It is my privilege to present to the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled a humble Petition signed by 10,357 of the electors in the constituency of Bristol, South-East, which sheweth

That Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn, who has been four times returned to Parliament as the Member for the said constituency of Bristol, South-East, now stands in immediate danger of disqualification solely because of an inheritance for which he is not responsible and which he wishes to renounce.

they may be unjustly denied their right of free choice in the Member they have elected to represent them in the present Parliament.

Wherefore Your Petitioners most humbly pray that this Honourable House will immediately take into consideration their present grievance and take whatever action is necessary … to safeguard their right to choose their own Member to serve in the Commons House of Parliament and more particularly to safeguard the right of the said Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn to continue as such for so long as he may be elected according to law …

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

asked the Minister of Defence how many Service married quarters have become redundant in the last four years; what was their original cost; and what arrangements were made for their disposal.

The number is 844. Their original cost was about £1,250,00. A total of 590 have been transferred to other Government Departments, leased or sold, and the disposal of the remainder is being negotiated.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me how many have been returned to local authorities, which was envisaged in the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act?

I am afraid that I cannot do so without notice, but I will gladly do so if my hon. Friend tables a Question.

asked the Minister of Defence how the net expenditure on defence for 1960–61, as at present forecast, compares in real terms with the net expenditure for 1952–53 of £1,392 million.

The latest forecast of net expenditure on defence for 1960–61 is about £1,606 million. On the second basis referred to in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 29th March, this would be equivalent to about £1,130 million at 1952 prices.

Is it not then a fact that over the eight last years, in real terms, there has been a decrease in defence expenditure?

These statistics are based, as my hon. Friend knows, on different foundations, one on the consumer price index and the other, we hope, on a more realistic figure. I think that the best picture is given by saying that in 1952 the percentage of the gross national product taken by defence was 10·4, that in 1960–61 it was 7·2 per cent. and that we expect that in 1962–63 the figure will be very slightly less than this. I think that that is the fairest picture.

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a further statement on the integration of Fighter Command into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation air defence system.

As a next step I am arranging for General Norstad to be given formal notice of the assignment of Fighter Command to N.A.T.O., in accordance with the decision on unified air defence taken last year by the North Atlantic Council. The assignment will take effect from 1st May, 1961. It will improve the air defence capability of the whole area including the United Kingdom.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, under this arrangement, N.A.T.O. could deploy Fighter Command aircraft overseas?

No. I should like to make that plain. N.A.T.O. cannot deploy Fighter Command aircraft overseas except with the strict permission of Her Majesty's Government.

What contribution will N.A.T.O. make under this arrangement for the upkeep of Fighter Command?

The hon. Member expressed this very well in a supplementary question which he asked me on 8th February, when he said that he presumed that this is

"an attempt to provide defence in depth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 379.]

asked the Minister of Defence what discussions he had during his recent talks with the United States Defence Department about the circumstances under which the West might initiate the use of nuclear weapons.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 29th March to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Does the Minister recall the Press reports just before Easter to the effect that President Kennedy was prepared to make a declaration abandoning the threat to initiate nuclear war under any circumstance? Was not the right hon. Gentleman reported in many newspapers here as objecting to this and as being an obstacle to the United States Defence Department in such a declaration being made? Would he care to comment on these reports or to repudiate the suggestion that he is in any way objecting to a declaration abandoning the suicidal threat to initiate nuclear war?

I do not think—with respect to him—that the hon. Member has his facts quite right. I understand that President Kennedy's words—and I think that this was a verbatim report—were:

"Our arms will never be used to strike the first blow in any attack."

Is not the statement which the Minister has just made in flat contradiction to the statement made on the same subject in the Defence White Paper in 1958?

Not at all.

Does that statement mean that the Government have abandoned the threat to initiate nuclear war in certain circumstances, as said in the White Paper?

The hon. Member has a right to interpret any statement as he thinks fit.

What is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation?

The Government's position is plain and has been made so on a great number of occasions. We will retaliate to any aggression with whatever force we deem necessary in any particular set of circumstances.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a general direction to the British Transport Com mission that, this year, when weed spraying on the railways, non-toxic sprays be used.

