HC Deb 26 July 1967 vol 751 cc771-89

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 12, line 32, after second "offence" insert: and is punishable on summary conviction with not more than six months' imprisonment".

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose of the Amendment is to produce consistency between subsections (1) and (2) of the Clause. It seems generally desirable, for the sake of consistency between the two subsections, that no offence punishable by the magistrates with more than six months' imprisonment should come within the terms of a Clause which, in general, restricts the power of magistrates to remand in custody only in cases of offences punishable with more than six months' imprisonment. As subsection (2) stood there might have been cases when it applied to offences in respect of which a sentence of more than six months could have been imposed. That will no longer be so. The two subsections will now be in harmony.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 13, line 11, at end insert: or detention in a detention centre.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The words inserted in another place would enable magistrates to remand in custody a defendant who had on a previous occasion been sentenced to detention in a detention centre. These words were in the original Bill, but after the Second Reading the Government came to the conclusion that it was best to narrow the scope of the provision to restrict it to persons previously sentenced to imprisonment or to borstal training, and so to tighten the restrictions to remands in custody.

Subsection (5,a) makes it possible for a magistrates' court to refuse bail where a defendant has a bad record. This has always been regarded as a proper factor to be considered in refusing bail under common law. The question before the House in deciding whether or not to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment is the question whether a previous sentence to detention in a detention centre should be taken into account in the same way as a sentence of imprisonment or borstal training. Our conclusion is that it should not.

The reason for this conclusion is that a sentence of detention in a detention centre is often passed for a comparatively minor offence which would not merit imprisonment or borstal training. Again, the régime in a detention centre is different from that in a prison or in borstal, in a way that a former detention centre inmate cannot be said to have been conditioned to or contaminated by imprisonment.

One of the primary objects of the Clause is to avoid conditioning people to prison and to avoid blunting the deterrent effect of a custodial sentence. In the case of someone who has already been to prison or to borstal the conditioning may already have occurred, and sending him to prison on remand may not do him further harm. This consideration does not apply in the case of someone who has been sent only to a detention centre. Since detention centres have been in existence for only a few years such persons will be comparatively young, and there is therefore a real risk, if the Amendment is accepted, of increasing the numbers of young persons remanded in custody and who will therefore, in most cases, be sent to prison.

The Government Amendment to delete the reference to detention centres in this part of the Clause met with no objection when it was moved in Committee last February. I invite the House to take the same view now as that which the Committee took and to disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Sir J. Hobson

This Amendment raises a question of some importance. It is another example of the way in which the Government have been unwilling to leave a discretion to the magistrate and are trying to tell magistrates' courts what they should do in every case, without giving magistrates the opportunity of using a discretion which is often necessary in deciding not only questions of sentence but also of remands. Subsection (5,a) restores to the magistrates the discretion which is taken away by the earlier part of the Clause,

Paragraph (a) applies only where there is a charge which is, of itself, of a quite serious nature. One does not come within the field of paragraph (a) unless the offender whose bail is being considered is charged with an offence punishable by a term of not less than six months. We begin with the proposition that at any rate the question will arise only where a man has previously been convicted and is being charged again with an offence which is almost certainly indictable, and is most probably one of the more serious type of offence.

It is an absurdity wholly to remove the discretion from magistrates and to say that when a man is charged with a serious offence which may involve life imprisonment and he has previously been convicted on a number of occasions, on one of which he has been sent to a detention centre, the magistrates are not to have discretion to say that he is a man who ought to await his trial in custody.

Mr. Taverne

Do we understand the right hon. and learned Member to say that this may apply to a person who is facing a very serious charge? This applies only to offences tried summarily by magistrates.

Sir J. Hobson

Magistrates can deal with fairly serious charges if the prosecution agrees to have the offence dealt with in the magistrates' court. I remember one case which plainly should have been and was in the end dealt with by the assizes, when the man concerned had committed a very serious offence, although initially the local police had decided to consent to trial before the magistrates. The fact that the offence is being tried before magistrates alone is a sufficient argument.

