Capital Punishment Let me make it clear that I do
not believe that capital punishment is a deterrent, and that I would be glad to see it go. Yet I want to question the universal assumption that, which- ever party wins the general election, in the next Parliament the decision will be taken after a free vote on a Private Member's Bill. As I understand it, this is the declared view of the Labour Party. Yet, as they would in fact pro- vide both Government time and the use of Par- liamentary Counsel if required, this is some- thing of a charade. It is, of course, unthinkable that any party would seek to discipline one of its members for a vote on this issue. What then is there to criticise in these arrangements? Simply that they ignore (deliberately) the people. The issue would be kept (deliberately) away from the electorate. There would be, I take it, no firm declaration of policy in the sense of an undertaking to introduce a Government Bill in the Labour manifesto. A Bill to abolish capital punishment would be beyond argument a measure of the highest importance and public interest. Should the intention really be concealed from the voter? It is often necessary to move in advance of public opinion. It is often right to introduce in later sessions of a Parliament Bills which may be unpopular and for which there is no specific mandate : this cannot apply to the first Bills of a Parliament. Should not therefore the parties and individual candidates declare their intentions on this issue? And if the elector- ate is competent to judge the great issues of peace and war, and in particular to pronounce on the future of the British nuclear deterrent, how can one argue that they should not be allowed to consider the issue of the abolition of capital punishment?
Previous page