No, Sir. I am told that British Railways use only non-toxic weed killer and that no change in this respect is envisaged.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance that non-toxic sprays will be used, especially as I am advised that no fewer than 3,000 miles of railway embankment will shortly be sprayed by the Commission?

asked the Minister of Transport what estimate he has made of the extra cost of road-making resulting from the identical tendering of firms to local authorities for materials needed in this work.

I have received no representations on this score, nor have I any evidence that any measurable increase in construction costs arises in this way.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be interested if I sent him the last list of tenders which the Stoke-on-Trent authority had? Would he be prepared to take it up with his other right hon. Friend, because every local authority is deeply concerned that these rings and monopolies keep up the price of these commodities which are essential to road making? If the right hon. Gentleman wants more road-making done, is not this one way in which he could save expenditure?

I should be very glad of any evidence which the hon. Lady has, but the question of restrictive trade practices is for the President of the Board of Trade. If the hon. Lady writes to me I will certainly look into it.

asked the Minister of Transport when the Hammersmith flyover will be completed; and if there will be an official opening ceremony.

I expect the flyover to be completed in December this year. There will probably be an official opening. This will be for the London County Council to arrange and it is too early to say what form it might take.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people from the west of London will be very grateful when this rather beautiful flyover is open? Will he confirm or deny the rumour that it will be officially called the Marples Ridgeway?

I do not know what it will be called, because I now have no interest in that firm except that of moral pride.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that before the opening ceremony the huge nameplates "Marples", which are scattered all over it, are removed in order that people can see the flyover?

That matter is now outside my control.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the traffic queues extended for five miles at Doncaster during the Bank Holiday week-end; and what steps he is now taking to expedite the building of the Doncaster by-pass.

Yes, Sir. The by-pass is being completed as quickly as possible and should be open to traffic by the beginning of August.

Has the Minister thought of what the traffic hold-ups are likely to be at Whitsun, which is the next Bank Holiday period? Can not he expedite the work by having shifts working at night and weekends?

The completion date of the contract was 22nd June next. Adverse weather has slowed down the earth works. Therefore, it is hoped that the by-pass will be opened in time for August Bank Holiday. It would not be possible to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Is not the Minister aware that this is not necessarily the solution to this problem? On Easter Sunday there was a terrific hold-up on the Chester by-pass. On Easter Monday there was a hold-up on the main Manchester-Chester route. Is not the trouble that traffic is held up in cities or small towns? It moves freely on by-passes. We have to give consideration to road improvements in cities and towns.

A by-pass considerably relieves congestion in a town, because through traffic can take the by-pass and not go through the town.

asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to acquire the land necessary for the proposed bypass road at Keynsham in Somerset.

I cannot purchase all the land required for the scheme until the side road Order is made. This was published in draft in September, 1960, and I am now considering the numerous objections made to it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the intention to acquire this land was made public thirteen years ago and the notice to treat was given over two years ago? Since then absolutely nothing has happened. Can he give us an adequate explanation for the delay and an assurance that we shall get on with it at long last?

My hon. Friend is not Tight in his statement. The side road Order was published in draft in September, 1960, and during the three months statutory period numerous objections were received from local residents and from the county council. They have to be taken into account. There are many difficulties entailed because many people are objecting and it is most unlikely that we shall be in a position to finalise the Order. We may have to re-publish it. Under our normal land acquisition procedures we cannot do very much until the side road Orders are made.

asked the Minister of Transport when the route for the proposed by-pass road at Keynsham in Somerset was designed.

The Somerset County Council, as our agent authority, was invited to prepare the detailed design in June, 1958. Again, until the side roads Order, against which a number of objections have been lodged, has been made, the design cannot be finalised.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the detailed design of 1958 follows a pattern that was laid down in 1945; that since that time there has been very considerable development on the east side of Keynsham, and that if the thing is done according to the plan as it now stands the by-pass will debouch into the village of Saltford and will simply produce a worse bottleneck there? Is he further aware that the whole four-mile stretch from there to Bath is no more than a winding country track, already grossly overloaded?

