HC Deb 07 February 1962 vol 653 cc517-61
Mr. S. Silverman

I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out "seventeen" and to insert "twenty-five".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas)

I think that it will be convenient also to discuss the Amendment in page 6, line 25, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Silverman

The effect of the Amendment would be to exempt from the liability to deportation persons up to the age of 25 instead of as the Bill is now drafted up to the age of 17. I hope to have the sympathetic hearing and, possibly, the support of the Home Office for this Amendment, because it seems that, apart from any legal arguments, the argument in support of it is in line with what has always been plain public policy.

To be liable to be deported one has, first of all, to be convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment. The key word is "punishable" and not "punished". In other words, it is not necessary, in order to render oneself liable under the Clause to deportation, to be sentenced to imprisonment. It is sufficient if one is convicted of an offence for which one might, if the court thought fit, be sentenced to imprisonment—even though the court decides in the particular case that the offence committed, though carrying such a statutory liability, is not such as to deserve it.

In other words, all that is required here is that the offence itself, in general, should carry with it a possible sentence of imprisonment but not necessarily an actual sentence of imprisonment for the particular case. To see the effect of that, one should look at Clause 7 (3), which states: In this section 'offence punishable with imprisonment' includes an offence which would be so punishable apart from any enactment restricting the imprisonment of young offenders or of first offenders… That is particularly pertinent in the case of the Amendment because not merely is it public policy, but statutory, that a court in this country should not send anyone to prison under the age of 17—that is not pertinent here because 17 is the word in the Clause now—but that between the ages of 17 and 21 no court can send an offender to prison unless there is really, in all the circumstances of the case, nothing else that can reasonably be done with him.

Therefore, if this Clause remains unamended we have the situation that a young person whom the court is forbidden from sending to prison may nevertheless be recommended for deportation. I suggest in all seriousness to the Home Secretary that this is an anomaly which he does not need, and which he could easily remove.

Of course, there are some exceptions to the rule about not sending young people to prison between the ages of 17 and 21. An opponent of nuclear strategy who, for that reason, commits offences against the highways Acts lays himself open to a fine up to a maximum of 40s. If the fine is not paid, apparently public policy does not prevent young persons of that kind being sent to prison, and a great many of them have been sent to prison in recent months.

Also if one is not a criminal at all, even in that technical sense, if no charge has been and can be brought, but nevertheless under a 600 years old Statute whose meaning nobody quite knows one is called upon to enter into certain recognisances and refuses to do so, then apparently, whatever one's age, one can still be sent to prison. Even the 17 years of age limitation does not apply.

However, we are not dealing with that kind of case. We are dealing with the case of the ordinary criminal, as to whom this House has said that it is better not to send such people to prison unless there is no other course open, but to deal with them in some other way, because one ought not to regard it as axiomatic that a prison sentence is the most useful or most desirable form of punishment for a person under the age of 21. Other methods are open which ought to be tried—ways of reform, probation, perhaps fines, some other kind of penalty that will keep a young person out of this kind of contact and out of prison.

If we take so much trouble to do that, is it not wrong that we should nevertheless subject people to the possibility of deportation at the age of 17 or a year or two beyond it, in cases where a penalty of imprisonment would be regarded as inappropriate? If the imprisonment is inappropriate, then the deportation is a fortiori inappropriate.

I conceive that it does not necessarily follow that if 17 is the wrong age 25 is the right one. There may well be a case for saying that I have put the age too high, and that on my own argument the age of 21 would be more appropriate than 25. I shall not pursue that part of the argument, although something can be said in favour of the age of 25. What I am saying is that 17 is too young.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

It is obviously a matter of judgment, and a difficult matter of judgment, where to fix the age at which persons must be considered fully responsible for their acts. In the criminal law of this country the age of 17, although not the only dividing line, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, is a very considerable dividing line. At the age of 17 a person ceases to be subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and the provisions of the law which put children and young persons in a special and protected position cease to apply to them. By this age, therefore, the law generally recognises that a young person is to a large extent his own master.

When one realises that by the age of 17 one can marry—and a lot of young persons are already married at that age, and many of them from the age of 17 onwards are the fathers and mothers of families—then it seems that probably the age of 17 in present circumstances is as good an age as one can find for visiting not the full responsibility but a great deal of criminal responsibility upon the subject.

Crime at present is unfortunately preponderantly an activity of the young. The number of males per 100,000 of the population found guilty of indictable offences in 1960 was as follows, in certain age groups: from 17 to 21–2,189; 21 to 25–1,531; 25 to 30–1,012; 30 to 40–594. Therefore, the 17 to 21 age group unfortunately is a large group in which a great many indictable offences are to be found.

For this reason and for others it is not possible for the Executive to remove from its power the possibility of deporting such people. I am sure that it will only be exercised in very serious cases, but it seems right that in a proper case of someone over this age who, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), completely abuses the hospitality of this country there should be power to deport him.

Of course, the Secretary of State is not bound to act on a court's recommendation, and before making a deportation order he would certainly have regard to any compassionate plea based on such matters as age and the family ties of the offender if his family should be in this country. Therefore, he would not deport unless the offence were so serious and the circumstances of the offender made it absolutely necessary. However, I am afraid that we cannot deprive ourselves of the power to do so, because, generally speaking, under the criminal law of this country, after the age of 17 a great deal of responsibility is expected of the offender.

It is true that it is only in rare cases that such a person is sent to prison, but, of course, there are other methods of detention which are applicable, such as borstal and detention centres which are frequently used. The dislike of sending these offenders to prison is not because it is not thought right to detain them but simply because they ought not to mix with older prisoners. But that such persons should be detained and punished from time to time is obvious from the remedies at our command, and for those persons we feel that in certain cases, which I am sure must be few, the right to deport must be preserved.

Mr. Weitzman

I am very disappointed by the answer of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He has not dealt with the main point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He referred specifically to Clause 7 (3). The Legislature has recognised clearly that persons under the age of 21 shall not be sent to prison without a court order. Why was it necessary, therefore, in this case where the words "offence punishable with imprisonment" appear in Clause 7 (1), to insert subsection (3) to include specifically persons between the ages of 17 and 21?

I should have thought that it would have been an act of mercy and of grace on the part of the Government to say that the age should be, if not 25 which my hon. Friend has suggested, at any rate 21. It seems extraordinary that the Government are determined to make this provision as stringent as possible, and I hope that they will think again about the matter.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

If I may comment on the argument of the Joint Under-Secretary about the age at which some people marry, we ought to remember that some marry at 16 and others even have legitimate families at 16. I am only relieved to think that he did not pursue the logic of his own argument and put the age of 16 into this Clause. There is not, I think, any very strong case for making it 17. I should be less worried about this if the Government had accepted the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) which at least would have safeguarded children who were living with their families and would have prevented them from being deported at the age of 17.

A particular group of children who come to join their families over here and who have difficulty in settling down may commit offences while here, and we all agree with the Joint Under-Secretary that that is unfortunate, but it is inconceivable to me that in any circumstances the right treatment is to split them from their families and send them back again to a country where they may have no roots, no one to look after them and no family ties at all. That is what the Government may be doing if they have the powers under this Clause.

The real argument against this is not whether these young people behave well or badly but whether it is right to ship them off to another country without having any control over what may happen to them in that country and without any provision to see that they have adequate supervision over there. This would seem to me to be a very hard-hearted thing to do. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right when he says that this power will hardly ever be used. I accept that, and as long as the hon. and learned Gentleman is at the Home Office one hopes that it will not be used and that if it is used it will be used wisely and humanely. In that case I think that it is quite unnecessary to keep it. But there is a potential danger in having it in the Bill. I hope that it will not be used, but if it is used the effects can only be thoroughly bad. I think that it would be quite wrong for youngsters to be deported from this country where they are trying to settle down and which is very often part of the problem that causes the committing of offences. It is, unfortunately, part of the business of growing up. It would be most undesirable if they could be thrown back again into what virtually may be a foreign country.

Mr. M. Foot

In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said, I do not think that the answer given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State was satisfactory. Of course, those of us who are opposed to the whole of the Bill are also opposed to the deportation Clauses, because we are not in favour of making distinctions between those who are, as we believe, British Commonwealth citizens. If there is to be any case for the deportation Clauses, I can see that possibly there is a case for saying that we want to have some deterrent effect in preventing, or helping to prevent, the hardened criminal, or semi-hardened criminal, from other parts of the Commonwealth coming to this country.