It also seems odd that a man who has been previously in prison for one or two months will come within the discretion of magistrates on the question what should be done with him, whereas a man who has been in a detention centre for three or six months will not be. It is odder still when one remembers that the question whether a man has been sent to a detention centre or to prison in these days frequently depends on whether a place is available in a detention centre.

It could be that two people in almost exactly the same position, with two previous convictions in respect of which they have been placed on probation, appear one before a magistrates' court which is able to send him to a detention centre while the other comes before a magistrates court where no detention centre is available. The discretion of the magistrates to deal with the men on their fourth appearance before the court is limited in one case and not in the other, although the only difference between the two hinges on the question whether a detention centre had been available on a previous occasion.

The Under-Secretary of State was good enough to point out that the first thoughts of the Government were that this provision should be in, and that if a man had been in a detention centre it should be a qualifying condition to allow the magistrate to consider the position. I think that the Government's first thoughts were the best.

I do not follow the Under Secretary's argument that this will affect only young people who are remanded or placed on bail. The first detention centre has now been open for over 12 years and persons at present over 30 years of age may have been at detention centres in the past. The age at which people will have to have this problem considered will, with the passage of time, increase, so that in 16 years time there will be people of 40 or 45 for whom this will be considered. The argument that this is dealing only with young offenders bears examination, because as time goes on it will be increasingly concerned with people who at one stage in their lives were subject to a detention centre order but in respect of whom a substantial passage of years has lapsed since that event occurred.

5.0 p.m.

This is a matter in which the magistrates ought to be trusted. The Under-Secretary has not suggested that they are wrongly refusing bail. I agree that it is in the general interest that bail should be granted as frequently as possible, and I greatly support that proposal, but the way in which we should achieve it is by publicity, discussion and circulars, and by suggesting to magistrates through the Magistrates' Association that the greatest care ought to be exercised before people are remanded in custody and that bail should be granted on every possible occasion. My impression is that in the last year or two, as a result partly of the discussion of the Bill, there has been a considerable shift towards this end, but that is not to say that in every case the magistrates must grant bail to a person who has quite a number of convictions and who has already been to a detention centre.

The Under-Secretary of State said that people are sent to detention centres often for quite minor offences. That may be true, and it would be a reason why, on a subsequent offence, magistrates would decide not to remand them in custody. But unless he can say that every person sent to a detention centre has committed only a minor offence, then his argument does not hold water. If a substantial number of persons who have committed serious offences have been sent to detention centres, then on a subsequent occasion the question of their record ought to be considered when bail is decided, as with the case of people who have been sent to prison.

It is true that the régime is different from that in prison, but to some extent it turns on the availability of detention centres. Dealing with the point of contamination, the solution is to have more remand centres. I accept that, particularly with young persons, it is highly desirable that while awaiting trial they should not be in prison, but this only emphasises the necessity to have the provision of remand centres particularly for young persons. If the Bill is to stand on the Statute Book for 20 or 25 years or any substantial period, then we can hope that fairly early in that period remand centres would be available to which young people could be sent. That is the solution—not putting this additional shackle on the sensible exercise of discretion by magistrates simply because of the present shortage of remand centres.

Mr. Grieve (Solihull)

Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) I am unimpressed by the arguments of the Under-Secretary of State. The effect of Clause 15 is to deprive the justices of a discretion which they have hitherto had to decide the question of bail in every case upon its merits. The purpose of Clause 15(5) is to restore that discretion to the justices in cases in which it appears in the public interest, for one reason or another that they should have it. Surely it is in the public interest that justices should have that discretion in cases in which a person has already served a term of imprisonment or has been sent to borstal or has been to a detention centre.

