HC Deb 26 April 1967 vol 745 cc1708-27
Mr. Roy Jenkins

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 22, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert: (2) A magistrates' court shall, on an application for the purpose made with reference to any committal proceedings by the defendant or one of the defendants, as the case may be, order that the foregoing subsection shall not apply to reports of those proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment, we can discuss the Amendment to it, to leave out 'not', and Amendment No. 83 in page 3, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 17 and insert: 'Where an order is made under subsection (2) of this section', and Amendment No. 84, in page 4, line 6, leave out 'without' and insert 'despite'.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

This Amendment and Amendment No. 7 are drafting Amendments essentially to ensure that where a magistrates' court makes an order under subsection (2) to remove the restrictions on publicity, that order is to apply to the whole of the committal proceedings and not simply to the proceedings after the making of the order or to any part selected by the court or the defendant.

In the Clause, the references to "such matter in line 24, "that matter" in line 25 and "any such matter" in line 32 could possibly be construed as permitting that kind of selective order. The Amendments are intended to remove that ambiguity.

I should, perhaps, also explain that the new subsection (2) preserves the position that an order permitting full reporting must be made on the application of one of several defendants. In Committee, it was urged by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who is not present today, and, possibly, by other hon. Members, that when there were several defendants they would all have to opt for publicity before publicity should be granted.

I have considered the point carefully. Clearly, there are balances of advantage on either side. I was, however, not anxious to place any unnecessary restriction on Press reporting. I thought it better, therefore, to preserve the position that where any one defendant opted for publicity, he should be able to obtain publicity. That position is preserved in the new subsection (2).

Sir J. Hobson (Warwick and Leamington)

I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are discussing also our Amend- ment to the proposed Amendment. I am grateful for what the Home Secretary has said. Two major matters arise on Amendment No. 6. As the Bill would be amended in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's provisions, it would provide that the normal rule in any committal proceedings would be that they could not be reported unless the defendant, or, if there were more than one defendant, one or other of them, made an application to the court.

The problem of two defendants is subsidiary. Whatever the rule may be, however, I suggest that in a case where the interest of the defendants may conflict, there should be discretion with the court about how to decide the matter. There should be no difficulty in a magistrates' court in hearing applications both to allow the Press to report proceedings and to prohibit their being reported when the interests of the two defendants are in conflict and for a decision to be made at the discretion of the court. It is wholly unnecessary, in whichever way the balance lies, to say that either the application of one defendant or the application of all defendants is to control where the interests of the defendants conflict. In that event, the court should have power to decide. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not adopted that suggestion which was made in Committee.

What is of much more importance, however, and of far wider import is whether, as the Home Secretary proposes, there should be no reporting of committal proceedings unless one or other of the defendants applies or whether, as we suggest, the rules should be the other way round and all committal proceedings should be capable of being reported unless one or other of the defendants applies for an inhibition against it.

In practice, that would make a substantial difference. If the Home Secretary's proposal is adopted, it will, I think, be inevitable that almost no defendant, and certainly none of a defendant's advisers, will ever, or will only seldom, take the bold course of saying, "Let us allow the Press to report these proceedings, because that may be helpful to us".

We must recognise that there may or may not be advantage, and since the Home Secretary's proposal appears to confer a privilege on the defendant it will be one that the defendant will always claim, even though on a better judgment he might have been wiser to have allowed the proceedings to be reported.

8.0 p.m.

The result will be that the Press will not be present. In local courts, particularly, they will not provide reporters to sit all day to listen to proceedings which they are unable to report. Therefore, even if the defendant decides that he would like the proceedings to be reported, and makes the application and it is granted, it will almost inevitably be the case that no member of the Press will be present who will have listened to the proceedings and be ready to report them.

The ordinary rule about all our judicial proceedings is that they should be held in public. I recognise that this is not a trial, and only a preliminary matter, but it is, nevertheless, a very important element in our judicial proceedings, and an important step in a matter of considerable public interest. I would prefer to see the situation in which the ordinary rule is that the committal proceedings may be reported. The Press are therefore likely to be present, and it is only when a defendant considers that he might be at a disadvantage if the proceedings are reported that he applies for them not to be.

