withdraw!
EARL WINTERTON: —in which case I withdraw what I have said. But certainly the speech of his noble and learned Leader was very critical of the Kenya Government.
EARL JOWITT: I was not in the least critical of the Kenya Government. I quoted from two judgments which showed that irregular things had been done and that some officials must, presumably, have known about them. I do not think the Kenya Government knew anything about them, and I never said that.
EARL WINTERTON: The noble and learned Earl is an ex-Lord Chancellor, and he has been long enough in public life to know that if you criticise the officials of a Government, inferentially you criticise the Government. The Government are responsible for those officials. The noble and learned Earl cannot say: "I am criticising the subordinate officials, but I have no criticism to make against the Kenya Government." That is a view which cannot be taken up, even in this illogical country. I do not say that he is not entitled to criticise; I merely say that he did so.
I find myself in agreement with many of the things said by the noble Lord who moved the Motion, but I do not find myself in agreement with his general conclusions. I have every reason to believe that the best authorities on the subject, including the military authorities here and in Kenya, believe that the action taken was the only one that could be taken. But I do not think it ought to go out from this House that, because it is a regrettable necessity, it is anything but a regrettable necessity. I do not think I am misquoting the noble Earl, Lord Lucan—in fact, I took down his words—in saying that he asked: "What is the alternative?" He
1180
went on to say, with the local knowledge which he possesses, that it would be almost impossible to carry on the war in the Aberdare Forest, and that the alternative would be that the war should drag on and on. I am afraid that we shall be faced with that alternative if this amnesty policy does not prove successful. Nobody has said this afternoon—perhaps my noble friend the Leader of the House will tell us—that it has succeeded. It is doubtful whether it will succeed. I think it should be given every chance to succeed, and I hope that your Lordships' House is prepared, and that another place is prepared—as I am sure it is—to support Her Majesty's Government in any further measures that may be taken.
The situation is not like that which existed at the time when we handed over government in India and Burma to the Indians and the Burmese. Those who called themselves "diehards" might well have said that there we handed over government to successful insurrectionists. But that is not the problem that any Government would be faced with in Kenya, where they have 50,000 Europeans. The rebellion cannot be allowed to succeed; it has got to be quashed. The only quarrel that I have with Her Majesty's Government—and I am sure the fault is mine—is that they do not describe this as a rebellion. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, gave reasons why it could not be described as a rebellion—apparently the word "rebellion" is unknown to the Kenya Government or the laws of Kenya. One might ask: When is a rebellion not a rebellion? At any rate, my sympathy is strongly with the Kenya Government and with Her Majesty's Government, and I hope that one effect of this debate will be to show that there is support for them in general, and that there is determination in your Lordships' House to see this matter brought to an end, by whatever methods the Government may think right. Here I would, with the greatest respect, as a new Member of your Lordships' House, appeal for support for the Government even if they do appear to do things with which some noble Lords on either side of the House may not agree.
I do not want to detain your Lordships for any length of time, but I want to make one reference to two speeches which we have heard, one from the noble and

1181
learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the other from the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. I should say, in parenthesis, that I have given the most reverend Primate notice that I should criticise his speech, and I understand that he could not remain. To put it in the most mild form, I thought that in both speeches there was a certain overweight concerning these regrettable events that have occurred in Kenya.
I, like a good many other Members of your Lordships' House, have taken part in guerrilla fighting—in fact, I took part in one of the first guerrilla campaigns, a rather over-advertised campaign, which is the subject of certain comments outside this House at the present time. You do not fight guerrilla warfare by the methods of the Y.M.C.A. You do not say to your opponents: "I love you, and if you will only love me everything will be all right." And it is guerrilla fighting, on both sides, to some extent, both by the loyal Kikuyu and by the Mau Mau, that is going on in Kenya. Indeed, the condemnation which the Kenya Government have shown, which the Secretary of State has shown, and which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, showed this afternoon, is really quite sufficient.
I find it difficult to understand the moral outlook of this country in many respects, including the moral outlook of some Members of your Lordships' House. I was in Hamburg in the year 1948, as the guest of the Army. I was taken round by the distinguished officer who was in command of the British Forces there at that time. He showed me a portion of Hamburg, and he said (I am sure your Lordships' will not mind my quoting his words): "I am not a politician, and I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other, but I thought it might interest you to know that 60,000 people, nearly all civilians, were killed there in three nights by our bombers; many of them were women and children and a lot were burned to death." I do not remember any protest from the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, or from the most reverend Primate at that time. Those people were not all Nazis. Of course, they would be entitled to reply that some of the Kikuyu are not Mau Man—that is true—but nor were all these people Nazis.
1182
Cecil Rhodes has been quoted this afternoon. The best phrase that Cecil Rhodes ever used was when he referred to the "unctuous rectitude of the British people"—what the French really mean when they talk of "perfide Albion." I should have thought that there was an overweight given to the comparatively few instances of illegal and cruel conduct in Kenya, and that some of the sympathy (which has not been given in Church circles, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford), might be given to the millions of Christians who have been tortured to death behind the Iron Curtain. A little more sympathy might have been spent on them, and a little less on the people who have allegedly been ill-treated in Kenya. That is not to make an attack on the Church Missionary Society, who have a very difficult job to do. It is unfortunate that the missionaries are not popular with the white settlers, and usually the white settlers are unfair to the missionaries. I agree that they have adopted a statesmanlike attitude, but I do not think that their views should be given overweight.