My right hon. and learned Friend took up the point made by the Under-Secretary that such persons are often sent to detention centres for minor offences. Frequently, however, they are sent to detention centres for quite serious offences.

Sir D. Renton

Very serious offences.

Mr. Grieve

The whole object of the detention centre system is to keep young men out of borstal and out of prison if there is a hope that by teaching them a sharp lesson they may be restored as honest citizens to society. In my experience of quarter sessions and assizes, young men are sometimes sent to detention centres for their first offences when those offences are very serious. Sometimes—and I am not sure that this is not an abuse of the detention centre system—a young man is sent to a detention centre as his first form of custodial treatment after a long series of offences for which he has been dealt with leniently by fines, discharges and under the probation system.

It therefore seems to me that it would be ludicrous to deprive the justices of discretion in the matter of bail. When justices are appointed it is recognised that they are fit to exercise discretion. That is one of the considerations which authorities have in mind when justices are nominated. The purpose of justices is that they should exercise their judicial discretion in the administration of the law and in matters which affect liberty and freedom. I submit that we ought not to disagree with the Lords Amendment but instead should support it and restore discretion to the justices in this respect.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

On the same initial briefing as that of the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) I have reached a different conclusion. It is correct that Clause 15 restricts the discretion of magistrates to remand in custody and that we are giving back some measure of that discretion by the conditions in Clause 15(5). But in what sense can it truly be said that it is a consideration for remanding a man in custody that he has previously served any kind of custodial sentence?

In my view it would have been better to leave out of the Bill Clause 15(5,a), because it does not stand alone. There are a number of other considerations which magistrates may bring to mind in order to decide whether to remand in custody. If it were suggested that having served a period in a detention centre for a serious offence meant that a man was more likely to commit another offence, that could be dealt with under Clause 15(5,g). If it were suggested that because he had previously had a term in a detention centre he was more likely not to appear at a subsequent hearing, that could be dealt with under one of the other considerations. The discretion of the magistrates is not completely fettered. They still have a wide discretion.

I think it wrong that magistrates should simply ask, "Has this man previously been sent to prison?"—and on the answer to that question decide whether to remand in custody. I therefore support the proposal to disagree with the Lords Amendment although I would have gone further and left out Clause 15(5,a).

Sir D. Renton

I am glad that the Home Secretary is here. I know that he has not been able to hear the whole of the discussion, but I very much hope that when he has heard still more of it he will change his mind about the Government's proposal to disagree with the Lords on this Amendment. We are dealing with a very wide variety of circumstances. It might help if I explained the two extreme types of case which would be covered by the Amendment. First, there is the case of the man who was sentenced as a youth to detention, many years ago when detention first started, and who has thereafter gone straight for ten years. He is brought before the magistrates for an offence which invokes the provisions of the Clause but is not a very serious offence. Clearly, it would not be right for the magistrates to refuse to grant him bail, and it is most unlikely that they would refuse.

At the other extreme, there is the case which, with respect, the Under-Secretary of State has overlooked, the young thug who has committed an offence of violence and who, in the court's view, whether it be a first offence or not, deserves the short sharp shock of sentence in a detention centre. He completes that sentence. Although the success rate of detention centres is generally high, he is one of the failures and, within a few days of his coming out of the detention centre, he commits another offence, perhaps of violence again. Obviously, it is right that he be refused bail.

Mr. Taverne

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear in mind that, if it is an offence of violence, there is no obligation on the magistrates to grant bail. It is subsection (5,a).

Sir D. Renton

I am much obliged. I should not have added "perhaps or violence", and I withdraw those words. But he has committed another offence. Obviously, his character has not been redeemed by the short sharp shock, and to compel the magistrates to grant him bail in those circumstances would be quite wrong.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing the issue. We are concerned here with the question of bail or remand in custody for a man charged but not yet convicted of an offence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the man has done it, but we are not yet at the stage of having tried the issue. We are considering whether a man should be granted bail pending the decision about his guilt or innocence. It is not a punishment because he has again done what he did previously.