I recognise that that has the disadvantage of placing on the defendant some difficulties, and certainly a difficult decision, but I would have thought that in the ordinary case most people, and certainly most practitioners, both solicitors and members of the Bar, know that the jury are unaffected by any report of the committal proceedings. The ordinary motoring case, the ordinary breaking and entering case, is of the greatest interest to people in the locality, and if it is reported, everybody in the locality knows about it.

If the proceedings are not reported, rumour is liable in a provincial area to exaggerate the case. The story passes from person to person, it is discussed in public houses, and the charges against a person who lives locally are liable to be grossly exaggerated, whereas if the newspapers contain a short report of the committal proceedings, which makes plain the nature of the case, the air is cleared and nobody is in any doubt about what has happened.

There may, on the other hand, of course, be the exceptional case in which different considerations arise. I do not take the view that it places a very heavy or difficult burden on those appearing for the defence to advise against having the proceedings reported. In cases like the Moors trial, the Bodkin Adams case, or the Rouse case, where prejudicial evidence might result from the committal proceedings being reported, it would be possible for the defence to apply for the proceedings not to be reported. Such cases are of considerable public interest. It is plain that in such cases the interests of the accused may be affected, and he can decide whether or not in his judgment his interests are or are not going to be affected. This may place a burden on him, but I do not think that it is an unusual or difficult one, and it is one which I would have thought could easily be discharged without any disadvantage to a defendant.

I do not believe, and I never have, that the reporting of committal proceedings is necessarily a disadvantage to a defendant. I do not believe that at the trial the jury are affected, except in the occasional case, and there are many occasions when witnesses who would not otherwise have done so come forward after reading the committal proceedings. This is the experience of all who know the courts.

I would have preferred the general rule applicable to all our proceedings to be that they should be reported unless the defendant decides that they ought not to be, and he should then be allowed to claim the right. This is why I shall in due course move the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. Weitzman

The point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) was fully considered by the Tucker Committee. I was a member of this Committee, and we spent a considerable time going into all these matters. We came to the conclusion, on the evidence and the views put before us, that it would be wrong to separate the matter in any way.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about motoring cases. One may get prejudice in motoring cases just as in other cases. Where does one draw the line? We considered the question of rumours flying about. Once we accept the principle that a report of the committal proceedings may come to the knowledge of the jury and affect their minds, it is not merely a question whether it is a heavy case. It may be a case which is reported in full in the local newspaper. The members of the jury may read it, and then the case is heard by them and they have the details of it in mind.

If a person is subsequently acquitted, one often finds that the local newspaper contains a long report of the case but no mention of the fact that he has been acquitted. In other words, great publicity is given to the initial proceedings, but none to the result. I think that the Tucker Committee was right in rejecting this proposal, and I think that the matter should stand where it is.

Mr. Deedes

This matter has been argued a good deal already, and I do not want to prolong the debate at this stage. I wish to stress one point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Sir J. Hobson) about the reporting of committal proceedings. Courts will not be reliably covered, indeed they may not be covered at all, for the purpose of reporting committal proceedings. As committal proceedings are usually grouped together, it will mean that during that time the Press will not be represented there, or at least will not be represented by the skilled reporters who are required for the business of reporting committal proceedings. It will be a matter of allocating men to collect particulars which are made available in these cases, and this will become a routine matter.

As my right hon. Friend said, as no obligation will rest on the Press to attend courts for these committal proceedings, it will more often than not be the case that if a defendant operates this provision, no member of the Press will be available to report the proceedings. In effect, therefore, the courts will remain substantially uncovered for committal proceedings.

Because a large section of the Press has been confronted with this proposal, it has got into some heads that there is an element of special pleading here, and that it is the newspapers who are putting forward that it is in their interests that this change be not made. This is not the case. The case has been presented very persuasively by a number of jurists as well as newspaper men, and before we part with the subject that should be made clear.