That may be so in respect of traffic difficulties, but, again, a side roads Order was published in draft in September, 1960, and numerous objections have been received. Those people concerned have been given the right by this House to make those objections, and those objections must be considered, and I cannot affirm what will happen until they have been considered.

Most unsatisfactory.

asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to the dangers, as well as to the inconvenience and amenity aspect of the problem, involved in the parking of commercial vehicles overnight in the street; and what action he proposes to take to deal with this particular aspect of the problem.

I am not aware that having commercial vehicles overnight in the street is in general dangerous. The police have powers to deal with particular cases where danger is likely to other persons using the road. If the hon. Member has any such cases in mind she may like to send details to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 22nd March, the primary difficulty in dealing with the inconvenience caused is the absence so far of sufficient off-street parking accommodation.

Is the Minister aware that since the council approached him about this there has been a fatal accident in which a heavy lorry, parked overnight, was involved in Wood Green? Since local authorities in the London transport area are prevented from making traffic regulation orders on subjects such as this, will not he initiate discussions with them to see whether some reasonable regulation can be evolved for parking in residential streets in London?

My only concern as a Departmental Minister is with the adequacy of the law. Under Section 16 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, it is an offence to leave a vehicle where it is likely to cause danger to other persons on the road. The law is adequate in that respect. Under the Removal of Vehicles (England and Wales) Regulations, 1957, the police have powers to remove or cause to be removed vehicles which have been permitted to rest in a way dangerous to other people. The law as it stands is therefore adequate. The question of the enforcement of the existing law is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the police.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that in some cases the parking of commercial vehicles is for the convenience of drivers? It may have economic advantages in that they can make a get away early in the morning, and so on. If there is no alternative provision, would it not be undesirable to indulge in a lot of prosecutions?

I think that we must draw a distinction between inconvenience and the loss of amenities, which is regrettable in itself, and leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position where it may cause damage or injury. The law as it now stands is quite adequate to deal with vehicles left in a dangerous position.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, quite apart from the aspect of danger, which can always exist although at first it may not be apparent, many thousands of commercial vehicles up and down Britain are being left in the streets overnight? Ought he not to take steps to see that the firms responsible provide garage accommodation, in the same way as the drivers of private cars are expected to provide garages in order to take their cars off the streets?

From the physical point of view, it will take a considerable time before off-street car parking in this country is adequate. In London and elsewhere it is the responsibility of local authorities to obtain sites and do what they can to provide off-street car parking. When it is provided, the commercial concerns can be forced to use off-street car parking.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the small fines usually imposed on road hauliers who force their drivers into working excessive hours, which frequently result in the falsifying of log books; and if he will introduce legislation to increase the minimum fine that may be imposed.

Maximum, but not minimum, penalties for hours and records offences are laid down by statute. Within those maxima, the courts decide what is fitting in individual cases. I do not think I should be justified in seeking, contrary to modern practice, to prescribe a minimum fine or term of imprisonment.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very adequate reply on this problem which he sent to me yesterday? Is he not also aware that, while large fines have been imposed upon some of the firms he mentioned and some licences have been withdrawn, large numbers of firms in this country are escaping with very small fines, which they do not mind at all because they can make the profit through longer hours and the greater amount of material carried? Does he not think that he should do something about this, either through publicity or by fixing a minimum fine?

It is preferable that the courts should be free to grade the penalties according to the circumstances of each particular case. I ask the hon. Lady to think of this point. If the minimum fine was fixed too high, the tendency would be, if someone thought it was excessively high, to find the person not guilty.

; Dame Irene Ward.

Question No. 12, Sir.

rose—

I did not see the right hon. Gentleman in time. I regret that, but I have called the next Question.

asked the Minister of Transport on what date he received a letter from the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth about his elimination of the tender from Swan Hunter's for the new Cunard liner under certain circumstances; and what reply has been sent.

I received the hon. Member's letter on 4th April. I have replied that the best tender will be accepted and that this will be determined on purely commercial considerations without regard to the location of the successful yard. What course should be adopted in the unlikely event of tenders being received

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make public the official figures of deaths and injuries on the roads over the Easter week-end; and whether he will make arrangements that these figures should be made available daily at all future holiday week-ends.