Sir D. Renton

If I may say so—I am not trying to be rude—the hon. Gentleman has stated the obvious. Every time bail is refused, one puts in custody a man who may eventually be found to be innocent. This is one of the features of the matter which we have to face when discussing it. Surely, the right thing to do is to leave it to the discretion of the magistrates. They will have to consider a wide range of cases. From their experience, and from their knowledge of the circumstances of the case before them, they will be able to judge pretty well whether it will be fair, just and necessary to keep a person on remand in custody awaiting trial or whether it will be right to grant bail. To fetter their discretion so that they cannot deal even with the worst type of case coming before them, for instance, the person recently released from a detention centre who has done something wrong again, would be most unfortunate.

No harm would be done if the Home Secretary left the matter open. On the other hand, there will be the occasional case in which harm will be done if he fetters the magistrates' discretion. This is why, even at this late stage, I urge him to think about the matter again.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman

In my view, the Government are right in disagreeing with the Lords Amendment. Everyone agrees that it is proper to grant bail where a prisoner will turn up to stand his trial or where there is no likelihood or little likelihood of his committing another offence during his period of bail. Everyone will agree, also, that there has been considerable criticism of the way in which magistrates have hitherto exercised their discretion with regard to bail. Often, they have taken the word of the police without any proper examination of what the police have said and refused to grant bail. In my view, therefore, the discretion of the magistrates ought to be limited as much as possible on the question of granting bail.

Hon. and learned Members opposite have discussed the matter as though there were a duty to grant bail in all cases. But it is only in the three restricted sets of circumstances covered by subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the Clause that there is the duty to grant bail. There are then the limitations laid down in subsection (5). I was myself about to intervene when my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State rose to direct the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) to the provisions of subsection (5,a). Substantial limitations are provided under subsection (5), so that the magistrates in those cases have a perfect right not to grant bail.

What the Bill does—I myself think that it goes too far—is to provide for considerable discretion in the hands of magistrates regarding the granting of bail and considerable limitation upon the duty to grant bail. I hope that the Clause will be in no way extended, and I urge rejection of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Sharples

I enter the debate with some diffidence, being the only Member without legal qualifications to do so so far. I strongly support what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). Anyone who has visited our prisons recently will have no illusions about the problem facing the Home Secretary in trying to reduce the number of people in custody for one reason or another. Naturally, any measures to that end have our support, but I find the division between the sentence of detention and, in particular, the sentence of borstal training quite illogical. In some ways, I agree with the logic of the case put by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). If one is to exclude any class of people from the discretion of the magistrates, the exclusion should be applied to all young people and not to those who have had only a sentence of detention. However, I am certain that, in drawing the line at the point between the detention centre and borstal training is absolutely wrong in relation to the whole principle of the treatment of juvenile offenders.

As I understand it, in deciding on a sentence of borstal training or detention, the courts take into account not only the seriousness of the offence but the offender's background. Very often, there is little difference between the type of offence which commits a person to a longer period of borstal training, which may be in an open borstal, and the one which commits him to the somewhat more rigorous custody of a detention centre.

In parenthesis, I must say that I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) in his references to the short sharp shock of sentence in a detention centre. Everyone knows that in the modern detention centre those conditions no longer exist in the same form as they did originally. Whether a young person goes to a detention centre or borstal should not necessarily be determined wholly by the seriousness of the offence but by the various considerations relating to his background and so on. The sentence should be that which will do him the greatest good. In drawing the distinctive line, I think for the first time, between the borstal sentence and the detention sentence, the Government are doing a great deal of harm to the whole concept of the treatment of the juvenile offender. Therefore, I urge the Home Secretary, who I know thinks very carefully about these matters, to consider carefully the representations from this side of the House.