I want to say to your Lordships' House—and I am sure the noble Viscount who is to reply will agree—that the general message which should go out from this House to-day to the Kenya Government is: "While mistakes may have been made, we are behind you. We are behind the officials. We are behind the loyal Kikuyu. We are not inclined, because we are not in a position to know the facts, to be too critical of some of the things that have been done, and we believe that the emergency, or whatever you like to call it, can be brought to an end only by a mixture of force and tact." One of the silliest things ever said, even in Britain, was the statement that "force settles nothing." Of course it settles a great deal. It won the last war; and there are circumstances where force must be used. Obviously, however, other things besides force come into the picture. I can see nothing to criticise in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government; and while I think that the noble Lord who introduced this Motion was fully entitled to bring it forward, and, so far from attacking him, as some noble Lords have done, I would say that I admire his courage in bringing it forward, I do not agree with his general conclusions, and I support Her Majesty's Government.
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I wish to support Her Majesty's Government in their policy of amnesty and conditional surrender. There is nothing more negative, unconstructive and hopeless than the policy of demanding unconditional surrender. That policy was invented by General Ulysses Grant in the American Civil War—"Unconditional Surrender Grant" is what he was called. Speaking as the son of a Virginian and the grandson of somebody who fought at Gettysburg, I can say that if there had been the chance of a surrender on conditions affording some generosity, some tolerance, some saving of face, the ghastly period of reconstruction which the Southern States underwent and which created such bitterness after that war would never have happened. I have talked to many anti-Hitler Germans who said to me, "You know we were in a hard place in the war. We knew that the only people who could overthrow Hitler were the Generals. We would say to the Generals, 'You have got to do this'." The Generals would say, "Do we get any advantage by doing it?" They would communicate by underground channels with our side, and all we would say is, "Surrender unconditionally and see what happens." It may well be that many thousands of people lost their lives and the map of Europe was very unfavourably drawn because of that policy. Any form of approach must end in some form of political settlement. The time to make it is when you are winning and not, as in Indo-China, when you are obviously beaten. Now, when our security forces have been steadily getting increasingly good results in Kenya, surely this is the moment, when people see the hopelessness of resistance, for them to see that they are given some hope if they surrender.
Having said that, I wish to take up what the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said about the security forces. It is we who have to take the ultimate responsibility for this. The Chinese had a very wholesome habit, in that if there was a rebellion in a Province, the Governor of that Province automatically had his head cut off, without investigation of the cause of the rebellion, because, if he had done his job properly, the revolution would never have happened.
LORD KILLEARN: Would the noble Viscount apply that to Kenya?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I was just going to say so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps that is why the noble Viscount will not call it a rebellion.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I would certainly say that the Administration in Kenya before the present Governor, who allowed this situation to arise and did nothing about it, should certainly, if not have their heads cut off, be severely condemned. The whole situation has been revealed in a book by a travelling American journalist, Negley Farson, who exposed the Kenyatta activities. Nothing was done. That book showed the whole picture of what was going to happen. It was neglected because of the optimistic climate which existed in the African Department of the Colonial Office of the last Government. If I may say so with great deference, there were insufficient administrative officers, and a neglect of the Police and the C.I.D. It is because we had a Government in Kenya which either did not know what was happening, or did know and did nothing about it, that we have had to organise these improvised security forces, young men not police-trained, who, faced with the most horrible murders, have to try to get results. We have had to call the loyal Kikuyu to arms because of our own defects in administration in the past, and they use the only methods they know.
It is very easy to criticise the security forces and there is a great deal of hypocrisy talked on the subject. Anybody who has had anything to do with happenings like the Arab rebellion in Palestine before the war knows the difficulty of getting information out of the enemy, and so forth. One cannot deal with these matters with kid gloves. No one wants to see such methods, and everybody hates them, but for Heaven's sake! let us make an end of it and forget the cases which have already been started. I would appeal to the noble Viscount the Deputy Leader of the House to see whether the Government can consider making this amnesty retrospective, and to include any cases which are now on the files, because I think our friends have the first claims on us, even when they have been misguided.

1185
Finally, may I suggest that the problem of the future is going to be what status we can give the educated African in Kenya. Can we give him the proper housing, so that he can live in conditions commensurate with the education he has received, and so that he can raise himself and give some leadership to his own people? It is remarkable what wonderful results have been achieved by the Christian Kikuyu in Kenya. All the people who have sneered at missionaries should bite off their tongues. There is a lot to be gained from seeing how the Belgians have used a very enlightened administration in the Belgian colonies, associating religion with education so that they do not get merely what the Duke of Wellington called "clever devils," but people with a moral foundation for their education. If we are going to encourage the missionaries to take a bigger part in Kenya, so that instead of the debased religion of Mau Mau they can get the benefit of a Christian religion, it behoves Europeans equally to give an example of that Christian religion by abandoning practices such as colour bars which are wholly incompatible with that religion.