Figures of injuries are not yet available but I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of provisional figures of fatal casualties.

I am profoundly grateful for my right hon. Friend's Answer

While thanking my right hon. Friend for writing to say that he regretted the misunderstanding, may I ask him, before making pronouncements in future which cause great hostility in my part of the world, to consider the terms of the Local Employment Act and do some homework to learn how a great river really works in relation to shipbuilding labour?

I have some knowledge of rivers from my experience at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I am certain that the misunderstanding arose because of my anxiety to give my hon. Friend all the possible information. I did not cause the misunderstanding, but I still regret it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered a report sent to him by the Chamber of Shipping relating to its recent visit to Washington; and what reply he has sent.

This was a private visit undertaken by representatives of the General Council of British Shipping. I do not expect a formal report but I shall be discussing the results of the visit with the General Council in the next few days.

I wish that I could be as helpful this time. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it really is not good enough for the Government for ever to expect the Chamber of Shipping to do the task which should be done by the Ministry of Transport and the Government in making representations to the Americans about the harmful effect their shipping and trading policies are having on our shipping, and thereby our shipbuilding interests? The House should now be able to expect a statement from the Government on what their policies are and what they can do to help British shipping in relation to the Americans.

Now that we are back into the normal relationship, may I say that the representations of the Council of British Shipping are not in substitution for action by the Government but in addition to it. We and other Governments have also made formal representations about the effect of the Bonner Bill in the United States. I also wrote to our own shipping companies last December and prohibited the production of documents which in our view are outside the jurisdiction of the United States. My hon. Friend's supplementary question is based on a fallacy.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me what success the Prime Minister has had in representations he has made?

I have that Question down for tomorrow.

rose—

Order. On the assumption that what the hon. Lady says is accurate, I cannot allow the supplementary question.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many post offices, at closing time or a short time earlier, turn out all lights and announce that the office is closed irrespective of the number of people waiting to be served; and whether he will give instructions that the outer doors of post offices be closed just before closing time to enable those people who are on the premises to be served and thus avoid discourtesy and disappointment.

It is the established practice to serve customers who are inside a post office at the advertised closing time. I am not aware of any departure from this practice but, if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have details of any cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Will the hon. Lady reaffirm that she has no evidence of such practices obtaining in any of our post offices? That being so, will she be good enough to ask her hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) to give the in-formation required so that the case may be traced? If he cannot do so, will she ask him to apologise to the House and to the workers in the Post Office?

I have no such evidence, but I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will provide me with it if he has it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the last thing I want to do is to get individual post offices into trouble? Is she further aware that the case I have in mind occurred within three miles of the House of Commons, and would she please issue a directive to the various post offices saying that, in future, customers waiting inside should be served after closing time? Is it not very hard on customers when they have been standing in queues for some time in order to be served?

I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for the interest he takes in Post Office affairs. [Interruption.] I can assure him that we will do our best to make our service as efficient as possible.

I share the hon. and gallant Gentleman's enthusiasm for the Post Office, but would not the hon. Lady agree that it would be better if we had the evidence when the hon. and gallant Gentleman is making charges of a general character against many offices without having the courage to draw attention to a specific office?

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the next issue of "Telephone in Business", he will recommend to telephone users that the size of type of telephone numbers on notepaper should be the same as that of the address so that it may be easily read.

We are grateful to my hon. Friend for this suggestion. We agree that telephone numbers on notepaper should be easily readable and we will see that this is stressed in the next issue of the "Telephone in Business."

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply, but would she also emphasise the fact that the telephone number on the note paper of many firms is in microscopic print and cannot be read, and that, as telephone numbers are used just as often as addresses, they should be in the same size of print?

I assure my hon. Friend of that, and I hope that the fact that he has raised the matter now will help to improve the position.

In view of the hon. Lady's agreement with the hon. Gentleman on that score, would she also advise her Ministerial colleagues that it would be a good thing if they put their telephone numbers on their note paper at all?

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a report on the activities during the last six months of Royal Navy protection vessels, in Icelandic waters, indicating the number of ships and men engaged in these operations, the cost and the results achieved to date.