I can see that there may be some case for that. One may say that by having these Clauses to deport them, even though we do not catch them coming in, it may be possible to stop them from organising their crimes here. But, clearly, that does not apply to most of the young people between the ages of 17 and 21. It is extremely improbable that it will deter a person from coming here who is a criminal in some other part of the Commonwealth because of the threat of deportation after he gets here. I would have thought that very improbable. Indeed, under the rest of the Bill they probably would not be able to get in anyhow. So we do not need that power.

What, in fact, we shall be doing, as my hon. Friend has just said, will be to deport young people of the age of 17 to 21, or up to 25 if the Amendment is carried, who will cause a lot of trouble in the countries to which they are sent and which, after all, are Commonwealth countries and they will be criminals who are manufactured here and sent there. That does not seem to me a very fair proceeding.

If, in particular, the Minister said that he does not think that many people will be deported between these ages I would have thought that it would have been more generous for him to say that as only a small number will be involved we can forgo the right of being able to deport young people from this country

between the ages of 17 and 21, at any rate. If the Government can forgo that they would not be conceeding very much. They have not really established that the Clause as applied to these young people is part of what the Government set out to do in the deportation Clauses of the Bill.

Question put, That "seventeen" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 8.

Division No. 73.] AYES [8.7 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Hall, John (Wycombe) Partridge, E.
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Allason, James Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Percival, Ian
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Arbuthnot, John Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Pilkington, Sir Richard
Ashton, Sir Hubert Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pitman, Sir James
Atkins, Humphrey Hendry, Forbes Pitt, Miss Edith
Barlow, Sir John Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Pott, Percival
Batsford, Brian Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Prior, J. M. L.
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hirst, Geoffrey Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Bell, Ronald Hobson, John Pym, Francis
Biffen, John Hocking, Philip N. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bingham, R. M. Hollingworth, John Ramsden, James
Black, Sir Cyril Hornby, R. P. Rawlinson, Peter
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Boyle, Sir Edward Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Rees, Hugh
Brewis, John Hughes-Young, Michael Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hutchison, Michael Clark Renton, David
Brooman-White, R. Iremonger, T. L. Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Buck, Antony Irvine, Bryant Godmart (Rye) Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Bullard, Denys James, David Robson Brown, Sir William
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Seymour, Leslie
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Kerby, Capt. Henry Sharples, Richard
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Kerr, Sir Hamilton Shaw, M.
Gary, Sir Robert Langford-Holt, J. Shepherd, William
Channon, H. P. G. Leather, E. H. C. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Chataway, Christopher Leburn, Gilmour Skeet, T. H. H.
Chichester-Clark, R. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Speir, Rupert
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Linstead, Sir Hugh Stevens, Geoffrey
Litchfield, Capt. John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Loveys, Walter H. Studholme, Sir Henry
Cleaver, Leonard Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Tapsell, Peter
Cole, Norman Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Cooke, Robert McAdden, Stephen Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Cooper, A. E. MacArthur, Ian Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Craddock, Sir Beresford Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Critchley, Julian Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Thornton, Kemsley, Sir Colin
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Tilney, John (Wavertree)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry McMaster, Stanley R. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Deedes, W. F. Maddan, Martin van Straubenzee, W. R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Maginnis, John E. Vane, W. M. F.
Drayson, G. B. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Duncan, Sir James Markham, Major Sir Frank Vickers, Miss Joan
Eden, John Marlowe, Anthony Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Marshall, Douglas Walder, David
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Walker, Peter
Emery, Peter Mawby, Ray Wall, Patrick
Errington, Sir Eric Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Webster, David
Fisher, Nigel Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mills, Stratton Whitelaw, William
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Montgomery, Fergus Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Morrison, John Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Freeth, Denzil Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Wise, A. R.
Gilmour, Sir John Nabarro, Gerald Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Clover, Sir Douglas Neave, Airey Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Goodhart, Philip Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Woodhouse, C. M.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Worsley, Marcus
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Green, Alan Page, John (Harrow, West) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gresham Cooke, R. Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Mr. Finlay and Mr. McLaren.
NOES
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) MacColl, James
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Weitzman, David Mr. Michael Foot and Mr. Thorpe
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Mr. Weitzman

I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end to insert: "upon indictment".

The Temporary Chairman

With this Amendment may be taken for discussion the following further Amendments:

In page 6, line 7, after "imprisonment", to insert: other than an offence of a political character,". In page 6, line 7, after "imprisonment", to insert: for a term exceeding twelve months In page 6, line 32, to leave out subsection (4).

In page 6, line 33, after "shall" to insert: in England be exercisable only by the High Court and". In Clause 8, page 7, line 9, at the end to insert: (3) Where a person is committed under section twenty-nine of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the Court of Quarter Sessions shall have power to make a recommendation for deportation in respect of him. In Clause 8, page 7, line 10, to leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Weitzman

Under subsection (1) as it now stands, if a Commonwealth citizen who has attained the age of 17 is convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment, the court by or before which he is convicted, or any court to which his case is brought by way of appeal against conviction or sentence, may recommend that a deportation order be made in respect of him. As was pointed out in our discussion of the last Amendment, the words are an offence punishable with imprisonment There are many offences punishable with imprisonment. For a small amount involved in a charge of larceny or embezzlement, a person would be liable to imprisonment, and even for a second or subsequent offence of travelling on a railway with intent to evade payment or not paying an additional fare after prolonging the journey for which he has paid the proper fare with intent to avoid payment, he would be liable, at the discre- tion of the court, to one month's imprisonment.

As was pointed out during our discussion on the last Amendment, a person need not be sentenced to imprisonment. Subsection (1) says that a person convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment may have a deportation order be made in respect of him. It may be a quite trivial offence for which he can be fined a small sum. We must also remember the effect of subsection (3) on persons under 21 years of age. Under the Clause as drafted, if a person is charged in a magistrates' court and is found guilty of a comparatively trivial offence, a recommendation for deportation may be made against him by the magistrates. Under subsection (2) No recommendation…shall be made upon the conviction of an offender who satisfies the court (a) that he is or was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the date of his conviction; and (b) that he has been continuously so resident for a period of at least five years ending with that date. When a youth who may have lived in this country since he was 14 and who is found guilty of a trivial offence is 18 years of age he is liable to a recommendation for deportation being made against him by the magistrates. I am sure that no one will disagree that, to a person aginst whom such a recommendation is made, it is a matter of vital importance and that such a recommendation should not be made except in the most serious cases.

I anticipate that the Attorney-General will say that that may be said to the magistrates and that the magistrates will take it into account. But I am sure that the Attorney-General, from past experience, will remember the procedure in the magistrates' courts and will remember the number of cases which are dealt with. I do not suggest that magistrates do not endeavour to do the best that they can in all cases, but the conditions under which they deal with cases are such that it is not possible to give the attention to a case which is given in a higher court. The magistrates' court is not a proper tribunal to deal with a serious matter of this kind. Power to make such a recommendation should lay only in a superior court. That is the effect of the Amendment. Only upon indictment—that is, when the matter is dealt with at assizes or quarter sessions—should there be power to make such a recommendation and, of course, in such a case an appeal would lie from the decision to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The Amendment to Clause 8, in page 7, line 9, is important. Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, reads: Where on the summary trial under subsection (3) of section eighteen or section nineteen of this Act of an indictable offence triable by quarter sessions a person who is not less than seventeen years old is convicted of the offence, then, if on obtaining information about his character and antecedents the court is of opinion that they are such that greater punishment should be inflicted for the offence than the court has power to inflict, the court may, instead of dealing with him in any other manner, commit him in custody to quarter sessions for sentence in accordance with the provisions of section twenty-nine of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. I have sought to deal with this matter by using these words: Where a person is committed under section twenty-nine of the Magistrates' Courts Act. 1952, the Court of Quarter Sessions shall have power to make a recommendation for deportation in respect of him. In other words, every case will be covered. There is the case upon indictment in which the court dealing with the matter may, in a proper case, make a recommendation for an order for deportation. Where the matter is of a serious character and where the magistrates dealing with an indictable offence triable in summary fashion are of opinion that a recommendation for deportation should be made, just as they may think, in a proper case, that a sentence greater than that which they can give should be imposed, there is power under the Amendment for the case to be sent to quarter sessions so that quarter sessions can make a recommendation for deportation. If that Amendment were accepted, my Amendment to Clause 8 in page 7, line 10, to leave out subsection (3) would follow.