6.18 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I will not detain you for long, because we have had a long and interesting debate. There are, however, just one or two questions upon which I wish to touch. I was a little distressed, particularly at the beginning of the debate, at the abuse—I can only call it abuse—of my noble friend Lord Milverton. I do not see any objection to an ex-Governor writing a letter to The Times. Should he not do so, if he feels that he can contribute something which will be to the benefit of the important question in which the public are interested to-day? I do not see any reason to criticise that.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, referred to the Matabele and the Mau Man. I was in Africa long before a great many of your Lordships were born. After the Rhodes episode, I lived up-country quite alone—I was prospecting at the time—with the Matabele. You cannot compare the Matabele, who, as your Lordships know, are a branch of the Zulu race, with the Mau Mau. They never did anything like what is happening in Kenya to-day; they were a different type altogether. In my view, they had
1186
immense qualities. My experience of them was that one could trust them. They seemed not to know what it was to tell a lie. They were the most truthful and devoted people, when you got to know them, and found yourself working with them. I can see nothing of that sort in the case of the Mau Mau. I think Lord Milverton's letter, in which he described what has been going on there, does not require any watering down. It is the truth; it is what has happened.
I have been a little shaken by what has been said by some speakers in regard to this surrender offer. I was horribly shocked at it when I first saw it: it seemed to me to cut at all the laws of civilisation and the laws of God, and to be a bonus on crime. That was the effect it had on my mind. Please God that what my noble friend Lord Lloyd has said will be successful! I gather that the opinion in the House—I think the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said so—is that the Mau Mau must be fought; we must go on fighting them. It seems to me extremely difficult to go on fighting people and, at the same time, hand out terms of surrender which seem to let them off, with no punishment for the evil that they have done. There is another aspect which has not been mentioned this afternoon in this House. Let us think of those families, both white and Kikuyu, who have had their relations murdered and tortured, and who are now living in a state of fear and distress. I wonder what views they take of this amnesty offer to the very people who have caused them all this misery. I am not satisfied that this offer will be successful, though I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that it may be.
There is one point that has emerged all through this debate—I think that my noble friend Lord Winterton touched on it. In my view, there has been quite serious criticism by the most reverend Primate, and also by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, that the Administration in Kenya has not been good. We have had instances cited of what happened here and there. The question was asked: Did the Administration know about it? If they did know about it, why did they not stop it? After all, this has been going on for two and a half years. I feel strongly that if, as the result of what is happening to-day, and as a result of the Government's policy, there

1187
is not very soon a drastic change in the situation out there, then the Administration should be altered: other people should be put in who would, we hope, govern the country and institute an Administration which would clear up all these terrible things that have been going on.
My experience and judgment tell me that the surrender offer, which I consider to be definitely a weak move in history, has not been a success. It was the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I think, who referred to unconditional surrender. We had it in the last war. It has happened before. My own view is that, by and large, it is better to take the strong line with such people as we have to deal with here: the Mau Mau, your Lordships should remember, are not civilised people; they are murdering savages—there is no doubt whatever about that—and I do not think we can deal with them in the sort of way in which we might deal with people who had a large percentage of education and culture.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, brought this matter before your Lordships' House. His Motion has produced an interesting debate; it has brought out some ideas, and it has instructed some of us in the maladministration that has been going on. I hope, as I have already said, that what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, hopes will come about through the Government's policy will have the effect that he anticipates, and that before long we shall see a complete change in this deplorable situation.
6.28 p.m.
LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, I rise to say a few words from these Benches. I should like to explain, first of all, that I am one of those most remarkable and undesirable people, an absentee landlord; that when, after the war, my collieries had been taken away, I invested money in Kenya; that I invested something up to £30,000, built a house and bought a property; and that I have never been there, nor am I ever likely to go there. It is a very nice house and I meant to go there as and when I wished, or to send friends. But what has occurred? It is quite absurd. Since then absolute anarchy has come about. It is no good mistaking the fact that either the Government here
1188
—it does not matter to which Party they belong—or the Administration there have not succeeded. After all, we here, especially in this House, are the ultimate deciders of what happens and what our policy should be. What are we faced with? As letters here from my agents and lawyers who run my estate show, they do not know whether it is a rebellion or what it is. They cannot tell me whether or not my insurance is valid. It is valid if I am there, but perhaps not if I am not there. How I can protect my own property, which is considerable, they do not know. Those are the problems the Government have to face.
I am not going to attack what has happened in the past, other than to say that the policy has not succeeded. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton were both right in their points as to where we are heading. The Government here, who really control the Administration over there, have now put forward this new plan. Not only for myself, for the interests which I have, but as a Liberal, I say that it is no good not facing the fact that we have failed, and that we have got to take the medicine, irrespective of its taste. This plan must be given a chance. I believe that if we do not support the Government on this matter we shall not get anywhere at all. We have been given no other policies from which to choose. We must support this policy of the Government.
I would go even a little further. Perhaps the amnesty might have been extended to the 60,000 who are now in the concentration camps. Where do the people who surrender go to? They go into concentration camps. The question has been forcefully put: What happens after they are put into certain categories, such as "grey," "grey-white," or "near-white"? One may say, in regard to colours into which they are put, that they are almost dual creations. They remain there, and I, who have invested my money in a bad area of the country, cannot get any workmen to work because they are all locked up. My chief herdsman was executed because three cartridges were found in his pocket. I do not know who put them there, or, if he put them there himself, why he did so: but that was the end of it. I once employed 220 people, but now I am not allowed to employ them. The

1189
economy which I, as a Liberal, believe in, is that you can make a Colony pay only if it is a financial success—if from it you can build up something which will provide a proper basis for human life to exist. I fully support the plan which is now put forward for the extension of the idea of an amnesty. I hope it will be extended, because the alternative is absolute chaos.