Until a Fishery Agreement was reached in March between Her Majesty's Government and the Icelandic Government, a patrol of two of Her Majesty's ships, each with a crew of about 200, was maintained outside 12 miles off Iceland. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has recently thanked my right hon. and noble Friend the First Lord for all the help and protection given to British trawlers during this period by naval vessels. During the six months ending 31st March, 1961, expenditure on fuel, in addition to normal consumption, and on the maintenance of a replenishment tanker for the patrol, amounted to about £200,000.

Can the Civil Lord say whether these activities have done anything to resolve the conflict of interest between Britain and Iceland and the other European maritime countries? Instead of spending money in this way, would it not be more practical for Her Majesty's Government to realise that fishing is Iceland's only industry and to invite the maritime nations of Europe to give financial aid to Iceland to found alternative industries?

I think that the trawlers have been very thankful on numerous occasions for the help that they have had from the Royal Navy. I think that the tolerant way in which we approached this duty has helped in the settlement which has been achieved.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the scientific discoveries which have resulted from the recent experimental missions beneath the Arctic ice cap by Royal Navy submarines and aeroplanes, indicating the nature and extent of under-water surveys made then or since as a result of those surveys.

Her Majesty's submarines "Finwhale" and "Amphion" and aircraft of R.A.F. Coastal Command recently took part in trials designed to gain experience of operating under the ice. The object was to test items of equipment associated with such operations and to obtain operational experience. It would not be in the national interest to give further details.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why the water under the North Pole does not freeze while the water on the surface of the North Pole does freeze? What practical result follows from the scientific experiments referred to in the Question? Is the water under the ice kept warm by the heat generated from the centre of the earth?

In view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in bathing, I can understand his anxiety about where the ice forms. If he studies the physical tables, he will find that the water is most dense at 4 degrees centigrade and rises to the surface when it reaches 0 degrees centigrade and starts to freeze.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the cost of the security arrangements in connection with the Polaris base at Holy Loch.

These arrangements are the joint responsibility of the United States Navy, the Royal Navy and the civil police. Twenty additional personnel of the Admiralty Constabulary are being brought in at a cost of £24,000. Apart from this, no extra security costs arise so far as the Admiralty is concerned.

Is the Civil Lord aware that apparently any Tom, Dick or Harry can get on to this submarine whenever it is in Holy Loch? According to Press reports, radio transmitters of a somewhat irregular character operate in the neighbourhood. Everyone knows everything that is going on. Are not we getting poor value for the so-called security arrangements which Her Majesty's Government and the United States authorities claim to be providing?

When I was there the day before yesterday, I formed a good opinion of the good sense which the United States authorities, the Royal Navy and the local police have exercised in dealing with canoeists and other demonstraters.

Can my hon. Friend say something arising out of his recent visit to "Proteus", particularly regarding the American view of the Scottish people?

The Scottish people have shown their normal warm-hearted hospitality. Offers of hospitality have been numerous. The captain of the "Proteus" told me that at the beginning of the trip he received on average 100 letters daily, of which 92 showed warm support for the arrival of "Proteus" and only 8 of which were critical.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a group of people who are now proceeding to the Holy Loch have stated that anything might arise when they get there? Will every effort be made to discourage any activities which might be damaging to the security of the base and to Anglo-American relations?

This matter will be taken into consideration. Some time must elapse before we know the body of opinion. It is noticeable that all the canoeists and, persumably, most of the marchers came from England and not from Scotland.

Owing to the large increase in population in the Dunoon area adjacent to the Holy Loch, will the Civil Lord indicate what additional police and security arrangements will be necessary to maintain law and order? It is not only desirable people who come from England. There are others of another kind.

I think that that does not fall within the responsibilities of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty.

asked the Minister of Works if the new offices at Norodom for the British Embassy in Saigon have yet been completed; and whether the staff will now have the benefit of air-conditioning.

The offices are now under construction and should be completed in the early summer of next year They will be fully air-conditioned.

I thank the Minister for that Answer. The staff working on our behalf in these difficult climates will at last have conditions which compare a little with the American Embassy in that area. I am grateful that the Question which I tabled about two years ago has been followed up practically.

asked the Minister of Works what progress has been made in the building of Embassy offices and quarters in Vientiane; and whether they are air-conditioned.