This is a matter of great importance, and I urge the Government to recognise that the power to recommend deporta tion should be exercised only in the circumstances which I have mentioned. I hope that they will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Roderic Bowen (Cardigan)

I support the Amendment. It is proposed to give extremely wide powers to magistrates, powers which will be exercised in many cases by lay magistrates. I do not wish to say anything derogatory of magistrates, particularly of lay magistrates, but it is established practice to limit powers, particularly those of punishment, of the magistracy and particularly of the lay magistracy. Their powers to impose imprisonment are limited. They have power to recommend that a person should be sent to Borstal training, but they have no power to send a person to Borstal training. Yet, in the Bill, magistrates whose powers of imprisonment are limited and who have no power to order a young man to undergo Borstal training can make a recommendation for deportation.

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

A lay magistrate has power to recommend Borstal training.

Mr. Bowen

Yes. That illustrates the point which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has in mind. He believes that magistrates should have power to send a case to quarter sessions with a recommendation that part of the treatment of the offender should be deportation. The argument is that their powers in respect of deportation should be precisely the same as their powers in relation to Borstal training. The final word should not be with the magistrates. It should be with a court which normally deals with offences on indictment.

Mr. H. Hynd

Such a court would make a recommendation.

Mr. Bowen

No. Courts of quarter sessions or assize do not recommend people for Borstal training. They order them to undergo Borstal training.

Mr. Hynd

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the last word should be with a court of quarter sessions or assize. It would not be, because the higher court would merely make a recommendation to the Home Secretary. The Government would have the final word.

Mr. Bowen

Certainly. It may be argued that, even if lay magistrates, or indeed any magistrates, make a mistake or their judgment is not regarded as sound, the Home Secretary can put it right. I do not think that the Government should hide behind this argument, because the last thing on earth that anybody wants is for courts to make recommendations for deportation which are not carried out. I agree that there may be exceptional cases in which the Home Secretary would think it right to intervene, but if the Home Secretary were a court of appeal from decisions by magistrates a completely wrong atmosphere would be created. I believe that it would be guile an exceptional matter for a recommendation for deportation by a court not to be carried out.

8.30 p.m.

It may be argued that there is another cure. A sentence by magistrates can always be appealed against. The Bill as it stands will encourage appeals. If a man is given a sentence and linked with it there is a recommendation for deportation, even though he may have no objection to the sentence he will appeal to quarter sessions to have the recommendation for deportation reviewed. Quarter sessions will then have to hear an appeal, in a case in which there is no objection to the sentence, merely so that the recommendation for deportation can be reviewed. Rather than force people to exercise their right of appeal when they do not wish to appeal, it would be far more satisfactory if the procedure contained in Section 29 of the 1952 Act were followed. Let the magistrates have the power to send the case forward with a view to a recommendation for deportation being made.

Mr. Dingle Foot (Ipswich)

I intervene because I have a very similar Amendment on the Notice Paper. My Amendment in page 6, line 7, proposes to delete "imprisonment" and to insert: for a term exceeding twelve months". You have said, Mr. Thomas, that my Amendment may be discussed with the Amendment in page 6, line 6.

My proposal is that a recommendation for deportation should not be made except in a case where the offence for which the man is convicted caries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve months. It would not matter whether the man was awarded that sentence or not. My Amendment would have very much the same effect as that proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington, and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).

I want, in a few sentences, to associate myself with the speeches of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). Clause 7 (1) is one of the most objectionable provisions in the Bill. It means that anyone brought before a court—whether it be a court of assize, a court of quarter sessions, or a court of summary jurisdiction—and convicted of any offence punishable by imprisonment, no matter whether he is actually sentenced to imprisonment, will be liable to be recommended for deportation.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington gave one example of somebody who, for the second time, travels on the railway without paying his fare. My hon. and learned Friend said that such a person would be liable to be recommended for deportation under this Clause. Of course, it does not end there. There is in this country an enormous number of petty offences punishable with one or two or three months' imprisonment, and under the provisions of this Clause, if it should become law, anyone who is convicted of any such offence is liable to be caught by the provisions of the Clause. It may not happen very often, but it is something which may happen, and, therefore, it is something which we in this Committee must take into our contemplation.

I find myself very much in agreement with what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) a moment ago. It is true that they can only make a recommendation; it is true that the last word lies with the Home Secretary; but nothing could be worse and nothing could be more likely to bring the courts into disrespect than that we should have a large number of recommendations which, in effect, were simply ignored by the Department concerned.

If we have a recommendation made by a court it is a recommendation which, in the ordinary way, ought to be carried out; it is not something which ought to be simply passed over. Therefore, I support the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward, namely, that it is not a sufficient safeguard and is not a sufficient answer to say that the last word rests with the Home Secretary and that he may not act upon the recommendation of the court.

There is another aspect of it. Suppose we leave to all the thousands of magistrates' courts in this country—and most of them, I know, carry out their duties very well, but there is a large number of them and they vary to some degree—this power of making this particular recommendation. Some of them, at any rate, will make recommendations which are not justified. Some time is bound to elapse in every case between the making of a recommendation and the decision of the Home Secretary, and that means that for the unfortunate individual concerned this matter is hanging over his head—hanging over his head and the head of his family.

As has already been pointed out, and nobody has denied, we are dealing with something of extreme gravity to the persons concerned, and even though there may be no real prospect of the Home Secretary's acting on the recommendation, the man concerned cannot possibly know that. All he will know, for days and it may be for weeks, is that he is in peril. And so we inflict an unnecessary amount of suffering upon those concerned.

As I said, my Amendment is to very much the same effect as that of my hon. and learned Friend's. I do not mind which of them is accepted provided that one of them is, but I respectfully suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General that nothing whatever would be lost to the Bill and a great deal would be gained if he would proceed upon the lines now proposed and, in effect, confine this power to make recommendations to courts of assize and quarter sessions.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)

I want to support what my hon. and learned Friends have said about this subsection (1). I also want to draw attention to the Amendment to which I have put my name and which is in the names of two of my hon. Friends, in page 6, line 7, after "imprisonment", insert: other than an offence of a political character". At first sight it may seem that the possibility of someone being deported under this subsection for an offence of a political character is rather remote. We may ask ourselves how many cases there would be of offences punishable by imprisonment which were of a political character. But there are certain examples which come to my mind, and one is a fairly recent one.

We have had cases quite recently of civil disobedience in protest against the H-bomb.

The Attorney-General

The hon. Lady is referring to proceedings sub judice at the moment.

Mrs. Castle

I am simply putting for illustration a type of offence of a political character which has led to imprisonment of certain people. I am not raising the merits or demerits of any particular incident. I am taking it as a general illustration.

The Attorney-General

I only mention that because there is a case which has some relation to this particular matter and which is due to start on Monday. I only mention it because the hon. Lady in seeking to make this case might inadvertently say something which might affect that case.

The Temporary Chairman

I am sure all of us will bear in mind what has been said.

Mrs. Castle

I have no intention of referring to any particular case, and therefore I cannot err in that respect. I am taking this merely as an illustration of the type of political activity which in a large number of cases has led to imprisonment due to political convictions.

We have cases where people have demonstrated, have been taken to court and have been fined and have, on conscientious grounds, refused to pay. They have been imprisoned for refusing to pay a fine for an offence of a political nature, and their action has been taken on the ground of political belief and conscience. It may arise, and it may well have arisen already, that some of the individuals involved are Common, wealth citizens who would fall within the scope of the Bill. If that were so and they were to repeat these political offences after the Bill was passed then, as the Bill stands, they could not only he imprisoned for refusing to pay the fine but they could be recommended by the court at the end of that term of imprisonment for deportation as well.

This is an illustration of the kind of situation that could arise under subsection (1) unless an Amendment similar to that in my name were accepted by the Government. It is important, therefore, that we should tighten the subsection and make clear that we do not have in mind any possibility of a person being deported because of political activities which are freely engaged in by our own nationals and people resident in this country. I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 2 (3, b). We make clear there that where the immigration officer exercises his power of refusing admission to people whom he has reason to believe have been convicted of a crime, political crimes are not included because they are not extradition crimes under the Extradition Acts. Under that subsection political activity would not count. We should make it clear also that it does not count for deportation. I therefore ask the Attorney-General to bear in mind seriously that this situation could arise and that we ought to deal with it on the lines I have suggested.

Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

rose——

The Temporary Chairman

Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Cooper

I have been here for only twelve years, Mr. Thomas, and it is perhaps not unnatural that you should not know my name.

The Temporary Chairman

I apologise to the hon. Member. I have been here only seventeen years.

Mr. Cooper

I want to make a short point relating to the Extradition Act. There is unquestionably a good deal of sympathy for the various Amendments which we are now discussing and I think that it would be thoroughly undesirable if somebody who is sent to prison for a matter of days for some quite minor offence should leave himself open to the possibility of deportation. If we are satisfied with Clause 2 (3, b), which lays down certain qualifications which would prohibit a person coming into the country, why cannot we use the same form of words as the basis of the crimes which would enable us to deport him?

Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

I intervene because the Amendment was moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and he was followed by two other hon. and learned Members and I think it desirable to say that I should hope that the presence of the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and myself on the Amendment indicates that it is not in any sense an attack on or criticism of lay magistrates.

8.45 p.m.

What the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said is perfectly sound, that it is a basic principle that one limits the power of lower courts, however well run and however conscientious they are, in respect of the passing of grave sentences. If one did not do that one might just as well argue that magistrates' courts should be able to sentence people to death because, after all, one could appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal eventually from the sentence, and in any case the Home Secretary would never allow it to be carried out without very careful inquiry.

That kind of approach is fundamentally vicious, that one should have the courts perhaps making bad mistakes and saying that it did not much matter because the Home Office, the Executive, would put right a stupid thing done by the judiciary. That kind of approach is a much more serious attack on the freedom and independence of our law courts than any suggestion that lay magistrates or stipendiary magistrates are not fully qualified to deal with very grave sentences. We are here discussing a very serious sentence indeed.

My first assumption is that we want to reduce to the absolute minimum the power of deportation of Commonwealth citizens. It is profoundly distasteful to all of us. We want it to be done only in the gravest cases.

Secondly, in view of that, what magistrates would be accused of limiting this power in the way that my hon. and Learned Friend suggests? I hope that the Attorney-General will explain that to us. I cannot imagine the kind of cases that might slip through the net because they were not indictable offences and, 'therefore, could not be taken to a higher court for the passing of the sentence. It seems to me that in any normal kind of criminal offence of the gravest kind——

Mr. Bowen

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that they could still go to a higher court to be dealt with on non-indictable offences.

Mr. MacColl

Under the Magistrates' Courts Act? [Interruption.] There seems to be a slight disagreement between two Queen's Counsel, and I think that I had better keep out of that.

It seems to me that there are two possible types of case here. One is where it is very clear from the beginning that the prosecution is of the opinion that the case is likely to go as far as deportation and it can ask for a trial on indictment in a higher court. The other type of case is that where the hearing takes place in a magistrates' court and in the course of that hearing it becomes clear from the record of the prisoner and the gravity of the case that the person concerned ought to be considered for deportation, in which case the power of the Magistrates' Courts Act can be invoked to have the case sent to quarter sessions. I should have thought that those twin powers were perfectly adequate safeguards against a grave offender escaping from deportation where that was felt to be necessary.

As well as the general principle that one wants to keep this responsibility as narrow as possible, one does not want to spread it and regard it as a trivial routine in every case so that at the end of the case someone gets up and says, "Recommendation for deportation" and the magistrates say "Yes" in a rather casual way. That is the danger. In order to make it perfectly clear that this is a very solemn thing and something which Parliament takes very seriously and to which it agrees only very reluctantly, I should have thought that this was a matter which ought to go to a higher court to be considered.

Secondly, of course, one has to recognise that magistrates' courts are—and this is their quality and value—very much local courts looking at local problems locally. They are meant to be so. But it is desirable that where a wider view has to be taken and a balance held between one kind of case and another this should be done by the judge of a higher court such as a recorder or a judge of assize.

I beg the Attorney-General to consider this matter very carefully. If he agreed to the Amendment he would be making a great gesture to what we are saying—that this is a very serious sanction, to be carried out only after very careful consideration. He would avoid the risk of appearing to elevate the discretion of the Home Secretary above the decisions of the courts, and of causing the recommendations of the courts to come to be regarded with a certain amount of indifference. He would also be securing that these matters would be considered by the kind of court which has the power to pass the more serious sentences. We do not allow magistrates' courts to pass other sentences as serious as deportation orders, which are, after all, of tremendous consequence to the persons concerned. This is not a matter which should be dealt with summarily.

Mr. M. Foot

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has put an overwhelming case, and I hope that the Attorney-General will respond to it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also reply to what I have to say, although it is not directly on the Amendment which has been moved. I refer to the Amendment mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) concerning the exclusion of political offences from this Clause.

One of the factors which has held the Commonwealth together—though we are injuring it in this Bill—is that large numbers of people, particularly students, have come here and have learned their politics with us. This factor will be injured by the general operation of the Bill, but we should at least guard against further injury by accepting an Amendment to exclude political offences.

We know that political offences regarded as most reprehensible in one period become most honoured in the next. Therefore, a political offence is not something that should be held against a person. Many of the people who have come to this country and have then committed political offences—joining in strikes when they were regarded as political offences or in other kinds of activities—have contributed perhaps not to the liberties of their own countries but certainly to the liberties of our own.

The Government should devise a means whereby all political offences are excluded from the Bill. We are introducing here an entirely new crime as applied to British Commonwealth citizens and are also introducing a new remedy—so-called—of deportation for some of them. I suppose that almost the last British citizens deported from this country were the Tolpuddle Martyrs. I cannot think of any others. That is not a good recommendation for retaining mere political offences in a Bill of this nature.

In any case, on Second Reading and since, the claim by the Home Secretary and others has been that this Clause did not have anything to do with political offences but was required in order to deal with serious crimes. If that is so, then the Government should accept the Amendment on that ground, and also on the ground that only the Home Secretary can know exactly what kind of new political offences can occur. It would be absolutely outrageous if a student who came to this country, participated in the activities, say, of the Committee of 100 and was sent to prison, were to be deported on that account. It would be an advertisement of the abandonment of liberal principles by this country, and it would be a kind of propaganda exactly opposite to that which this country would wish to conduct in the rest of the world.

I hope that while recognising the serious nature of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, the Attorney-General will also recognise that there should be something in the Bill to exclude political offences.

The Attorney-General

I will endeavour to reply to some of the points which have been made by those who have spoken in support of the Amendment and those Amendments which have been discussed with it. It is a fairly formidable task, because I want to keep what I have to say to the shortest possible compass. I propose, first, to deal with the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). That is linked to and closely associated with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot). I will then proceed to say something about the Amendment on political offences, which comes in a separate category.

It does not advance the case one way or another to draw attention to offences of a trivial character which, in certain circumstances, could be followed by a sentence of imprisonment, because I do not believe that any court anywhere in the country would ever consider deporting someone for offences of that character. I share the view of hon. Members opposite that deportation is a serious matter and must flow from very serious misconduct. I accept those two propositions. But in approaching this argument I want to put on one side the kind of case which carries a sentence of imprisonment, but in respect of which no court would ever dream of recommending deportation. The problem is to arrive at a satisfactory machinery for dealing with serious cases which warrant deportation.

The test which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North has put forward is not satisfactory. Nor is that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. One has to leave a great deal to the discretion of the courts and I shall advance reasons to show why it is necessary to leave magistrates' courts with powers, as the Bill proposes, to make recommendations for deportation on conviction for summary offences.

Let us examine the yardstick which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North proposes. He first proposes that it should be possible to recommend deportation only in cases which are tried on indictment. That greatly narrows the powers of the courts to make that recommendation, but it is not a wholly satisfactory yardstick. The reason is that a fair number of these cases which are tried on indictment are cases where the accused has elected to go for trial. The hon. and learned Gentleman has coupled with his proposal that there should be power under Section 29, where the case is committed for sentence, for the superior court to make the recommendation. I do not think that the Amendment is necessary, because I think that that is satisfactorily covered by subsection (3) of Clause 8, and that that will happen.