6.33 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and one which I feel, or at least hope, will eventually, when we have heard the final Government spokesman, clear up a lot of points about which a number of us have felt considerable concern. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who opened the debate, expressed almost wholesale condemnation of the Governments in Kenya and in this country for their handling of the situation against the Mau Mau, and particularly for their surrender terms. My noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt, supported the principle behind the surrender terms, but was profoundly disturbed, as I think are many of us, on both sides of the House, by some of the recent happening in Kenya.
I was surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, criticise not only my noble and learned friend but also the most reverend Primate and others for venturing upon what he described as criticism of the Government. Surely, one can support the Government in a policy which most of us do support, namely, the surrender terms policy, without giving them complete carte blanche, so to speak, over everything else? When one remembers the long and distinguished career of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, in another place, he is about the last person that I should have expected to criticise anybody for criticising the Government. Certainly, when he was in Opposition he was one of the most persistent critics that any Government ever had, and one cannot say that his criticisms were always justified: there must have been times when the most impartial observer would have said that the criticisms of the noble Earl were by no means justified. At all events, whether they were justified or not, I think the responsibility of this House, as a House of Parliament—Parliament, of course, being ultimately responsible for what happens in Kenya—is to look most
1190
carefully into events there and to make such observations upon them as we think fit.
It seems to me that the surrender terms and the amnesty, on the one hand, and Colonel Young's resignation, on the other, are almost inexplicably bound up. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has to-day described the surrender terms as "a disastrous gamble with principles." But are they? Perhaps we had better examine the situation as it appears to us, having heard a number of noble Lords of great experience in affairs of State.
We are faced in Kenya with an insurrection of a fanatical and ferocious kind by a large number of Kikuyu tribesmen. There is a resistance to it by a Colonial Government whose forces include nine battalions of British Regular troops, African Regular troops, Kenya Territorials, Regular Police, Special Police and Kikuyu Home Guard. As has been pointed out, many of those troops, police, special police, and Home Guard, are young and inexperienced men. Politically, we have a situation in which two different societies, centuries apart in culture, in outlook and in education, with a certain amount of intolerance on both sides, are trying to live together in a comparatively small space. Unfortunately, the white settlements, including Nairobi, are practically all within the areas claimed, rightly or wrongly, as their tribal areas by the Kikuyu, who are the most politically-minded tribe in Africa. That is a difficult and explosive situation at any time, and it has exploded, for one reason or another.
We have had disturbing reports of what has been happening on the side of law and order, or what should be law and order, and on the part of those who preserve it and are responsible for securing it. We know that ferocity breeds ferocity and that brutality breeds reprisals. I thought that my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt made a grave statement to the House when, speaking, as he did, as a former Lord Chancellor, he quoted from judgments of the East African Court of Appeal and from a judge of first instance. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, appeared to me not to treat those judgments with the gravity which they deserve. I do not blame the noble Lord because he has only recently come

1191
to his office—it is a very difficult office to occupy, as I know only too well, and this is a matter of considerable complexity. I did not feel, however, that he replied to the gravamen, so to speak, of my noble and learned friend's argument. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, quoted at some length from a pamphlet of which I personally had never heard before—it has not been before your Lordships, and we have had no opportunity to read it—and he then proceeded to put up a number of arguments, demolishing, so it was supposed, this particular pamphlet.
LORD LLOYD: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, may I point out that the points contained in the pamphlet were, in my view, substantially those which had been raised by various noble Lords on this very subject. Admittedly, the pamphlet has not been laid in your Lordships' House, but it has had wide circulation and I am surprised that noble Lords should not have seen it. I dealt with the pamphlet because I thought it very important that the arguments it put forward should be answered.
LORD OGMORE: The pamphlet may be important, but the pamphlet is not a noble Lord. A noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, has come here with a quotation from judgments which are matters of record, not something which some unexplained anonymous writer has written in a pamphlet. These are judgments of the highest court in East Africa, the Court of Appeal. When my noble friend comes here and quotes a Court of Appeal judgment, what on earth is the use of Her Majesty's Government replying to a pamphlet? I cannot understand it at all. Let us take the very important point made by my noble and learned friend. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said there was no evidence that the Administration was in any way implicated in these abuses under screening. My noble friend quoted from the judgments of the Court of Appeal—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I just say that the noble and learned Earl (I think he will bear me out) quoted this judgment, but said he did not attack the Administration, and that he had no reason to suppose the Administration knew anything at all about these malpractices.
LORD OGMORE: My noble and learned friend said he knew nothing, apart
1192
from what was in the judgments, which implicated the Administration, but this is what the court said, after referring to the large number of fines and the large amount of fines:
"One would have thought at least that the steep incline upwards of fine money would have attracted attention at District Headquarters, or the African Courts Officer would have sat sometimes with the Court to see how it operated, but no European ever sat with this court."
