TNAG-0719-FCO40-917-Capital-punishment-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 29

CONFIDENTIAL

5.

7. In the draft Memorandum for the Secretary of State

to send his colleagues I have recommended that a Government

Motion should be brought before the House rather than a

Private Member's Motion. I have made this recommendation

because, in the first place, the Creech-Jones doctrine was a government measure and it would be more proper for the government to introduce a Motion calling for its abrogation. Secondly, it is more appropriate that the government, who are responsible for the dependent territories, should take the lead. A third reason is that a Government Motion is more likely to attract a sure majority than a Private

Member's Motion.

8. In the light of the undertakings given by the Secretary of State in his parliamentary statement of 5 December and his replies to subsequent questions, as well as by the statement made by the Lord President of the Council on 8 December, it is clear that we are committed to a debate in the House on capital punishment in DOTS. I krecommend that the Secretary of State should now circulate a draft memorandum to his colleagues in GEN 103 which would recommend that a Government Motion on capital punishment in DOTS be put before the House of Commons for debate. I submit a draft memorandum from the Secretary of State to his colleagues in GEN 103, together with a suggested draft for a Motion.

9. [Legal Advisers concur. MCD, reflecting the views of the Governor of Belize, would prefer that the devolution of the Prerogative of Mercy, be removed from the Governor.]

CONFIDENTIAL