But there again, that power under Section 29 of that Act relates only to indictable offences, and I think that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) fell into error in that respect.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Bowen

I agree that it deals only with indictable offences, but it deals with indictable offences which are not dealt with on indictment but which are dealt with summarily. I should like the learned Attorney-General to tell us the type of summary offences he has in mind which could be dealt with by a recommendation for deportation.

The Attorney-General

I was about to do that, but I should like to deal with it in my own order. I should like, if I may, to make this approach. I was dealing with the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals. I do not think that his second Amendment is necessary, because I think that that is already covered in the Bill, but, as he points out, that deals only with indictable offences tried summarily.

I think that it is certainly the case that there are summary offences, not triable on indictment, which cannot be sent forward for sentence by the superior courts in respect of which the magistrates' courts should have power to make recommendations for deportation in the proper cases, and I give as examples of that repeated offences of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, brothel keeping and related offences of that character, repeated assaults, and, of course, under the Bill, the offence of returning to this country after deportation when admission has been refused is in itself a summary offence. If he has come back here and been convicted of that offence, it surely follows—I only say this in passing—that there should be power in a summary court to recommend deportation.

As has been stressed, it is a recommendation. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan said that if this procedure in the Bill were followed there would be very many more appeals. There may be by those who, when a deportation order is made, think that they have a chance of reversing it on appeal. There will be appeals in those cases, but in the other cases where the case for such an order is very strong—and I believe that magistrates up and down the country will give serious consideration to it before they make any such order—it may well be that the person convicted will not wish to appeal.

The alternative procedure suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman might well mean that in cases where it was thought right, if possible, to secure a deportation recommendation, the prosecution would ask for them to be committed for trial on indictment, when ordinarily, but for that limitation, they would have been content to have it dealt with summarily.

Under the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals we might get a greater clogging of the judicial machinery by the committal for trial of cases which would not now be committed. One has to set that off against the possible increase in the number of appeals, but one might almost say that it is as broad as it is long. One also has to take into account that where there is a committal for trial in the case suggested by the hon. and learned Member, or an appeal, there is always an interval between the committal and the first hearing and the appeal or the ultimate trial.

I assure the Committee that we have given considerable thought to this matter. We believe that the Bill is right about it. It must be an offence which is punishable with imprisonment. Unless it comes within that category, there can be no recommendation by any court. I cannot think that there is any prospect of any court ever being asked to consider a recommendation unless it is a serious case by a man of bad character and I am sure that it would be carefully considered.

There is the complete appeal machinery before the matter ever comes to the Home Secretary. There can be appeal to the superior court. It is not the case that there is an appeal straight away to the Home Secretary, thus reducing the status of the court. It is not an order of a court of summary jurisdiction, but is a recommendation.

Bearing in mind that there are summary offences of the character to which I have referred in relation to which it might be thought desirable to make this recommendation, I believe that it is right to leave the Bill as it is. There are these safeguards of the right of appeal, which, with legal aid, can be readily exercised, and the additional safeguard that, no matter what the courts may recommend, there is the Home Secretary, who has to decide whether to act upon the recommendation. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had to decide in a different field whether to act on recommendations.

There are those safeguards. Their existence does not make it necessary to impose the somewhat artificial restrictions which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North suggested or the suggestion put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, which is another way of arriving at the same end but would exclude from the possibility of a recommendation for deportation convictions for offences of the character which I have mentioned.

I have dealt shortly with this matter. It is an important question and I hope that the fact that I have dealt with it fairly shortly will not lead anyone to suppose that we have not given a great deal of thought to it. I shall give great thought to it between now and Report, but I am not making any promise of alteration. We will consider all that has been said in the course of the debate.

The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was supported by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) about seeking to insert an Amendment to exclude from liability for recommendation to deportation conviction for offences of a political character. Reference was made to the Extradition Act, 1870, which provides that a person shall not be extradited for a crime of a political character or if he shows that his extradition is sought to try or to punish him for such a crime.

There is no analogy between extradition from this country for a crime alleged to have been committed in another country and deportation from this country in relation to an offence committed against our law. In extradition cases, the crime has been committed in some other country, and it has traditionally been regarded as an important principle that where the fugitive can show that the offence with Which he is charged, or of which he has been convicted, in another country, was of a political character in the circumstances prevailing in that country, or that his surrender is sought in order to try to punish him for that crime, the country seeking his return should not be able to use the extradition procedure in order to lay hands on him.

Under the provisions of the Bill, the deportation position is quite different. Here, the crime will have been committed in this country. If, for instance, an immigrant from the Commonwealth has been found guilty of sedition or of using violence, it is no answer under our law to say that he has done so for political ends and, in my view, there seems to be no inherent reason why, if he has committed against our law a crime of such a character as to warrant a recommendation for deportation, it should be possible for him to avoid that consequence by asserting that he committed it for political motives.

It does not follow, of course, that by committing what is called, or may be called, a political offence here an immigrant would be obnoxious in his own country, but if, on account of such an offence, he greatly feared to go home and had no reasonable chance of obtaining admission elsewhere, he would no doubt make representations to the Home Secretary that the court's recommendation should not be implemented on that account, and I can assure the hon. Lady that if that were so the Home Secretary would give full weight to any such representations.

I shall not take up time in discussing the difficult question of defining precisely what is meant by "political offence"; that has been the subject of considerable discussion in various cases. I have listened with the greatest attention, and without interrupting them, to the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that there is really any case for so applying the Extradition Act yardstick of offences of a political nature to offences committed in this country against the ordinary law of the land of such a serious character as would ordinarily warrant a recommendation for deportation as to make it impossible for the courts so to recommend because of a political tinge to the offence committed.

I think that I have now covered the points raised by hon. Members opposite. I do not for one moment expect that I have entirely satisfied them, but I hope that I have shown them that we have given serious consideration to their views, and that I have advanced reasons which they will recognise have some cogency.

Mr. H. Hynd

I have listened to the discussion with mixed feelings. This is the first time I have taken part in the debates on the Bill, but I have been particularly interested for some time in the question of deportation. I am not against the principle of deportation. I have had the unfortunate experience with having had to deal with a few, a very few, cases in which Commonwealth and Irish citizens were involved in which I felt that, in non-indictable cases, the country would not suffer very greatly if the culprits were not living here.

Having said that, I must add that I have been a little disturbed by the attitude of the Attorney-General in turning down all the suggestions that have been made. A fairly strong case has been made out by some of my hon. Friends for an easement in these arrangements. The Home Secretary has pointed out the technical difficulties in regard to indictable and non-indictable offences, but I should have thought that he would have been impressed at least by the suggestion that it should be possible for the lay magistrates' court to send forward a case to quarter sessions or assize, as the case might be, in the same way as they send forward a case with a recommendation for Borstal training, leaving it to the court of quarter sessions to make the actual recommendation.

9.15 p.m.

I should have thought that that would have been the easiest way out of this difficulty and would commend itself to the Attorney-General. I hope that even now the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider introducing more suitable words at a later stage, perhaps in another place. He must have been impressed by the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about the importance of this and the general feeling that deportation, being such a heavy punishment, should be handled in the most careful way possible.

I should be the last to suggest that the lay magistrates' court is not qualified to reach proper decisions. I would go so far as to say that it should not be left to that court but that the court of quarter sessions should be the lowest body to make the decision. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this before the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. Ede

When I spoke earlier I mentioned my difficulty in following the way in which the Home Secretary replies to Amendments. On occasions I have rather felt that the right hon. Gentleman's suave method of approach leaves considerable doubt in the minds of those who have been listening to him. But we never suffer from that disability when the Attorney-General is replying. However, the only sign of grace which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown on this Amendment is that he has said that he will consider the matter between now and Report. I hope that that consideration will "Bring forth fruits and meet for repentance".

I do not know whether the Attorney-General has ever been a magistrate and has sat in a court of petty sessions. I have had long experience of that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could not dream of courts doing some things. I have often had bad dreams after spending many hours dealing with colleagues on the bench when they have been dealing, first, with the question of the verdict and, secondly, of the sentence.