That statement is taken from the judgment of Mr. Justice Oram. The East African Court of Appeal went further and said this:
"What legal powers of detention these teams have, or under whose authority they act, we do not know. But whatever the authority responsible, it is difficult for us to believe that these teams could continue to use methods of unlawful violence without the knowledge and condonation of that authority. Such methods are a negation of the rule of law which it is the duty of the courts to uphold."
I can think of no graver charge of this nature than that, made in a judgment of the Court of Appeal in East Africa. That is the point to which we on this side of the House should have liked the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to address his speech, rather than to refer to some pamphlet which, presumably, could have been answered by another pamphlet. Let pamphlet speak to pamphlet, and let noble Lord speak to noble Lord. If we are to have a battle of pamphlets in this House, we shall enter the fray and pamphlets shall flutter from one side to the other like autumn leaves.
In this particular context may I also point out that the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya, Command 9081, in paragraph 36, is also relevant. They say:
"We were also disturbed by the attitude of a section of European public opinion towards the sanctity of the law and the general question of police malpractices. For example, we were informed that a fund had recently been started with the object of paying the legal expenses of European members of the security forces accused of committing offences 'in the course of their duty.' Activity of this kind, taken in conjunction with protests in the Press and elsewhere when proceedings are instituted against Europeans in the security forces, is tantamount to giving moral support to breaches of the law. Open displays of contempt for the law should be condemned just as sternly as breaches of it, for it is clear that once public opinion takes this course, no matter what the circumstances, the results are bound to be the disrepute and ineffectiveness of law and order."

1193
That quotation comes from the unanimous report of a Parliamentary delegation to Kenya made in January of this year. It is a very important factor which we should take into account.
I was very glad to hear that the Government in Kenya had decided to ask Sir Vincent Glenday to undertake an inquiry into this whole question of screening practice. Knowing Sir Vincent, who was formerly Resident at Zanzibar and has had great experience in East Africa, I have no doubt that the inquiry will be conducted with every possible care, and that we shall hear from him the whole truth in this particular matter. There is no doubt that there have been considerable tensions in Kenya, not only, as has already been said, between African and African, but also in the European camp. To some extent, these tensions came to a head in the difference of view between the Government and Colonel Young over the Home Guard.
The most reverend Primate, in his speech to-day, referred to the one big issue when he quoted from the Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to a Question by me on February 2. This difference of view can be boiled down to the question: Who is to control the whole of the Police and Home Guard operating in Kenya? Is it to be the Police chief, the Commissioner, or is part of the force (not the military force, but the Police, Home Guard, and so on) to be controlled and disciplined, if at all, by the Administrative Officers in the various localities? In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said on that point, I strongly suggest that we must have all the Police in Kenya under the Commissioner of Police and responsible to him, whether they are regular or special Police.
The surrender offer was made and was linked with the amnesty to those fighting the Mau Mau. That offer may have been necessary because of the need for an amnesty—we do not know; but there has been some such suggestion. At all events, Mr. Wilkinson, the Deputy African Affairs Officer in the Nairobi Corporation, was quoted in the Manchester Guardian as saying:
"The Home Guard is becoming as dangerous to the Colony as the Mau Mau."
The reaction of the white settlers to the Mau Mau surrender offer has, on the whole, been adverse, and they have held
1194
a number of meetings at which very inflammable statements have been made. In the circumstances obtaining when the meetings were held, it was perhaps not unnatural for people to let off steam in this way, and I do not propose to repeat those statements, although I have a number of reports from various meetings of settlers at which things were said which were far more critical of the Government than those uttered here today, even by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. What has not been said to-day is that the Asian and elected African members of the Legislative Council have supported the surrender offer and the amnesty terms, as have a number of Europeans in Kenya.
The difficulty inherent in this situation, as many noble Lords rightly point out, seems to be that of trying to stamp out a disorder of this kind in an orderly way, and of dealing with the persons who are suspected not as members of an opposing military force but as civilians whose guilt must be proven according to the normal process of law. Now the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd—that last statement being accepted as describing the policy of Her Majesty's Government—is forced back on to the police system, because, if you are going to deal with people according to the normal processes of law, that presupposes that you have a police system to deal with them. Lord Lloyd, in my view, put up a very weak apologia for the fact that not only have we no real police system in the Reserves—and they constitute a very big area of Kenya—but there is no possible likelihood for some years to come of our having such a system. He said in so many words—and I took it down—that the police did not operate at all in the Kikuyu Reserve.
LORD LLOYD: May I correct the noble Lord upon a point of fact? He must have taken my words down wrongly. I said that the police did not operate virtually—and I was speaking of the time before the emergency. It is a small point, but I think we should have it correct.
LORD OGMORE: I do not know what "virtually" in this connection means. Either they operate or they do not. I do not know how policemen can operate "virtually." Perhaps the noble Lord will explain that further. How does a policeman operate "virtually"? How does he "virtually' catch a burglar or fail to catch one? The Government's attitude,

1195
of course, is entirely negative where it should be positive. If the tribal system is no good, so far as the Police are concerned, then we should institute a modern police system. That is what, I presume, Colonel Young wanted. I do not blame the present Government for not having a complete police system in Kenya when the trouble started. In spite of what Lord Astor said, I do not blame the last Government, because, in fact, ever since there have been Colonies this has been the system: that is to say, you have a small force of Police on modern lines in the towns or, in West Africa, in the small Colony as differentiated from the large Protectorate, and in the rest you have these so-called tribal police. They are usually quite inefficient. They generally spend a large part of their time hanging round the chief's house, waiting to run errands for him. Very often they are men whom the chief wants to pension off or to provide with a soft job. In fact, for years past this system of police has proved—as one knew it would prove—to be quite useless, when it came to the test. In various Colonies—and Kenya is one of them—that has been so.