Mr. Buck

This matter has been fully argued in Committee. I am very unhappy about the House deciding that as a general rule things which happen in public in courts shall not be allowed to be reported. The principle at the moment is that things which happen in public are allowed to be reported in full in the newspapers, within certain bounds, of course. They should be reported in the Press. It should not be the general rule that what goes on in court during committal proceedings shall not be reported unless application is made that it shall be. I am sure that this is a wrong principle. In the past it has always been accepted to be right that what happened in public should be able to be reported by the Press, and I am reluctant to see this principle go.

I think that the least the House should do is accept the Amendment which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) will move in due course. It will at least retain the general rule that the Press are allowed to report what takes place unless the defence thinks it worthwhile to make a positive application that the proceedings shall not be reported. This goes some way to meet the point of principle.

In spite of the persuasiveness of the Tucker Committee, which had on it such distinguished members as the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), I have never been convinced that the reporting of committal proceedings has a deleterious effect on the defendant at the subsequent trial. There is usually a considerable time lag between the reporting of the committal proceedings and the end of the trial, and during that time the jury have been listening to the evidence for a considerable period, and have realised that they must decide the case on the evidence they have heard. They have had this reiterated by defence and prosecution counsel, and no doubt in a very lengthy summing up by the judge. Anything that they may have read some months back about the committal proceedings is unlikely to have any substantial effect on their minds. They will hear the evidence at the trial, weigh it up and give such weight to it as they think proper. They will be told that they must decide the case upon the evidence.

The Bodkin Adams case has been mentioned. In that case the result was favourable to the accused. If there was any prejudice it was not sufficient to affect the verdict. I am not happy at the thought of departing from the general principle that what happens in public should be reported. The Amendments will go some way to meeting this point of principle and in due course I hope the House will support them.

Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough)

Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) I feel some discomfort about the Clause as drafted. I realise that this matter was fully debated in Committee, but it is of such public importance that it will stand debating in more detail now.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that any interference with the Press is extremely undesirable and that if there is to be any such interference the case must be at least extremely strong, if not overwhelming. I am not altogether certain whether the case for limiting the power of the Press in this respect is as strong as to justify the retention of the Clause in its present form. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure me on this point.

I appreciate that the arguments for the Clause are strong. There is the unanimous recommendation of the very distinguished Tucker Committee. But even that Committee's recommendations were of a qualified nature, in that they said that there were formidable objections to holding committal proceedings in camera. They also said that it was not possible to establish whether or not there was a prejudicial effect upon the defendant. Nevertheless, they made a unanimous recommendation, largely on the lines of the Clause.

The other obvious argument in favour of the Clause is that there must be some danger of prejudice arising if there is unfettered publicity of committal proceed- ings. I want the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary to give us more details of the way in which the defendant would be seriously prejudiced. It seems an obvious proposition, but nevertheless I should like to know more detail of the exact mechanism which might be held to affect the prospect of a fair trial for the defendant in the final analysis.

Press reports of committal proceedings must sometimes have a useful effect in bringing forward witnesses for the defendant or in bringing to light matters which might be helpful to him. The Tucker Committee indicated that out of 21 cases in only ten was the defendant acquitted as a result of matters being brought to light through preliminary publicity of the committal proceedings. That should not be regarded as final, because there must be many cases where a defendant has been helped by preliminary publicity which has brought to light further evidence in his favour.

8.15 p.m.

Another important argument is that Press reports of committal proceedings can cause rumours to be curbed and a much more helpful picture to be presented of the defendant. That is not always the case, of course. I was impressed by the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) that if the Clause remains as it is the Press will cease to attend committal proceedings. That might well happen, with the result that even if a defendant wanted to take advantage of the Clause and wanted full publicity he would not be able to have it, simply because the Press would have stopped attending committal proceedings.

This question causes me some discomfort. I would not go as far as to say that I support the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) but there is a case for the Home Secretary to give us a full and careful explanation before we accept the Clause as it is.