One of the difficulties is this. Some hon. Members will know of courts in which it all depends on which rota one finds oneself as to the decision one will get when the magistrates retire. I had to deal with clerks and not magistrates. Magistrates are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, who is a lawyer of great eminence, while the clerks are left to the Home Secretary, who may be a non-legal person. The Home Secretary is then dealing with the attitude of legal persons, and I could never discover when a clerk complained what he was complaining about. We should be quite certain that before a recommendation is made it comes before a court of sufficient eminence to entitle the recommendation to very serious consideration by the Home Secretary. I am not saying that the recommendation even of a court of quarter session or of assize is final. In this country the responsibility for deportation falls on one man alone, the Home Secretary, who has to sign personally every deportation order. I know that on occasion it is very difficult because he does not have the advantage of hearing the case. He has to judge from the paper which goes to him. I am sure the Attorney-General would agree that to hear a case is a far surer guide than reading the papers of the evidence and sometimes of the submissions of counsel.

The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is well worth considering from that point of view. Let us be certain that we have got the recommendation of a court likely to give a responsible decision, and not rely on the recommendation of a court which, even in the area for which it has responsibility, may vary according to the people who are sitting on a particular day.

I fully acknowledge the conscientious work that is done by most lay magistrates; but, after all, they are only ordinary human beings who very often have to deal with very complicated and difficult cases. I should feel more happy if an Amendment on the lines of that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North were included in the Bill.

The Attorney-General

I have given the reasons why I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has chosen the correct yardstick for dividing the different types of cases. I have also said that I would certainly consider all that has been said in the course of this debate.

This is not a party or political issue, and views have been expressed from many quarters of the Committee with great sincerity. At the moment, I do not feel convinced that an improvement can be found in what is now in the Bill. I gave the reasons why we think it necessary that there should be a power of deportation in relation to what are simply summary offences. But I take the point which has been made by many hon. Members opposite that they think that the decision whether there should be a recommendation for deportation should be made by a higher court than the magistrates' court. I will give consideration to that point.

I am not in a position now to give any undertaking to make any change on Report, but I will undertake to give it very serious consideration before Report. I should like to make it quite clear that I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal would do; nor would the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot).

Mr. Weitzman

I thank the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the obviously thoughtful and considerate reply that he has given. We on this side of the Committee feel that this is a very important matter, and I hope that the Attorney-General will give weight to everything that has been said from these benches. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Fletcher

I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, to leave out "five years" and to insert "twenty-four months".

The Deputy-Chairman

With this Amendment can be discussed those in page 6, line 18, to leave out "five" and to insert "two"; and to leave out "five" and to insert "ten" without a Division being called on the latter.

Mr. Fletcher

Clause 7 (2) provides that no recommendation for deportation shall be made upon the conviction of any offender who satisfies the court both that he was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the date of his conviction and also that he had been continuously so resident for a period of five years ending on that date.

The object of the Amendment is to substitute the period of two years for five years and to give complete protection against deportation to people who have been resident in this country for a period of two years. This, like all the other Amendments that we on this side have tabled, is intended as a liberalising Amendment to protect people who, in words that have become accepted, belong to this country.

We think that if a person has established himself here as a resident for a couple of years, even though he may commit an offence for which he could be punished by imprisonment or fine like any other British subject, or, indeed, for that matter any alien or anybody resident here, he should, as a member of the Commonwealth, have the same protection against deportation as a natural-born British subject or anyone else who has made this country his home. We do not want these novel and, as we think, undesirable provisions for deportation to be any more extensive than is really necessary to meet the case in point.

We want to eliminate as far as possible the difference between citizens of the United Kingdom who are here as a result of birth or immigration and those who are in the category of people who are differentiated against and discriminated against by the provisions of the Bill. We think that, if a person has been here two years, that it is sufficient to give him protection against deportation. We feel Mat this extreme remedy of deportation could only be justified and should only be used in extreme circumstances. It is quite obvious that this will not affect the remedy of deportation in respect of those persons who come here illicitly or illegally under the Bill—people who come here without a proper voucher or who escape the net of the immigration officer and about whom it might be said afterwards that they had committed an offence by coming here without proper permission under Clause 2.

Presumably, anybody of that kind would be caught within two years. Therefore, this provision will affect only those Commonwealth immigrants who have been here for some substantial time and who may, like any other citizen, commit an offence which exposes them to the treatment, remedial and reformative, of the criminal law. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find it reasonable to accept the Amendment as giving all the security and protection that is needed in the circumstances.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Several of my hon. Friends and I put down the Amendment in page 6, line 18, to make the period ten years instead of five. This has not been selected but is debatable now. Of course, I strongly oppose any reduction in the qualifying period of residence.

It has been said that the provisions of the Bill are very widely drawn in regard to the deportation of persons convicted of offences and sentenced to imprisonment, but clearly the purpose of the Bill is to deal with certain types of crime. It has been said, and I agree, that Commonwealth immigrants as a whole are not more likely to commit crimes than ordinary citizens of this country, but there are certain crimes which may be the subject of deportation to which immigrants are particularly prone.

I will give the Committee certain figures in relation to the number of persons convicted of living on immoral earnings in the Metropolitan area of London in 1960. During that year, there were 130 convictions for living on immoral earnings, and of those no less than 68, more than half, were attributable to immigrants from the Commonwealth or from the Republic of Ireland. The proportion is very large having regard to the insignificant proportion which the number of immigrants bears to the total population.

If the Amendment now proposed were accepted it would mean that any person who had been convicted already of the crime of living on immoral earnings could be subjected only to the disadvantage of adding to the qualifying period of two years which has been suggested the period for which he has been in prison for an offence which, under the Bill, will render him subject to deportation. Even under the Clause as it now stands, a person who has during the last year come out of prison after having served a sentence of one year for a crime which would in the normal way subject him to deportation under the Bill will only have to add to the period of five years the period of one year's imprisonment which he has served. If the Clause goes through as it stands it will mean that he could come out of prison just before the coming into force of the Bill, repeat the crime within six months and be free from the penalty of deportation.

If the Amendment moved by the Opposition were accepted the period would be further reduced. It would mean that if a person had been in prison for one year for living on immoral earnings, a crime which would subject him to deportation, that year would be added to the two suggested in the Amendment and if he had been in the country for three years altogether and committed the crime again within the next few months after the passage of the Bill he would be entirely free from the deportation provisions. I regard that as entirely wrong. I very much regret that it has not been possible to debate an Amendment which would extend the period of residence, but I most certainly ask the Committee to reject the Amendment now before it.

Mr. S. Silverman

I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends not only on their good sense in putting the Amendment down, but on their ingenuity in framing it. They were in an obvious difficulty. I have put down an Amendment, one of the Amendments we are discussing now, to leave out "five", that is to say, five years, and to insert "two", that is to say, two years.

I have the greatest possible sympathy with my right hon. and hon. Friends. They were in a dilemma. Either they could support my Amendment in the Lobby or in debate and subject themselves to a certain—I do not know quite what, but something they appear to dislike—but do it nevertheless because they knew that the Amendment was a good one which commended itself to them, or they could oppose or fail to support an important Amendment to a Bill to which they attach great importance merely because of—again I do not know quite what, but something or other which would have inhibited them in some way.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not know why my hon. Friend assumes that we had any knowledge of his Amendment when ours was tabled.

Mr. Silverman

I assume it because it was tabled first. Its position on the Notice Paper supports that assumption. I also point to the rather unusual, although I admit ingenious—I congratulate my hon. Friends on their ingenuity—form in which the Amendment is framed. The Clause does not talk about months. It talks about years. If the suggestion is to delete "five years" and to substitute, not "two years", but "twenty-four months", I have sufficient respect for my right hon. and hon. Friends to believe that they must have thought that there was adequate reason for this unusual form of words. If we put the two things together, the result is irresistible, but I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is concerned to resist it.

However, out of the respect which I have for the judgment and ingenuity of my hon. Friends, I tell them at once that the form of Amendment which they have tabled imposes no difficulty on me. I am in no dilemma. I come to the conclusion that, although there may be some difference between twenty-four months and two years, it is not a difference which will part me from my hon. Friends, although the converse of that proposition does not seem to be true. We are, therefore, on the same side.

This is a part of the Bill on which the Government can be congratulated rather more than they can be congratulated on other parts of the Bill. It is one of the less barbarous proposals—I will not say more civilised, because I can see nothing civilised in the whole Bill. It recognises that, if a Commonwealth citizen is of established residence in this country, then a power to deport him which might well be thought to be properly exercisable in the case of a man of a shorter period of residence ought not to be applied.

Therefore, the only question between the two sides of the Committee, having united this side so that there are only two sides instead of three, is: what is the period of continuous residence which should be deemed sufficient to protect a man from deportation? In the opinion of the Government, the period should be five years. In the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, if he will allow me to put it in my language rather than in his, it should be two years.