The whole case of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, about the Police is that there was no efficient, or, indeed, any real, system of Police in the Reserves. That was his whole case. The reason for it, as I have said, is that it has long been the tradition that you had an entirely different system in the Reserves from that in the European areas. I have long felt that that was a mistake and that the time had come when the whole of the Police in a Colony ought to be under a Commissioner. You cannot alter these things in two minutes: it takes time, as the noble Lord said. But I am certain that the Government ought to say, here and now or at least when they have considered the matter—"We believe the time has come when there should be a modern system of Police in any particular Colony, and that all the Police in that Colony should be under the Commissioner; and we will work to that end. The police will, eventually, we hope, have the same relationship with the people of the Colony as the police in this country have with the people here; that is to say, they will be guides, philosophers and friends to those who need their help."
1196
My Lords, I have only one or two further words to say. The suggestion has been made in this country that it might be possible to have separate areas for the Kikuyu and for the settlers in the White Highlands. I, personally, do not think that in the present circumstances it would ever work. These people's lands are inextricably mixed up. That is what has been suggested, however, and it is a suggestion that might be considered, though I, personally, do not think there is hope of any good coming from it. I think that the suggestion which my noble friend made about education is a very valuable one. I believe he mentioned the question of the education of women. At the times when I was in Kenya, before this trouble started, I was always told that it was most difficult to carry out educational work among the women of the Kikuyu and yet it was most needed. It was most difficult because in various ways it conflicted with the immemorial practices and customs of the Kikuyu tribe. Therefore, the women were to a great extent lagging far behind in education, as compared to the men folk. I am certain that that is one of the most important things to which the Government here and the Government in Kenya must attend. We have to educate the people of Kenya, and to educate women as well as men. Unless we do so we are never going to deal with this question, which is to some extent one of lack of education.
One of the main reasons why Jomo Kenyatta and his followers and supporters set up at Kithenguri a teacher-training establishment, and also established Kikuyu schools throughout Kikuyu-land, was that at that time there was no satisfactory or comprehensive system of education in Kenya for the Africans. It was because there was this vacuum, so to speak, that Kenyatta and his friends and supporters came in and were able to fill it. They were able to get students into their schools and into the training college at Kithenguri because the people desired above all things an education for their children. Successive Governments in this country and in Kenya can at all events regard that as one of the ways in which Kenyatta and his followers were able to get this stranglehold on the Kikuyu people—it was through these schools.
Finally, I should like to say a word on the general position so far as the terrorist campaign and the way we are dealing

1197
with it is concerned. Simple people, as we know, have long memories. I most sincerely hope that nothing will be done for short-term advantage that may store up long-term bitterness and hatred. I know it is easy, sitting here three thousand or four thousand miles away from Kenya, to say things like that, but I am certain that many of the far-sighted people of all races in Kenya would say exactly the same as I now say on that score.
7 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate and in the course of it many interesting speeches have been made. One advantage of being the speaker to wind up is that nearly all the speeches have answered one another, and the admirable and full speech that my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Lloyd, made, has, I think, given an exposition of the whole affair which was greatly needed. I daresay, judging from the way it was received, that it satisfied the House by its scope, its comprehensiveness and its frankness. I should therefore like to deal for just a few moments with what was the main purpose of this debate. This is really a Motion to ask the House whether it approves or disapproves of the surrender terms, and says virtually—I beg your Lordships pardon; I must not use that word—that we ought not to approve.
Before I come to that matter, may I answer the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, who is no longer here? He gave some figures of releases. I have had a most careful search made in the Colonial Office and nobody can find whence this figure of 400 came. I am not challenging it. If the most reverend Primate said that 400 people were released, I am sure that 400 people were released; but where the figure came from and what proportion of other figures it represents, I do not know. But I can give the House these figures. Everybody has agreed that we have to put a large number of people into internment for some time—for as short a time as possible where they do not merit long internment. Of course, when big sweeps are carried out, many people are brought in, and we must not be too critical about that. We all did it in the war. The noble and learned Earl and I shared the responsibility for sweeping in a lot of people under Regulation 18b,
1198
when we thought that this country was going to be invaded after Dunkirk. We said that they must all go in because we dare not take the chance of leaving them free; but we examined them and let out as many as we could as quickly as we could. This process is not very different.
