HC Deb 26 July 1967 vol 751 cc800-15

Lords Amendment: No. 31, in page 21, line 18, leave out "subject to the next following subsection".

Miss Bacon

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

It may be convenient if with this we take Lords Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 42 to 49. They are all drafting Amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the House agrees, so be it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 34, in page 21, line 34, at end insert: () On passing a suspended sentence the court shall explain to the offender in ordinary language his liability under the next following section if during the operational period he commits an offence punishable with imprisonment. () Where a court has passed a suspended sentence on any person, and that person is subsequently sentenced td borstal training he shall cease to be liable to be dealt with in respect of the suspended sentence unless the subsequent sentence or any conviction or finding on which it was passed is quashed on appeal.

Miss Bacon

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

This Amendment requires a court on passing a suspended sentence to explain its effect to the offender. There are similar provisions requiring the courts to explain probation orders and orders for conditional discharge, and it would be an improvement if there were also a requirement for the court to explain the effect of a suspended sentence.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 35, in page 21, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 22.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

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

This Amendment deals with a subject on which there is a certain difference of opinion which cuts fairly clearly across both sides of the House. I think that it would be agreed by all concerned that the subject was fairly fully discussed both in Committee and on Report. It is the question of whether suspended sentences in certain carefully circumscribed conditions should be made mandatory.

The idea of suspended sentences commands almost universal support in the House, although the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) expressed a little reservation about them in Committee. There was general agreement that they should be almost universally used when dealing with first offenders, although there was some division as to exactly how that should be expressed, and this is the nub of the matter with which we are now dealing.

It is the Government's view—and to some extent this repeats our discussion on Lords Amendment No. 12—that in certain circumstances only it is reasonable to remove the discretion of the court and to say that the court should suspend the sentence. As I assured the House in Committee, it is not desired to keep people out of prison merely for reasons of administrative convenience. Of course we do not want cluttering up the prisons people who need not be there, but what I attach much greater importance to than any question of administrative convenience is my strong conviction, the strong conviction of the Government, that people should not be sent to prison unnecessarily for short sentences for the first time, because of the bad effect which that has upon them and because it makes it much easier for them to go to prison subsequently. I believe that we will achieve our objective in this direction only if we make the provision mandatory.

Neither side of the House is likely to convince the other, as we have debated this matter now for a substantial time. One view was taken in Committee and the House took the same view on Report, while the Lords, by a not very substantial majority, took a different view. The House will agree that in general the Government have not been reluctant to accept Amendments from the Lords. We have almost a record number of Lords Amendments on the Notice Paper which we are accepting, and some of them were inserted in the Lords rather against our view. However, we were anxious to consider whether we could meet the wishes and views of their Lordships and in several cases we have done so even when our view originally was different. That has not held in this case.

Sir J. Hobson

I am sure that the House is grateful, as I am, to the Home Secretary both for defining the area of disagreement and doing so so shortly and briskly, because we have a lot of work to do this evening.

He is quite right to say that on this Amendment the question of suspended sentences is not in issue. The only issue is whether they are to be an additional voluntary weapon in the hands of the magistrates' or other courts to be used as and when they please, or a weapon which they have to use on a number of occasions. This is the sole issue. It raises once again, as the Home Secretary rightly said, the question how far this House and Pariament will dictate to the courts circumstances in which particular sentences have got to be passed, and how far, on the other hand, as I think most of my hon. Friends think, the matter should be left to the discretion of the magistrates.

The Home Secretary said that a number of magistrates have passed unnecessarily short sentences of imprisonment in the past. The figure which, I think, is usually given is some 5,900. I do not suppose that anybody contends that every one of those sentences or anything like every one of them was wrongly passed. Indeed, I would think that he would be a bold man who would suggest that in the majority of those cases the magistrates had erred in passing sentence of imprisonment. Yet we are now, from this House, going to tell them compulsorily that they, who have seen the persons and heard the circumstances of the cases and considered the whole matter are not to do what they think is right but what we tell them as a general rule of thumb. That really does not seem right to me.

It is estimated that about three-quarters of those cases, which I suppose must be about 4,300 of them, will involve cases where the accused person is liable to a sentence of more than six months, and, therefore, many magistrates, I have not the slightest doubt, will follow the device of simply committing to quarter sessions in order that quarter sessions can pass sentence of six months and one day when the magistrates could have dealt with the case by themselves passing a sentence of six months. That, I think, is highly undesirable. I think that the Lord Chief Justice and the majority of people who have considered this are of the opinion that it is likely to lead to a vast increase of committals by magistrates to quarter sessions simply in order that a sentence of more than six months should be passed when a sentence of less than six months or of six months could very well meet the justice of the case.