The offices, the Ambassador's residence, and four houses and a flat for staff, were completed nearly a year ago. The offices are partially air-conditioned but will soon be fully air-conditioned when they are extended to meet staff increases. The bedrooms of the Residence are air-conditioned. The staff houses are not air-conditioned but were built for thorough cross-ventilation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, once again, I have to thank and congratulate him for that Answer? Does the Minister himself occasionally take the trouble to visit some of these more remote areas to see what has been done on his behalf there?

Yes, Sir; I do that

I wish to support the Clause. Although we discussed this important matter an Standing Committee, I should like to bring some of the arguments to the House which I think justify making this reform now.

"… in the present state of society, when the prevalence of serious crime is such a challenge to the maintenance of law and order, we cannot afford to dispense with what some of us regard as a unique deterrent against the commission of murder, and whose abolition now we believe might lead to the death of many more innocent victims."

"… if the new Clause were carried there would be more innocent victims."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 21st February, 1961; c. 680.]

"In almost all young people under the age of 21 the process of mental and emotional development is still active, and is liable to produce a condition of instability—that is, a condition in which the strength of an individual's reactions is out of proportion to the strength of the stimulus. Sometimes this instability is so pronounced as to produce ' a recognised mental disorder'. Such cases are exceptional, but it is common knowledge that most young people aged 18, 19 or 20 are liable to have emotional reactions out of proportion to the events which occasion them Their judgment is liable to be distorted and their self-control to be insecure, because those reactions are more explosive and less controllable than they are likely to be when the more active stage of emotional development has passed."

Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that at 18 the majority of youths should certainly know the difference between right and wrong and appreciate what they are about to do in crimes of violence.

The evidence which we are now considering does not seem to indicate that. An hon. Member argued yesterday that that might be so at 14, 15 or 16. It is extremely difficult; some persons are more mature than others. However, I should not like to make the distinction. I think that in respect of the range from 18 to 21 we should consider again whether we could not be more objective about this matter.

It was I who raised the question of the length of the sentence yesterday. Obviously, on many occasions a murder by a young person is likely to be his only offence, but if the hon. Member pursues his line of argument one might ask, why punish the person involved at all?

If an individual commits murder, whether it is his only offence or not—

Why not hang them all?

—he must be dealt with.

"Their lordships ought not to abolish capital punishment for stealing letters until some good mode of secondary punishment has been adopted."

"The right of means to do ill deeds means ill deeds done."

Who starts the violence?

I say that violence breeds violence. If violence is wrong for an individual, then it is equally wrong that the State should use violence. The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) must have realised that the Christian purpose is redemptive. Christianity asserts that the human personality is of infinite value in the sight of God, and that no one is beyond the reach of spiritual reclamation. However evil or depraved a boy or girl might be, the Christian aim in punishment must be reformation.

"A deep reverence for human life is worth more than 1,000 executions in the prevention of murder. It is, in fact, the great security of human life. The law of capital punishment, whilst pretending to support this reverence, does, in fact, tend to destroy it."

I am glad that the House has had the opportunity of debating this important issue at some length. It would have given a wrong impression if that had not been the case, in view of the fact that so much time was spent yesterday in discussing what many people regard as a minor issue.

Why not 18?

I think that it should be 18, because in view of the state of maturity which persons of that age achieve nowadays they are able to distinguish between right and wrong. Of course, there must be an arbitrary limit at some age, because the line has to be drawn somewhere. One has to decide the age at which a person must appreciate the importance of the crime he is committing and its dreadful nature and must understand that society says that if he commits it, if he deliberately determines to kill someone, then society will mark that crime for this penalty.

Does the hon. and learned Member consider that 18 would be an appropriate age for someone to have the vote?

The hon. Member makes a debating point. It may be that someone of 18 would find it difficult to decide whether to vote for the hon. Member or me, but he has no difficulty in knowing that it is not right to take a gun and to load it and to fire it and to kill someone. We have to decide what is the proper age, and I think that the right age is 18.