In the two and a half years in which this rebellion, or battle, or whatever we are calling it, has been going on, of some 266,000 people who have not been sent for trial but have been detained, 53,000 were let go at once and were not even taken to any camp after questioning. Of the rest, 103,900 were let out as soon as they had been screened, because they were recognised as people who could be safely let go. I do not know how long it took to do that. Possibly some got out in a day or two, but in a sweep like the big Nairobi operation, when some 40,000 or perhaps 50,000 were swept in, screening took much longer, and I daresay some of them might have been detained almost a month before they were screened. I have one more figure. Of the people who were put into works camps and who were "greyed"—that is a description of people who are moderately bad and cannot be returned to liberty at once—between June, 1954, and January, 1955, 6,000 were released, some of them because they proved to be "white" and some because the authorities were satisfied that they had changed their minds. I thought I ought to give the House those figures. I am not criticising the figures given by the most reverend Primate, but I do not want them to stand alone. If they had, it would have looked as if only 400 people had been found innocent and let out. The figures I have given put a different complexion on that matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, asked me a financial question. I am sorry I cannot answer it to-day, but I think that in a very short time there will be a concurrent announcement here and in Kenya. I know that the noble Earl will appreciate that the announcement should be made in both places at the same time. I come to Lord Milverton's charges. I have a great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. He has had a very distinguished career. I had the privilege of recommending him for his first governorship and I worked with him as a Governor when I was Secretary of State

1199
for the Colonies and later as the Minister responsible for Central Africa and East and West Africa during the war; and he has rendered great service. But here I echo something which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, and I can say this from personal knowledge. All through the noble Lord's career, if there was one principle that he inculcated into me and other Secretaries of State, it was the principle of trusting the man on the spot—that is, the man on the spot with responsibility. And it is not at all a bad principle, unless the man on the spot is demonstrably wrong, in which case you get rid of him—or should get rid of him. In Kenya, the men on the spot have been unanimous. The Governor, the Commander-in-Chief, against whom nobody has said a word—he is a man with a great record as a commander—and the War Council are all unanimous that this surrender offer ought to be made. I think it would need very strong reasons to turn them down; and the general opinion of the House has been that we were right to sustain them in this offer.
I can fully understand, though I do not agree with, the criticism and anger of the men who, with their dauntless womenfolk, have been standing lonely guard and have seen the most unspeakable atrocities committed. I know the country. I know these men. I know what they have done for their country before all this started. A great deal of nonsense is talked about the White Highlands. The best farming in the whole of East Africa—I might perhaps even say, the best farming in the Continent of Africa—is to be found in the White Highlands. All around them is erosion: the miserable cows are eroding the land, the goats are eroding the land—and the goats are worse than the cows. Alone in the White Highlands the settlers carry on that ideal farming, employing thousands of Africans and teaching them in the most practical way how to farm. The greatest disservice we could possibly do to Kenya society would be to turn these excellent farmers out of the White Highlands. I can realise their criticism, but I really must say that I think we look for more balance in those who criticise from a safe distance.
It is the duty of a commander to take cool and calculated decisions, and if the commander in the field does not keep
1200
cool and calculated, he will pretty soon blunder. It has been said that this is war. I do know whether it is a rebellion, but certainly there is a war, and fighting is going on. In this lies the answer about the Police. I think that in peace time probably everybody would agree that the Police ought to have an independence; but where murder and sudden death are rife, and anybody may be shot up or murdered at any moment, where really the whole place is a battlefield, it is silly to talk about the Police as if you were talking about the Police in Knightsbridge or Piccadilly. That is a very different proposition. In areas of battle all forces must be integrated for one purpose, and that is to win the war—and that war we certainly will win.
I agree with the interesting speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which was none the worse for being short—I believe the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, made this point, too. The best way to prolong war is to tell your enemy that there is nothing for him to do but to go on fighting. If he surrenders, you have won. There was a passage in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, which, quite frankly, I did not follow. I think I am right in saying that he said this surrender offer would be of no use, even if we got thousands and thousands of the rank and file of the Mau Mau to surrender, unless we also got the leaders to surrender. I think that is an extraordinary proposition. Let me take an analogy from the late war. The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis, won a remarkable victory in Tunisia. Tens of thousands of Germans surrendered to him; but General Rommel got away. I never heard it suggested that the noble and gallant Earl did not win a remarkable victory when he took the surrender of all the rank and file of the Germans in North Africa, even though the commander escaped.
In this strange war, where the victims are countless civilians who long for peace, surely we must think of their present plight and their future. Over 1,300 civilian Africans (I am sure that that is a considerable under-statement) have been killed; and these were loyal Africans. I think that, on consideration, the noble Lord who spoke last will be rather sorry that he quoted from some obscure writer in some paper who said that the Home Guard in Kenya was as dangerous as Mau

1201
Mau. I think the noble Lord would be sorry to give currency to a libel of that kind.
LORD OGMORE: He is not an obscure writer; he is an official of the security forces in Nairobi, an official of the Government. He said this, and it is the sort of thing which we hope to-day the Government will refute. What is the use of a House of Parliament if we cannot get the Government to refute such a statement?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not retract at all. I do not care whether he is a security man or what he is; but if he is a security officer, he had better keep the traditions of the security service, and keep quiet.
LORD OGMORE: He is your officer.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I hope that action will be taken about him. I am talking about the noble Lord. I say that this was not a right or helpful thing to say. There have been wrong things done by some people in the Home Guard, but to say this about these people, who are an essential part of the forces, many of whom have been killed on active service, side by side with our own troops, does not help.