Of almost equal importance are the some 1,500-odd cases where the accused is charged with an offence which does not carry a sentence greater than six months. These on many occasions are really very important. There are some really serious offences which carry the maximum sentence of six months—for instance, being in possession of a firearm without a certificate, and, I think, under the Bill, a shotgun. That for a man who has never had a detention sentence before but had several convictions can be a really serious offence. Fraudulently altering or tampering with ballot papers under the election law carries a maximum of six months. If a political party wants to embark on gerrymandering with the ballot boxes it has only to employ some man of straw who cannot go to prison and against whom a fine cannot be enforced if he has got no money, and the penalty will be nil. As has been said, there will be some offences of this nature where a man will know that if he has never had a custodial sentence before he simply cannot go to prison, and may be willing to pay a fine, which is inadequate in the circumstances, or he may be a man of straw to whom a fine means nothing because he knows he cannot pay.

Another offence is abusive behaviour with intent to promote racial hatred. That is dealt with in magistrates' courts, and this can be a very unpleasant offence, using threatening and abusive language, threatening a breach of the peace under the Public Order Act. Hon. Members will remember the charge of the Mosley days when there were clashes between Communists and Fascists in the East End of London. Very important charges may well result from conduct of that sort, if a man knows perfectly well that because he has never ever been inside a prison or a borstal before he can commit that offence without the slightest risk of being sent to prison. It is offences of this nature which people with criminal records do not usually commit but which can have serious public consequences and which have only the maximum of six months and it will in future mean that magistrates either have to fine the man or put him on suspended sentence.

6.15 p.m.

Also the Bill will lead to some rather odd results. For instance, two brothers, perhaps, go out; the 19-year-old will be able to be sent to a detention centre and his elder brother of 21 who has never previously had any custodial sentence will have his sentence automatically suspended and cannot be given any form of custodial treatment.

Another consequence may very well be that magistrates may be tempted in future to say, "We will not put the man on probation but give him a suspended sentence so that we can be jolly certain that the next time he comes before us we can deal with him in the way we think appropriate."

Because what this provision is really doing is to give these potential criminals one extra chance. They are going to have the chance to commit one crime without risk of imprisonment before they can actually be dealt with by a sentence of imprisonment, and this can have quite a serious effect. It may mean that if a man who has been put on probation twice, and been to a detention centre once, comes before the court for the fourth time on a quite serious charge he will have to have his sentence suspended if the maximum is not more than six months. As I say, I fear that one consequence will be that the magistrates will begin sending people to quarter sessions when they could deal with them themselves.

The Magistrates' Association and the Lord Chief Justice both oppose this Clause and would like to see the suspended sentence as a discretionary additional weapon in the hands of magistrates, and not a compulsory form of sentence which they have to use even if they think it is wrong.

Mr. Carlisle

I very much regret that the Home Secretary has decided not to accept this Amendment made to the Bill in the Lords. As he has said, he has accepted many other Amendments made in the Lords, and I regret he has not accepted this one as well.

I believe that as a result of the return to the mandatory provisions of this Clause certain results will accrue. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) has said, it will, I believe, inevitably lead to a far larger number of committals for sentence. It will also, I believe, lead to people, in cases where the court believes that six months is the right sentence, now getting a sentence of nine months. Thirdly, and in some ways most important of all, I believe it will mean that in future local courts will never be able to take into account particular crime waves in their areas where they believe there is need to deal with them with a short period of firmness.

It has been put to me by a stipendiary magistrate that the Bill assumes that there are circumstances in which a person may be sent to prison for a short period for the first time, and yet accepting that it does, it then presumes that we in Parliament should lay down what those circumstances are. This, I believe, is wrong.

I believe that the local bench and local stipendiaries may well be faced from time to time with a local situation—one may, for example, take an outbreak of vandalism in kiosks, which I believe, happened a good deal in Birmingham last year.

The bench took the view that to deal with the local situation required the passing of short, deterrent sentences. It could not do this under this Bill, because it does not come within the exception that we in Parliament have laid down. I do not believe that we should fetter the powers of the courts to use their discretion to impose short sentences or imprisonment when they believe it to be essential. I will not rehearse all the obvious arguments which, as the Home Secretary said, were put by both sides, for and against, in Committee and on Report.

I do not know if the Home Secretary realises it, but a qualified magistrate has the power to send people to prison for 12 months, not on the one charge, but, if a person appears before him on two charges, two consecutive periods of six months' imprisonment can be imposed. That power is also being taken away, and not even a qualified magistrate who believes that up to a year is the right sentence will be able to pass that sentence. He will still have to send the man to quarter sessions for sentence.

Finally I suggest that while we should all try to prevent the proliferation of short sentences, it may also be advisable to remember that for a person who has never been to prison before it has often been said that the first three months is probably the worst and that the short sentence on many people as a first sentence may have an equally reformative effect on them and have the effect of preventing them committing the crime, just as a longer period of imprisonment would.

The Home Secretary knows that of people going to prison for the first time, something like 80 per cent. never return. What we have to avoid is the continuation of the short sentence for the man who has gone back, but that does not mean that there is not a place for a short sentence, as a first prison sentence, on the man who has committed a crime before but not been to prison. I regret the fact that the Home Secretary has decided to put back the mandatory provisions in this Clause.