Mr. Doughty

On the whole, this Bill, on which much hard work was done in Committee, can be described as a good one, but there are a few of its provisions with which I do not agree, and this is one. As a general rule, proceedings in courts are public. Not only is the public admitted but the Press and, if necessary, B.B.C. and television reporters. On the whole that is a very good thing, because it provides an accurate description of what has happened and prevents distorted rumours going round, as would otherwise be the case, growing in strength and volume as they pass from mouth to mouth.

The Bill does not refer to trials being held in camera. Sometimes a trial is held in camera on grounds of national security. The Bill merely provides that the Press shall not report committal proceedings. Whatever may be said about a defendant being able to apply for the proceedings to be reported, such an application would be quite worthless because the Press would not be present. Proceedings held under the Children and Young Persons Act can be regarded as an example of what happens. Once it is announced that these proceedings shall not be reported there is an immediate drifting away of all reporters from the court, and if the order were reversed in the course of those proceedings nobody would be left to report them. That is what would happen in the case of committal proceedings.

We must weigh up the pros and cons in order to see where the advantage lies. I have had considerable experience in this respect, and I am not satisfied that a report, in the local or national Press, of any committal proceedings has the slightest effect upon the 12 people who subsequently form the jury. To begin with, in nearly every case there is merely a short paragraph in the local Press, reporting that A and B were committed for trial at the local quarter sessions or assizes and that it was alleged that they had broken into a house or into 14 houses in the course of the last two or three weeks. Nobody pays much attention to such a report.

Occasionally there is what might be described as a sensational case, where the committal proceedings are given many columns even in the national Press. Sometimes these proceedings result in acquittals and on other occasions in convictions, but although the jury may have read those reports they will not have taken much account of them. They will not have read much about the cross-examination, because there is little cross-examination at committal proceedings, and their minds will not have been affected. The judge in charge of the case and the counsel appearing for the defence will always tell the jury, "You must not listen to a word you hear outside; you must try this case upon the evidence which you hear here, including, of course, the cross-examination by counsel of the witnesses called for the prosecution and those called for the defence".

If the Press were to outstrip the bounds of what it is able to do, as very occasionally happens, and after or during committal proceedings were to comment on the trial unfavourably and disclose, because of a slip, as has happened before now, its knowledge that the accused had a number of previous convictions, for instance, it would be brought before another court on the serious charge of contempt of court prejudicing the fair trial of the accused and be heavily fined for its mistake. This has happened more than once in the past, and rightly happened. But when all the Press does is to report the evidence which is given and to report whether the person has or has not been committed for trial, it assists the administration of justice and does not hinder it in any way.

If it is to be provided that an accused can apply for the evidence to be published, if the charge is one of riotous assembly, of wilful damage, if someone has broken the place up and the accused wants others to come forward to help him, he will be prevented from doing so because the box assigned to journalists who have to report these matters will be empty, and there will be no one from the local Press, who will have taken the view that it would be a waste of time to sit there.

Having weighed the pros and cons of this matter very carefully, I have unhesitatingly concluded that the trial should not only be held in public, but reported, subject to the provisions about children and young persons and national security, and that we should be wrong if we restricted that further.

Mr. Hale

May I express very briefly my gratitude to the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) for making very much more ably than I could the speech which I made at 3.45 in their absence? When I said these things at 3.45 on an earlier new Clause, the dogs on the other side barked. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite addressed me with becoming sympathy and pointed out the error of my ways. Finally, it was said that perhaps these matters would arise on this Amendment, if they did not arise before. I was rushing mentally frustrated and almost tongue-tied from the Chamber in fear of being remanded for a medical report, and I cannot say how grateful I am that the same thing has now been said by two such illustrious political personalities, for it has meant that I can go home with my head high once more.