Mr. John Lee

I am afraid that my faith in the discretion of magistrates was somewhat shaken recently. Not very long ago I was present at the committal proceedings of a boy of 17 with no previous convictions of any kind who was charged jointly with several slightly older persons of offences which, whilst they were certainly not trivial, were by no means of the most serious kind. At the end of the committal proceedings, application was made for bail for the youngster, and the comment of the chairman of the bench deserves to be repeated. We must remember that these were committal proceedings and nothing to do with the court's ultimate decision about his guilt or innocence. The chairman's comment was: "If these young people get into trouble they should not be allowed bail".

The young man was eventually convicted and sentenced to a short period of detention. In the meantime, the case went to a judge in chambers, who promptly reversed the magistrate's decision on bail. I said "promptly", but because of the difficulty of the vacation and one or two administrative matters the youth spent several weeks in custody before being released for trial, which did not take place for some time.

In the face of that sort of situation, I consider that anything done to limit magistrates' discretion in this respect is to be welcomed. I think that the hon., Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) is right to attack the logic of this. I concede that there may not be very complete logic in a distinction between offences for which the potential sentence is detention on the one hand and prison or borstal on the other, at least as the law is administered at present. But, surely, the whole object of our penal system is to draw more and more of a distinction between the two, to use detention sentences for remedial treatment of young persons who are certainly not far advanced in crime? The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), who said that he thought that it was an abuse of the detention procedure to send persons to detention for serious offences, is quite right.

Mr. Grieve

The point that I was making was not that sending people to detention centres for serious offences was an abuse, but that frequently, instead of being used for novices in crime as they should be, they are used for people for whom numerous other methods of treatment have been tried. Such people often have long criminal experience when they find their way to detention centres which are not therefore the proper method of treatment in such cases.

Mr. Lee

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but surely the answer is more careful counselling of courts and the standardising of sentencing policy to avoid that sort of anomaly? If that were done, I think that the only objections raised by hon. Members opposite would be met. I can understand their feelings, but I do not think that there is much of a gap between the two sides on the matter. I think that, on the whole, this is a move in the right direction, and that the Government are right to resist the Lords Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

There are so many right hon. and learned Gentlemen about that I feel slightly apprehensive, as a mere magistrate, about daring to interfere when they are pontificating about what they think magistrates should do, or what they think magistrates do. But I want to put in a word for the magistrates.

I have noticed with great regret over the past year or two that the Home Office seems to spend a great deal of time criticising courts of summary jurisdiction. If there were time and it were in order, which it is not, I should like to say what the magistrates think about the Home Office and some of its practices. I am very much in favour of accepting the Lords Amendment. I am perfectly prepared to think occasionally that the Home Secretary, his hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Lady, who is not learned—although she draws strength from the Department she serves, which perhaps entitles her to be called "learned"—sometimes do their best to help. But I do not think that it is in the interests of justice to keep on talking as if magistrates did not give a great deal of care and consideration to the cases that come before them. In fact, they do.

An hon. Member made adverse comment about magistrates and their taking information from the police for granted. That is quite untrue, but I have great respect for the police officers who must deal with the people who come before the magistrate. It is a great pity that there are not more magistrates in the House who can knock a bit of common sense into the Front Bench opposite and a lot of other hon. Members who want to pontificate about what we should do and do not do.

One of my right hon. and learned Friends talked about remand centres. If the Government would get busy with letting us have a few more, that would help magistrates to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently.

I resent the Home Office always wanting to chip away the powers of the courts of summary jurisdiction. It should be jolly grateful for the work done by those courts. I should like to know how many people in the Home Office—not only those on the Front Bench opposite—have experience of taking part in magistrates' courts. Of course, there are all sorts of mistakes. I have just put down a Question about a mistake by the Home Office in telling me that a man in prison had not made certain representations, and then writing to me and apologising for having given me the wrong information. I take exception to that, because I do not think that it is right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. It does not appear to me that the hon. Lady's observations are relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward

They are not relevant, but I had a jolly good chance of saying that. If the Front Bench will attack courts of summary jurisdiction as they and other hon. Members have, I shall take the opportunity, whether it is in order or out of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Lady cannot pursue this.