What is the response to this offer of these Africans who are risking their lives all the time? When they were addressed, as a great many of them were, by the Governor and the Commander-in-Chief, these loyal Africans who have been standing by the Government were all for the action which has been taken. It is quite untrue to say that this is an offer which has been made from weakness. It has been made from strength; and it is a wise thing to talk from strength. It has been made when a major operation is in progress. I do not know whether it will succeed, but I sincerely hope that it will. The offer has been most carefully timed for the moment when the Commander-in-Chief in the field wishes it to be made. Surely on that we ought to rely on the Commander-in-Chief.
If it is said that we must never make an offer of surrender, what is the alternative? Are we to fight on until every single person has been killed? I thought that to-day we talked about co-existence. What seems to me to be the alternative is a process of extermination. Surely we
1202
will not stand for that. The offer that was made at the "General China" time came near to succeeding; it was only an unfortunate chance skirmish, where some people got involved together, that stampeded 1,200 Mau Mau who had collected and were about to surrender. If there is to be a surrender offer at all, then the terms must be sufficiently attractive to induce them to surrender. It is no use saying to them: "You will be no better off if you surrender than if you fight on." That is the way to make people fight on.
Now let me say a word or two about detention—I do not mean the detentions in the past, but the need for detention and what constitutes detention under a surrender offer. It is not a judicial process: it is an executive act; it is an act of State. It is not a penalty but is something in the interests of the State, and is intended to give security and confidence to the tribe who, above all, want freedom from tyranny. Of those who surrender, some—the weak, deluded or coerced—will no doubt be able to return almost at once. Some, certainly, can be rehabilitated, cleansed and reformed. Others, the hard core, the utterly irreeoncilables (and there are some of these people, as there are dyed-in-the-wool Communists in Malaya) into whom this bestiality has got to such an extent—and other things, too—can probably never be cured; in the interests of the future happiness of Kenya, they have got to be kept out.
A personal memory, going back more than twenty years, may be permitted. I was faced on a much smaller scale than this with the same sort of problem in Kenya—I think it was actually among the Kikuyu. There were bad murders going on—robberies, and every kind of crime and mischief. It was perfectly clear that this was all inspired by a little group of medicine men; they were a little clan within the clan, and there was no doubt that they were behind it all. With my full approval—I did it when I was on the spot—these men and their families were taken and put down somewhere where they could live quite comfortably, but well away from the tribe. That action was greeted with the greatest thankfulness by the tribe, because the plague spot was removed; the terror—and people who do not know Africa do not know what the

1203
terror of the medicine man can be—was removed, and the land had peace.
My noble friend Lord Astor raised the question of the amnesty, otherwise I should not have gone into it. I think we are all agreed about the amnesty for the loyalists. Nobody had questioned or, I think, would question, that it was right and necessary to have an amnesty at least as a counterpart of the surrender offer. My noble friend asked whether it could not go a little further, and whether it was right to continue the cases which were actually before the courts. That was a matter which greatly exercised us here, as I am sure it did those in Kenya. I was very interested (there are no politics in this) to note that the ex-Lord Chancellor said it was obvious that it was right to do that, and that the cases should continue. As he has truly said, there is always the prerogative of mercy in the hands of the Governor. I think the best answer was given by Chief Mundia himself who was on trial on a capital charge—a test case if you would have one. His own statement, while he was awaiting trial—or perhaps his trial had actually begun in the Court—was, "I trust British justice, and I am glad to stand my trial." I am glad to say that, after a very full trial, he was acquitted.
I believe that we are nearly all at one that this surrender offer is right. Cannot the House be completely at one in the message which we send out to these people to-day? I think the House would be true to itself, and serve the best interests of Kenya, if those in Kenya could feel that I was echoing the feelings of the whole House in this final speech in sending them a message of confidence and hope, confidence, certainly, that the campaign will be pursued as quickly as possible to a successful conclusion (and we can help that confidence by giving encouragement to the Commander-in-Chief and all his forces) and hope that when it is over we shall build up a land not only of material progress and political advantage but, perhaps most important of all, of true moral and spiritual values.
7.23 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House any longer at this late hour, other than to say that I feel this has been a most instructive debate covering, as the noble Viscount has just said, a very wide scope. It has revealed a variety of views, but there is little doubt that most of your Lordships approve of the surrender terms. I do not propose to say anything about some of the criticisms made of my opening remarks, or about some of the misgivings about what I was actually trying to say. But the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, was kind enough to pay me the compliment of comparing me to a hysterical schoolgirl. I should not normally have noticed the compliment, but perhaps I may quote to him the remark made an hour or so ago by another noble Lord, who said, "I would be proud of my daughter, hysterical or not, who could draft a letter to The Times of that quality."
I should also like to make one extra personal explanation to the noble Viscount, who said that my remark that the amnesty was of no use unless it induced the leaders to surrender was unintelligible to him. I did actually mean that, exactly as I said it; and if he will forgive me for saying so, I do not think his analogy was quite a fair one because, rightly or wrongly, I was under the impression that the number of Mau Mau in the forests has generally been limited by the amount of ammunition and arms available to them. I understood that it would be quite easy, if you took away the 6,000 or 7,000 who are there today, to get 6,000 or 7,000 more to fill their places if the leaders were still there. That was the point of view I was putting, rightly or wrongly—that all that matters is the leaders. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.