I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by repeating the arguments so forcibly and eloquently adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, but I wish to add one argument which he did not use, but which, I think, will commend itself to him, nevertheless. I tabled an Amendment in which I proposed that the minimum age for deportation should be 25 years. Some of my hon. Friends, though agreeing with me in principle, thought that 25 was too old and that 21 would be a better age. Indeed, there was much to be said for their point of view. What we all agreed about was that 17 was too young.

If five years is retained instead of two years, in the case of young persons it increases the hardship and underlines the undesirability of deporting young persons. If a person is, shall I say, 25, and is ordinarily resident in this country on the day when he commits a punishable offence and has been ordinarily resident here for the five years ending on that day, he is absolutely protected from deportation—that is to say, if he has been in residence here from the age of 20 to the age of 25 or longer than that. However, if it is a young person aged 17½—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) made a similar point in another connection—he is not protected from deportation, unless he has lived in this country from the age of 12.

If the Ministers representing the Home Office would look at the Amendment from the point of view of young persons, I think they would see that there is a strong case for accepting it, even if they are not prepared to go further and accept the period of two years for everybody. There is a further stage of the Bill and I think I have said enough to indicate the kind of proposition I would like them to consider. I do not think that I shall improve the case by adding further arguments to it.

Lieut. - Colonel J. K. Cordeaux (Nottingham, Central)

I feel some diffidence in joining this battle between the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but as they now seem to have patched up their differences I want to say that I and my hon. Friends who have tabled the Amendment to page 6, line 18, to leave out "five" and to insert "ten" have no doubt that we absolutely disagree with the Amendments moved by both of them.

Like the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), who spoke recently, this is the first time that I have spoken during the course of this Bill, but that is not my fault. However, I have listened to the Amendments which have been proposed and it has seemed to me that nearly all of those proposed in opposition to the Bill have come from the heart rather than from the head. I do not know where this Amendment has come from. I do not think that it can possibly have come from either heart or head.

Who would benefit if the Amendment were accepted? The only people who would benefit are the small number of immigrant criminals. They are only a small number, but they have an adverse effect on the standing of their own people in this country which few hon. Members opposite appear to understand. The majority of Amendments proposed during the course of the Committee stage have obviously been proposed with the idea that they would, if accepted, strengthen the spirit of Commonwealth and benefit the immigrants now in this country and those yet to come. The Amendment, if accepted, would do the exact reverse.

I want to read an article which I have chosen quite casually from my local paper during the course of the last three weeks. It is a report which appeared in the Nottingham Guardian-Journal. It says: A twenty-nine year old coloured man was drawing National Assistance and living on the immoral earnings of his wife, it was alleged in Nottingham Guildhall yesterday. He was"— the name is given— who was charged with living wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of"— again a name is given— between 13th July, 1961, and 4th January of this year. 9.45 p.m.

These cases, of course, are not all that numerous, but, nevertheless, they are, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), anything but isolated. These sort of cases are doing immeasurable harm to the general spirit of Commonwealth and race relations in the places where they occur, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen who perhaps have only a theoretical knowledge of these things that people who are Members for constituencies concerned and who also have lived in those constituencies throughout the period of immigration into this country do know just what effect they have on the population and, as I say, on race relations generally.

The deportation of people of that sort can do only good to the vast majority of people in this country, to the immigrants now here and the immigrants who are yet to come. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), speaking just now, said, "We want to reduce to the minimum the power of deportation of Commonwealth citizens", and he spoke in a way which suggested, I think, that obviously everybody, on both sides of the Committee, agreed with him. Personally, I do not. I think that the powers of deportation need strengthening, in the way proposed in the Amendment to page 6, line 18, put down in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale and several others of us.

I am sure that that is the view of responsible Commonwealth leaders, and in that connection I should like to quote a statement made recently by somebody whom nobody can accuse of being wildly enthusiastic about this Bill, Mr. Manley, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, who came over here to look into things in the summer of last year. He said this, when interviewed, and I quote from the Daily Telegraph of 12th June, 1961: I would have no objection to the British Government sending back home people guilty of the sort of crimes which bring good West Indians into disrepute in this country. He went on: The Jamaican Government is refusing passports to West Indians after conviction for offences unless there is a long period of good behaviour since. He also said: Nobody with two convictions for dishonesty can get a passport at all. There is no doubt what Mr. Manley thinks about this, and in that connection he is certainly very much in advance of the Irish Government. I think that that is relevant to this case, because, as hon. Members may know, it has been the practice of the Irish judiciary recently, when dealing with cases in their criminal courts, to suspend the sentences on convicted persons, citizens of the Irish Republic, provided they come to live in this country. I think that hon. Members will obviously be glad to know that in this part of the Bill the Irish are treated exactly the same as all members of the Commonwealth.

That being so, I really cannot see what possible objection of any sort hon. Members opposite can have to this part of the Bill. I simply cannot understand why they want to weaken it. If they do, they do an undoubted disservice to the spirit of Commonwealth. The Bill does not want weakening, as this Amendment would certainly weaken it. It wants strengthening. I hope very much, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not for a moment consider—as, indeed, I am sure he will not—accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I support what my hon. Friends have said, and particularly the last point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieutenant-Colonel Cordeaux) about the Irish judiciary deliberately exporting criminals and the undesirability of having criminals here when it would do much greater service to the cause of the integration of immigrants if they could be deported.

I have not yet heard anyone say that he is opposed to this deportation Clause. I certainly hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), in smiling, is not treating the matter lightly. I hope that he is with us and agrees with Mr. Manley that criminals should not be exported to Britain.

Mr. Chapman

I agree entirely. I was smiling about something quite different.

Mr. Gurden

I am glad to hear that. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State ought seriously to consider this period of ten years.

Mr. Weitzman

Why not make it twenty, or why limit it at all?

Mr. Gurden

Very well, let it be twenty years if the Committee wishes. There seems to be no sense at all in having people here who are habitual criminals. Those people who have been here for five or six years and who are habitual criminals ought not to get away with this advantage over other immigrants who have recently come here. If it is fair for one criminal to be deported it ought to apply to others. Those who have been here for some time now will certainly have a start over those who will be coming in the future.

Mr. Weitzman

Would the hon. Member please tell the Committee why he wants to limit this period to ten years?

Hon. Members

No answer.

Mr. Renton

The Bill says that there shall be no deportation after five years' residence, not counting periods of six months or more spent in prison. The Opposition, both the official Opposition and the anti-party, would like the five years reduced to two years. My hon. Friends would like the period increased to ten years. It looks, therefore, as though the Government have been right to have steered a middle course between the two extremes. This is a matter of opinion and judgment, bearing in mind that we are here dealing with people who have abused our hospitality by breaking our law. I remind the Committee that the period of five years' residence is not the only way of escaping deportation, but I need not cover points made on earlier Amendments. We have to use our judgment and discretion in the matter, in the light of such experience as has been obtained elsewhere.

In that connection we need to bear in mind that five years is the equivalent period of residence in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I must tell my hon. Friends that it could not be more than five years because, as will be seen from Clause 12, the deportation provisions cannot be made effective against the citizens of most independent Commonwealth countries without altering the British Nationality Act, 1948, which requires only one year's residence by a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country before he is entitled to register as a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies and thereby escape deportation.

Mr. N. Pannell

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I have put down a very sensible Amendment which will remove the objection to which he is referring.

Mr. Renton

I am not at liberty to discuss a later Amendment which is not being called at this time, but I stress that five years is the utmost that we could possibly justify in extending that qualifying period.

Mr. S. Silverman

The hon. and learned Gentleman was saying a few minutes ago that the Government were probably right because they had taken a middle path between the two years that we on these benches have suggested and the ten years suggested by his hon. Friends. It now appears that it was not a middle path at all. It was the furthest that the Government could go. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile that?

Mr. Renton

I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a point which is superficially telling but not fundamentally material.

I must complete my reply to my hon. Friend, who deserves the courtesy of a reply. It follows from what I have said that the Amendment of my hon. Friends would be fully effective only against people from the Colonies and from those few independent countries of the Commonwealth which allow dual citizenship, because other Commonwealth citizens could after five years' residence here escape deportation by registering.