I begin by agreeing with the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) that no advantage arises from under-valuing either the sincerity or force of the arguments on either side. If we are to reach any kind of sane and sound solution to the problem with which we are all concerned, we do very much better to examine the arguments on their merits to the best of our conscientious judgment and ability, standing by the conclusions which we form in that way.

The hon Gentleman mentioned the voting on the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill. He will recall that while some hon. Members on this side of the House voted for a Second Reading of the Bill they then sought to amend the Bill in a certain specified way which, ultimately, was not very different from the formula embodied in the present law under the subsequent Act.

If the hon. Gentleman means that there have always been some hon. Members who do not agree with me, I recognise that. That has always been so.

The hon. Gentleman said how much he admired the 69 hon. Members who yesterday voted according to their consciences. Why should he assume that the same 69 hon. Members, or others on this side of the House who feel now as he feels over this question, will not have the courage to act in the same manner? Also, why does he think that he can impute to the Leader of the House a less conscientious attitude in the exercise of his vote than the 69 hon. Members who voted yesterday?

As to the second point, I hope that I said the contrary. On the first point, I made no assumption. If I made the assumption which the hon. Gentleman imputes to me, I would not have wasted the time of the House in making the appeal I did. I hope that those who agree with me about this will show the same courage and intellectual integrity which was shown by the hon. Gentleman when he voted against his Whips yesterday. Of course, those who do not agree will be displaying the same courage. My appeal is directed not to those who do not agree with me. I know how they will vote. My appeal is directed to those hon. Members who agree with me, and I ask them to do what the 69 hon. Members did yesterday.

May I make the position clear? Many hon. Members on this side of the House do not feel that it is a satisfactory position because the hon. Gentleman started the whole problem by making the position what it is at the moment, where it is neither one thing nor the other.

I hope that hon. Members will not prolong the debate by making interventions which are not in issue and which are not challenged. All I said was that there was no hon. Member who regarded the present position as satisfactory, and the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. It was not necessary to intervene to say that he agreed. If he did not agree there would be some purpose in the intervention. The state of the law is entirely unsatisfactory, and no hon. Member thinks otherwise.

Yes.

In the case of this young man, under 21 years of age, would it not have been better to say, "The death penalty shall not apply to you"? When we consider the age at which a penalty of this kind shall be inflicted we must consider the state of the law, the kind of penalty we are inflicting, and the kind of reason for which it is being inflicted. While the law is as unsatisfactory as it now is, it seems to me that we have an extremely good reason for keeping down the age limit.

Is not the example which the hon. Member has given a vindication of the present state of the law, in that, on his own statement, if this man had thought there was a death penalty he would have been deterred? I agree that there is no evidence that a man who is so crazy that he wants to kill would be deterred by knowing that there was a death penalty.

If the hon. Member is of the opinion that it is not right to take the life of a man who kills on purpose and without any kind of motive or excuse, but that it is right to take the life of somebody who had no such intention, and who killed, to some extent, by accident, without intending to do so at all, he is entitled to his opinion—but I should imagine that he is alone in it.

Is it not much more likely that a man's entry would result in killing if he went in to steal? Is it not less likely that a person would go in having decided just to kill?

I do not want to go into all these abstruse psychological arguments. If the hon. Member gets any satisfaction out of them he must get as much as he can, but for me our execution of Riley, who did not intend to kill, and our saying that we would not have executed him if he had intended to kill, is a monstrosity, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone can come to any other conclusion.

"In any case where a court has power, or would have power but for the statutory restrictions upon the imprisonment of young offenders, to pass sentence of imprisonment on an offender under twenty-one but not less than fourteen years of age, the court may, subject to the provisions of this section, order him to be detained in a detention centre."

May I remind my hon. Friend that there was the case of William Habron, who, in 1876, when a lad of 18, was reprieved, having been convicted of the murder of a policeman, solely on account of his youth? Three or four years later his innocence was recognised.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. He was reprieved, but if he had not been, nothing could be done about it. When he was reprieved, or even if he had served the full sentence, after eight, nine, ten or eleven years, he would still be a young, redeemable human being when he came out, but there it is. That is one of the principal arguments against retaining it at all, but what is its application to this much narrower point? Is it not this?