Mr. Sharples

I wish briefly to support the Amendment. There might have been a case for holding committal proceedings of this kind in camera, but this was ruled out by the Tucker Committee for very good reasons. We now have the worst of all possible worlds. We have the situation in which these proceedings will be open to members of the general public, who will be able to speak about what they have heard during the proceedings and, if they wish, give distorted versions of what has taken place. In the words of the Press Council: We have now reached the situation in which the dangers of rumour and distortion of fact which may arise from this state of affairs ought not to need emphasis. This is our difficulty. Certainly the defence will suffer as much as anyone else in this situation. I strongly support what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend about the possibility of witnesses coming forward as a result of reading in the Press responsible accounts, such as the Press produces, of what has taken place in committal proceedings.

On the whole, we have a very good Bill, but this provision goes some way to putting a blemish on a Bill which we would otherwise all welcome.

Dr. Winstanley

The dilemma with which some of us are faced arises not out of improper or irresponsible reporting, but out of the very nature of committal proceedings themselves. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) reminded hon. Members, and pointed out to those of us who did not know, that in Scotland and on the Continent no publicity was given to pretrial proceedings and, as he also advised us, neither Scotland nor the Continent suffered any sense of injustice from it. However, as was explained, that is because fundamentally there is nothing to report of the pre-trial proceedings, which take place in private, so that there cannot be these dangers. We have public proceedings and in many ways that is unsatisfactory.

Having considered all the arguments which were made in Committee and some of those which have been made today, I am bound to say that I have now rather changed my position and I now do not support the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. I am converted to that view very largely by the extremely persuasive speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone in Committee. I do not know whether he still takes the same view, but he then pointed out that committal proceedings were inevitably damaging to the accused. That has been argued by a number of hon. Members today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee said: … there is no question of the propriety of reporting… What there is to be reported is the prosecution case, the opening of the case by prosecuting counsel, who bring the prosecution case together in an extremely telling and effective form. It is idle for my right hon. and learned Friend to say that cannot operate prejudicially to the defendant. He went on to say: It is not customary for a responsible counsel to cross-examine at length, so that the evidence is not even tested in practice. I do not accept that this is not prejudicial to the defence".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th January, 1967; c. 108–9.] It may seem somewhat curious that I should have been persuaded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and should now be taking a view which appears to be opposite to that taken by his hon. Friend. However, I feel that our committal proceedings are wholly unsatisfactory. Because they are, we have to do something extremely undesirable about the Press which is in no way responsible for this situation. I accept that this is the answer to it and I would therefore oppose any Amendments which weakened the Clause.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

If the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) has been persuaded by the words of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) to vote against his Amendment, I only hope that he will not be persuaded by my words to vote against my proposal. I will therefore endeavour to keep my remarks fairly brief in the hope that by so doing I will at least minimise that danger.

I agree with him that to some extent we are in a dilemma in dealing with this problem and that it is a difficult issue. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who was a member of the Tucker Committee, the distinguished committee which produced a unanimous Report, set out some of the arguments which affected its decision. What we propose is not pure Tucker because the situation which the Tucker Committee envisaged will not exist when the Bill is law, as a large part of committal proceedings will not exist to be reported. Equally, we propose that there should be an option for the defence, where it thinks right, to opt for full publicity. The issue between us on the Amendments is whether it should be an option to contract in or one to contract out.

8.30 p.m.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who was not on the Committee, raised the general issue, perhaps I might deal with it. There are three possible reasons why objection might be taken to publicity of committal proceedings. The first, which the Committee was most concerned about, is the possible prejudice to the defence, in the sense that there would not be an unprejudiced jury. This cannot be proved conclusively, but it was a view which a number of distinguished gentlemen took after much more exhaustive consideration than we have been able to give. There is at least good reason to believe that this is so. as witnesses for the defence are not brought forward. When we asked the Law Society, which put this view, to give us some examples, it gave practically none, as there was none available.

Second, the view can be taken that, independently of any effect which it might have on the result of the trial, it is nonetheless prejudicial to the defendant's character and reputation that the evidence in committal proceedings should be publicised at great length and, six weeks later, only a very small paragraph might appear to say that he had been acquitted; the relative impact of the two could be very different.

This is one difficulty about reporting committal proceedings, that only one side of the case is presented—

Mr. Doughty

Our earlier discussion made it clear that the name, address and occupation of and charges against a person will be reported without the facts, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the facts will get around accurately, he is greatly mistaken.