Dame Irene Ward

She is not going to pursue it now, but she was just going to have her say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Lady must observe the ruling of the Chair. What she is saying is out of order.

Dame Irene Ward

All right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have said your bit and I have said mine. All that I can say is that people in the North of England will take note of what I have said and will be very glad that I have stood up for our magistrates' courts, the police, and the advice they genuinely and generously try to offer to the benches, which have a very responsible job to perform. I should like to know—I am sorry that I was not in at the beginning of the debate—how much attention the Home Secretary pays to the Magistrates' Association. I do not think he pays very much attention because he always seems to be in conflict with it.

I have had my say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am looking forward to the next Amendment when I may be able to say a few more things. However, before people come to the House of Commons and talk about how this, that or the other ought to be done by courts of summary jurisdiction, they ought to know a little more about their job than they do, and from what I know about them, I think they know very little.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

I make no apology for intervening in the debate. Some good sense has been talked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) about the Lords Amendment, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who always speaks common sense. I think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth had to say about courts of summary jurisdiction needed saying. There is a perpetual sneer, particularly from the other side of the House, at courts of summary jurisdiction and magistrates. I need not declare an interest because I am not a magistrate. Perhaps that is a great encouragement and source of strength to evil-doers in the district in which I live. However, I am not speaking in this matter with a vested interest.

All through there is a feeling that magistrates must not be given any discretion. But they are given discretion to decide whether a person is guilty and announce the sentence, even to send people to prison, and if they are considered to have that wisdom they ought to be allowed the same discretion in deciding whether a person should be remanded in custody or remanded on bail. I do not think that what was said by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) about what a magistrate said in a certain case is overwhelming. I am not saying that there

are not bad magistrates, or, to put it another way, that there are not magistrates who may make very unfortunate remarks. Judges have also been in the Press for saying similar things.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This is not a Second Reading debate. We are discussing a very limited Amendment from Another place.

Sir D. Glover

I was only replying to what an hon. Member opposite had said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Apparently when he said it he was in order and so I thought that I was entitled to reply to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) who made the remark was marginally out of order, and so it would be wrong for the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) to pursue it.

Sir D. Glover

I do not want to pursue it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have made my point, which is that all wisdom does not reside in or outside magistrates' courts. If one is to get people to volunteer to do these jobs, one has to treat them with respect and realise that they require to be given some discretion. They know far more about an individual case than we can possibly do in this House. Therefore, I hope that we shall support the Lords in the Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 145.