We come, therefore, to the question whether it should be two years or five years. Perhaps I might say in passing that the official Opposition, deriving inspiration from the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman), appear to agree with us in principle that there should be a longer period than one year, but they consider that two years would be long enough.

There seems to be general support for the proposition that we should take power to deport. We feel that the power should last for longer than the first two years that anyone is here. Otherwise it is hardly worth having the power at all. I would remind those hon. Members who are worried about hard cases that the courts are not hound to recommend deportation, and when deciding whether to do so or not, they will no doubt consider, among other things, the length of time that the defendant has resided here. They will also, no doubt, consider the age of the defendant.

There is a further safeguard in that, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out on the previous Amendment, it is the Home Secretary himself who in every single case has to take the final responsibility, and it is a personal one, before he allows a recommendation to be acted upon. Also, of course, he is answerable to the House. He would, naturally, pay regard to any compassionate features that a case might have.

With these factors in mind, and acknowledging that this is a matter of judgment, we feel that five years is the right period. It is surely likely to be appropriate in most cases. If there are cases in which the person has been here for less than five years, and yet it would seem very hard to deport him, I think we may rely on the courts and the Home

Secretary of the day not to take this vigorous step if it seems appropriate not to do so.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not want to pursue this matter unduly. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, it is really a matter of judgment. The Government's judgment is that the right period is five years, and our judgment is that it should be two years. Some hon. Members opposite think that the period should be ten years. Their view is that as many criminals as possible should be deported. They think that the right cure for crime is to deport criminals. I have no doubt that they would like to deport all immigrant criminals.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) would have liked the period to be 20 years. That was the logic of his argument. The whole burden of his argument was that the best way to deal with those immigrants who commit a crime is to deport them, because one then puts an end to their career of crime. It is an easy solution to say that the more immigrant criminals one can deport the better, hut that is not the solution which commends itself to the Government or the Opposition.

We feel that this remedy of deportation is a most extreme and serious sanction, only to be used in extreme cases, and that the House ought not to legislate to give the Government that power except where it is absolutely necessary, because in so far as the power of deportation is given as a recommendation of the courts to the Government, one introduces a further discrimination between British subjects and immigrants from the Commonwealth who have in other respect equal rights. I hope that the Committee will support our view in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That "five years" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 164.

Division No. 74.] AYES [10.0 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Barlow, Sir John Biggs-Davison, John
Aitken, W. T. Barter, John Bingham, R. M.
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Batsford, Brian Bishop, F. P.
Allason, James Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Black, Sir Cyril
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Bossom, Clive
Arbuthnot, John Bell, Ronald Bourne-Arton, A.
Ashton, Sir Hubert Biffen, John Box, Donald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Hobson, John Pilkington, Sir Richard
Boyle, Sir Edward Hocking, Philip N. Pitman, Sir James
Brewis, John Hollingworth, John Pitt, Miss Edith
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter Hopkins, Alan Pott, Percivall
Brooman-White, R. Hornby, R. P. Price, David (Eastleigh)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Prior, J. M. L.
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Buck, Antony Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Bullard, Denys Hughes-Young, Michael Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bullus Wing Commander Eric Hulbert, Sir Norman Pym, Francis
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden) Hutchison, Michael Clark Quennell, Miss J. M.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Iremonger, T. L, Ramsden, James
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rawlinson, Peter
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Jackson, John Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Cary, Sir Robert James, David Rees, Hugh
Channon, H. P. G. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Chataway, Christopher Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Renton, David
Chichester-Clark, R, Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cleaver, Leonard Kaberry, Sir Donald Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Cole, Norman Kerans, Cdr, J. S. Russell, Ronald
Collard, Richard Kerby, Capt. Henry Scott-Hopkins, James
Cooke, Robert Kerr, Sir Hamilton Sharples, Richard
Cooper, A. E. Kershaw, Anthony Shaw, M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Leather, E. H. C. Shepherd, William
Coulson, Michael Leavey, J. A. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Craddock, Sir Beresford Leburn, Gilmour Skeet, T. H. H.
Critchley, Julian Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Speir, Rupert
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Curran, Charles Linstead, Sir Hugh Studholme, Sir Henry
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Litchfield, Capt. John Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Deedes, W. F. Loveys, Walter H. Tapsell, Peter
de Ferranti, Basil Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Donaldson Cmdr. C. E. M. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Doughty, Charles MacArthur, Ian Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Duncan, Sir James McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Temple, John M.
Eden, John Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N.Ayrs.) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Emery, Peter McMaster, Stanley R. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Errington Sir Eric Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley) Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Farr, John Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Turner, Colin
Finlay, Graeme Maddan, Martin Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Fisher, Nigel Maginnis, John E. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maitland, Sir John van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Manningham-Buller, Rt, Hn. Sir R. Vane, W. M. F.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Markham, Major Sir Frank Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Freeth, Denzil Marshall, Douglas Vickers, Miss Joan
Gardner, Edward Marten, Neil Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Gibson-Watt, David Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Gilmour, Sir John Mawby, Ray Walder, David
Glover, Sir Douglas Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Walker, Peter
Goodhart Philip Mills, Stratton Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Goodhew, Victor Montgomery, Fergus Wall, Patrick
Grant, Rt. Hon. William More, Jasper (Ludlow) Ward, Dame Irene
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Morgan, William Webster, David
Green, Alan Morrison, John Wells, John (Maidstone)
Gresham Cooke, R. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Whitelaw, William
Gurden, Harold Nabarro, Gerald Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Neave, Airey Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Harris, Frederick (Croydon, N.W.) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Wise, A. R.
Harris, Reader (Heston) Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Osborn, John (Hallam) Woodhouse, C. M.
Hay, John Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Woodnutt, Mark
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Page, John (Harrow, West) Woollam, John
Hendry, Forbes Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Worsley, Marcus
Hiley, Joseph Partridge, E.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Peel, John Mr. Michael Hamilton and
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Percival, Ian Mr. McLaren.
Hirst, Geoffrey Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
NOES
Ainsley, William Blyton, William Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Albu, Austen Boardman, H. Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.) Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Chapman, Donald
Awbery, Stan Bowles, Frank Cliffe, Michael
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Boyden, James Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Bence, Cyril Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Cronin, John
Benson, Sir George Brockway, A. Fenner Crosland, Anthony
Blackburn, F. Broughton, Dr. A, D. D. Darling, George
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, Ifor (Cower) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Deer, George Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Diamond, John Kelley, Richard Ross, William
Dodds, Norman Kenyon, Clifford Short, Edward
Donnelly, Desmond Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ede, Ht. Hon. C. King, Dr. Horace Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Edelman, Maurice Lawson, George Skeffington, Arthur
Evans, Albert Lee, Frederick (Newton) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Fernyhough, E. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Finch, Harold Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Small, William
Fitch, Alan Loughlin, Charles Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Fletcher, Eric Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Snow, Julian
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) MacColl, James Sorensen, R. W.
Forman, J. C. McInnes, James Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McKay, John (Wallsend) Spriggs, Leslie
Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Steele, Thomas
Galpern, Sir Myer Manuel, A. C. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Mapp, Charles Stones, William
Ginsburg, David Mason, Roy Swain, Thomas
Gourlay, Harry Mendelson, J. J. Symonds, J. B.
Grey, Charles Millan, Bruce Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mitchison, G. R. Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Griffiths, w. (Exchange) Monslow, Walter Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Moody, A. S. Thornton, Ernest
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Morris, John Thorpe, Jeremy
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Moyle, Arthur Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Hannan, William Neal, Harold Wade, Donald
Hart, Mrs. Judith Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Wainwright, Edwin
Hayman, F. H. Oram, A. E. Warbey, William
Healey, Denis Oswald, Thomas Weitzman, David
Herbison, Miss Margaret Padley, W. E. White, Mrs. Eirene
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Parker, John Whitlock, William
Hilton, A. V. Parkin, B. T. Wilkins, W. A.
Holman, Percy Pavitt, Laurence Willey, Frederick
Holt, Arthur Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Williams, w. R. (Openshaw)
Hoy, James H. Pentland, Norman Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S, Ayrshire) Popplewell, Ernest Winterbottom, R. E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Prentice, R. E. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hunter, A. E. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Woof, Robert
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Probert, Arthur Wyatt, Woodrow
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Proctor, W. T. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Janner, Sir Barnett Randall, Harry
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Rankin, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jeger, George Redhead, E. C. Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Rhodes, H. Mr. McCann.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.