Mr. Jenkins

But one side of the case would not be reported at length in newspapers.

Third, there is the separate issue to which, from time to time, when very sensational cases are reported, hon. Members on both sides take objection—that the public should be served up twice over with the details of a highly sensational and revolting case. I recall that, after a recent case, I was urged by two hon. Members from that side of the House to bring in legislation to restrict reporting not merely of committal proceedings but of the trial itself, which is something I would be very loath to do. I would ask the House to keep in mind that there is no restriction here upon reporting the proceedings which can result in the determination of the issue, which could result in a man's guilt or innocence being established.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said that this goes against the principle upon which we have acted, but he is not correct, because there spring to mind at least two examples of restrictions on what may be reported and what is said in court—the restriction which the House imposed 40 years ago upon reporting of evidence in divorce cases and the restriction upon cases involving juveniles. Although this does not settle the issue here, it means that there are two precedents and that we are not breaking dangerous new ground.

Therefore, there are considerable grounds for restricting reporting of committal proceedings. Although I approach any restriction on the rights of the Press with great caution, this is reasonable and justifiable. We propose that the defendant should retain the complete right, if it is in his interests, to opt for publicity.

The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), who has great experience of the working of courts, was worried about how far publicity can be secured. There is something in this, but there is no absolute right to publicity. In rural areas and small towns, local newspapers normally report committal proceedings, but in many great cities with no local newspapers in the full sense of the term, there is very little reporting unless the case is very sensational.

No one has an absolute right to publicity. Only the Press can determine what is reported. It would be possible for the defendant who wanted publicity, of course, through his legal advisers or some other means, to give notice that he was doing this, and, if the case were of considerable interest, the Press would then ensure that they were there.

However, the issue between us is which way the option should lie. It is a nar-

row issue, but I think that we have chosen the better way. Otherwise, we should put the defendant in the invidious position of having to say, "I do not want publicity in this Case," thus giving the impression that he had something to hide. Bearing in mind the general arguments, there is a strong case for what we are doing generally and it is better that the option should be one of contracting in rather than of contracting out.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Sir J. Hobson

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out 'not'.

Question put, That 'not' stand part of the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 129.