Division No. 487.] AYES [5.34 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Carmichael, Neil Ellis, John
Alldritt, Walter Carter-Jones, Lewis English, Michael
Anderson, Donald Coe, Denis Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Armstrong, Ernest Concannon, J. D. Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Conlan, Bernard Faulds, Andrew
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Finch, Harold
Barnett, Joel Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Baxter, William Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Foley, Maurice
Beaney, Alan Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Ford, Ben
Bessell, Peter Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Forrester, John
Bishop, E. S. Davies, Harold (Leek) Freeson, Reginald
Blackburn, F. Davies, Ifor (Gower) Galpern, Sir Myer
Blenkinsop, Arthur Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Garrett, W. E.
Boardman, H. Dempsey, James Ginsburg, David
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Dewar, Donald Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Boyden, James Doig, Peter Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Driberg, Tom Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Bradley, Tom Dunn, James A. Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Brooks, Edwin Dunnett, Jack Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Buchan, Norman Eadie, Alex Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Harper, Joseph
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Edwards, William (Merioneth) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Haseldine, Norman Maclennan, Robert Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Hazell, Bert McNamara, J. Kevin Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Heffer, Eric S. MacPherson, Malcolm Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Hooson, Emlyn Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Horner, John Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Rose, Paul
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Manuel, Archie Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Mapp, Charles Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Marquand, David Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Howie, W. Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Shaw Arnold (llford, S.)
Hoy, James Mason, Roy Sheldon, Robert
Huckfield, L. Maxwell, Robert Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Mayhew, Christopher Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Millan, Bruce Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Miller, Dr. M. S. Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Hunter, Adam Milne, Edward (Blyth) Slater, Joseph
Hynd, John Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Small, William
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Molloy, William Snow, Julian
Janner, Sir Barnett Moonman, Eric Spriggs, Leslie
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Huit, W.) Moyle, Roland Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Neal, Harold Symonds, J. B.
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Newens, Stan Taverne, Dick
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Thornton, Ernest
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Norwood, Christopher Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Lawson, George Oakes, Gordon Tinn, James
Leadbitter, Ted Ogden, Eric Tomney, Frank
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederlck (Newton) O'Malley, Brian Tuck, Raphael
Lee, John (Reading) Oram, Albert E. Urwin, T. W.
Lestor, Miss Joan Orbach, Maurice Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Oswald, Thomas Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Lipton, Marcus Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Wallace, George
Lomas, Kenneth Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Loughlin, Charles Palmer, Arthur Weitzman, David
Lubbock, Eric Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles wellbeloved, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Pardoe, John Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Park, Trevor Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Parker, John (Dagenham) Winterbottom, R. E.
McBride, Neil Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
MacColl, James Portland, Norman Woof, Robert
Macdonald, A. H. Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
McGuire, Michael Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) Probert, Arthur Mr. Alan Fitch and
Mackie, John Rees, Merlyn Mr. Harold Walker.
Mackintosh, John P. Rhodes, Geoffrey
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Dodds-Parker, Douglas Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Doughty, Charles Jopting, Michael
Awdry, Daniel Drayson, G. B. Kaberry, Sir Donald
Baker, W. H. K. Eden, Sir John Kimball, Marcus
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Kirk, Peter
Berry, Hn. Anthony Emery, Peter Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Biffen, John Errington, Sir Eric Langford-Holt, Sir John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Eyre, Reginald Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Black, Sir Cyril Farr, John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Body, Richard Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Bossom, Sir Clive Fortescue, Tim Loveys, W. H.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Foster, Sir John McAdden, Sir Stephen
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Gibson-Watt, David MacArthur, Ian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Glover, Sir Douglas McMaster, Stanley
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M) Coodhew, Victor Maginnis, John E.
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Grant, Anthony Marten, Nell
Bullus, Sir Erie Grieve, Percy Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Carlisle, Mark Curden, Harold Mawby, Ray
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Channon, H. P. G. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Chichester-Clark, R. Harris, Reader (Heston) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Clegg, Walter Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Miscampbell, Norman
Cooke, Robert Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Monro, Hector
Cordle, John Harvie Anderson, Miss Montgomery, Fergus
Corfield, F. V. Heald, Rt. Hn. sir Lionel Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Costain, A. P. Hill, J. E. B. Murton, Oscar
Craddook, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Crouch, David Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Neave, Airey
Cunningham, Sir Knox Holland, Philip Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Currie, G. B. H. Hordern, Peter Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Dalkeith, Earl of Hornby, Richard Osbom, John (Hallam)
Dance, James Hunt, John Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Smith, John Weatherill, Bernard
Pike, Miss Mervyn Stodart, Anthony Webster, David
Pounder, Rafton Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Summers, Sir Spencer Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater
Pym, Francis Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir peter Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Worsley, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Temple, John M. Wright, Esmond
Ridedale, Julian Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Wylle, N. R.
Robson Brown, Sir William van Straubenzee, W. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Russell, Sir Ronald Walker, Peter (Worcester) Mr. Anthony Royle and
Sharples, Richard Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek Mr. Timothy Kitson.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Ward, Dame Irene