Division No. 323.] AYES [8.35 p.m.
Albu, Austen Foley, Maurice Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Galpern, Sir Myer Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Alldritt, Walter Ginsburg, David McBride, Neil
Allen, Scholefield Gourlay, Harry MacDermot, Niall
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Macdonald, A. H.
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Gregory, Arnold McGuire, Michael
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Grey, Charles (Durham) Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)
Baxter, William Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Beaney, Alan Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) MacPherson, Malcolm
Bence, Cyril Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Bishop, E. S. Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Manuel, Archie
Blackburn, F. Hamling, William Mapp, Charles
Booth, Albert Harper, Joseph Marquand, David
Boston, Terence Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mason, Roy
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hart, Mrs. Judith Mellish, Robert
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Haseldine, Norman Mendelson, J. J.
Brooks, Edwin Hazell, Bert Millan, Bruce
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Miller, Dr. M. S.
Buchan, Norman Horner, John Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Moonman, Eric
Carmichael, Neil Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Coe, Denis Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Moyle, Roland
Coleman, Donald Howie, W. Murray, Albert
Concannon, J. D. Hoy, James Neal, Harold
Conlan, Bernard Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Newens, Stan
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Crawshaw, Richard Hynd, John Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Cronin, John Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Oakes, Gordon
Cullen, Mrs, Alice Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) O'Malley, Brian
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Janner, Sir Barnett Oram, Albert E.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Oswald, Thomas
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Padley, Walter
Delargy, Hugh Jones, Dan (Burnley) Palmer, Arthur
Dewar, Donald Jones, Fit. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Dickens, James Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Doig, Peter Kcnyon, Clifford Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Eadie, Alex Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Pentland, Norman
English, Michael Lawson, George Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Ennals, David Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Ensor, David Lestor, Miss Joan Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Faulds, Andrew Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Rees, Merlyn
Fernyhough, E. Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Finch, Harold Lomas, Kenneth Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Loughlin, Charles Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lubbock, Eric Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth' stow, E.)
Rose, Paul Tinn, James Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Urwin, T. W. Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.) Varlcy, Eric G. Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
shore, Peter (Stepney) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Walden, Brian (All Saints) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Witistanley, Dr. M. P.
Silverman Sydney (Nelson) Wallace, George Winterbottom, R. E.
Slater, Joseph Watkins, David (Consett) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Small, William watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) Woof, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie Weitzman, David Yates, Victor
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) Welibeloved, James
Stewart, Ft. Hn. Michael Whitaker, Ben TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Swingler, Stephen White, Mrs. Eirene Mr. Charles R. Morris and
Symonrts, J. B. Whitlock, William Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
Taverne, Dick Wilkins, W. A.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Hall, John (Wycombe) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Onslow, Cranley
Astor, John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Awdry, Daniel Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Heseltine, Michael Percival, Ian
Biffen, John Hiley, Joseph Peyton, John
Biggs-Davison, John Hill, J. E. B. Pink, R. Bonner
Body, Richard Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Pym, Francis
Bullus, Sir Eric Holland, Philip Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Burden, F. A, Howell, David (Guildford) Rees-Davies, w. R.
Carlisle, Mark Hunt, John Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Carr, Rt, Hn. Robert Hutchison, Michael Clark Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Cary, Sir Robert Iremonger, T. L. Ridsdale, Julian
Chichester-Clark, R. Irvine, Bryant Gudman (Rye) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clegg, Walter Jopling, Michael Russell, Sir Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Scott, Nicholas
Crouch, David Kitson, Timothy Sharpies, Richard
Crowder, F. P. Knight, Mrs. Jill Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Cunningham, Sir Knox Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Sinclair, Sir George
Currie, G. B. H. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Dance, James Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Summers, Sir Spencer
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Longden, Gilbert Tapsell, Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) McAdden, Sir Stephen Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Doughty, Charles McMaster, Stanley Temple, John M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maginnis, John E. Tilney, John
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Maude, Angus Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Errington, sir Eric Mawby, Ray van straubenzee, W. R.
Eyre, Reginald Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Fisher, Nigel Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mills, Peter (Torrington) Webster, David
Fortescue, Tim Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Miscampbell, Norman Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Gibson-Watt, David Monro, Hector Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mott-Radcty ffe, Sir Charles Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Glover, Sir Douglas Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gower, Raymond Murton, Oscar Worsley, Marcus
Grant, Anthony Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Gresham Cooke, R. Neave, Airey TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grieve, Percy Nicholls, Sir Harmar Mr. Jasper More and
Mr. David Mitchell.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, line 32, leave out such matter' and insert: 'matter other than that permitted by the next following subsection',—[Mr. Taverne.]

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 35, to leave out "any of".

This is a drafting Amendment to clarify the meaning of paragraph (a) of subsection (3), about the wording of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) expressed some doubt in Committee, as did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). The restrictions on full reporting of committal proceedings are to be lifted in the case of one defendant if the justices decide not to commit him for trial. If there is more than one defendant and none is committed, again the restriction is lifted at the moment when the justices decide not to commit. But if there are, say, three defendants and one is committed and two are not the restrictions apply until after the trial of those who are committed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 42, to leave out 'the defendant or any' and to insert 'one or more'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 10.

Mr. Taverne

They are both drafting Amendments, and are concerned with restricting the application of the second part of subsection (3) to the case of joint defendants where one is tried summarily while another is sent for trial. The purpose of this part of the subsection is to prevent full reports of a summary trial in a case where, during the committal proceedings in respect of several defendants, the court decides to try summarily one or more of the defendants, but not all of them. The subsection was amended in Committee to provide that a report of committal proceedings relating to the summary trial may be published even for a part of the proceedings before the switch to summary trial was made. These drafting Amendments make the position clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 3, line 44, after 'offences)', insert: 'while committing the other defendant or one or more of the other defendants for trial'. —[Mr. Taverne.]