Mr. Grieve

The Home Secretary moved this Motion to disagree with moderation and courtesy. It is quite true, as he said, that a great bulk of this Bill is a subject of substantial agreement between both sides of the House, and between various points of opinion on either side. It is true that this one point, of whether the discretion of the justices in this matter of sentences should be circumscribed, has caused more controversy than any other Clause in the Bill, except Clause 11, dealing with majority verdicts from jurors.

I agree with the Home Secretary that almost everything that could be said on either side about this has already been said, in Committee, on Second Reading and in another place. I only rise, having spoken about this twice already, in Committee and on Second Reading, to make one final plea to the Home Secretary to reconsider the Government's attitude to this. I profoundly believe that it is wrong, for the reasons outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Mem- ber for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), to circumscribe the powers of the magistrates in this instance. We have already experience of the various ways in which the sentencing powers of the courts have been circumscribed. They were circumscribed, for reasons which appeared good and sound, in the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, in Section 3, under the powers of the courts to deal with young people under 21, where it was provided that they must have either sentences of less than six months or more then three years.

There have been occasions when that fetter on the power of the court has resulted in the court having to pass a sentence which it has not thought to be the right one in the circumstances. Here the fetter on the discretion of the court is universal in the case of people likely to be sent to prison for the first time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn said, how are the justices courts to deal with waves of a particular crime, such as the telephone kiosks, and, such as frequently happens now, of minor breaking and enterings into stores? The only possible way that they can deal with this will be if the other conditions are fulfilled, to send the offender to quarter sessions for sentence. This must result in a great increase in the work of quarter sessions. It cannot fail to do so. It will inevitably result in men receiving greater sentences than they would otherwise receive. The likelihood is that an offender for whom prison is clearly indicated, instead of getting the six months from the justices, will get eight or nine at quarter sessions.

If the justices are appointed to do justice because it is thought that they can exercise judgment, then surely it is for Parliament to leave them broadly to exercise that judgment in the cases where they think it right. I cannot help thinking, despite the protestations of the Home Secretary, that to some extent, principle is being sacrificed to the convenience of trying to empty the prisons.

As the Lord Chief Justice said in another place, it is not as though the magistrates were sending large numbers of people to prison. It is not so. The figures quoted vary. For instance for 1964, of 1,254,227 persons dealt with by the magistrates, only 2 per cent. went to prison. That puts this matter, in my submission, in perspective. It would be wrong to circumscribe the discretion of the courts in this way, and I make an urgent 59th minute appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider the attitude of the Government.

Dame Irene Ward

Once again it is for an ordinary magistrate to support the case being put forward by my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends, and to make a further plea to the Home Secretary to reconsider the decision that he is taking. I was intensely irritated when the right hon. Gentleman took great credit upon himself for having accepted some of the Lords Amendments. The reason why they had to be accepted was because such a very bad Bill was sent by the Home Secretary to another place—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are discussing only this one Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward

If I can just have a second, I will put the thing into its proper perspective. We have to have some perspective about this kind of argument, when one is dealing with magistrates, who never seem to have a chance to express their views. If the Home Secretary could say on the Front Bench, that he was pleased with what had happened, surely I am entitled to say I am not pleased with what had happened.

I just want to say that the Home Secretary does not pay nearly sufficient attention to the people like the Magistrates' Association and the Lord Chief Justice who, after all, have the responsibility and have a much greater knowledge of matters of administration by courts of summary jurisdiction than the Home Secretary. It is most important that he should change his mind. Some very good reasons have been put forward from this side of the House for doing so.

The magistrates have very great experience in handling these matters. Certainly the Magistrates' Association has extremely valuable advice from courts of summary jurisdiction all over the country. If the Lord Chief Justice puts up his view against the Home Secretary I know that magistrates up and down the country are much more likely to accept the views of the Lord Chief Justice than those of the Home Secretary.

I make this observation, because once again I want to enter my protest against the fact that all the Home Department thinks that it has to do is to tell magistrates how to exercise justice. The magistrates have a great deal more experience in this matter because they know the human side involved in dealing with these problems.

If the Home Secretary would like any help from me as to how I think problems of people who come before the courts could be dealt with, I could give him a great deal more information than appears to be inside the Home Office. He is extremely badly advised.

6.30 p.m.

I hope that the Home Secretary and his colleagues will accept that magistrates take a pretty dim view of having a matter of this kind removed from their discretion. It is intolerable. I have not great hopes of the right hon. Gentleman because he does not seem to be interested in people like the Magistrates' Association, the Lord Chief Justice or the Lords—all those people who have knowledge of these affairs—or in the advice which they tender. If I remain in this place for some time to come, when things go wrong, as they surely will, I shall enjoy trying to get a Question on the Order Paper pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman how monstrous it is to try to interfere in the courts which, throughout the ages, have been given wide discretion in administering justice fairly and humanely.

This is an attack on the humanity of the courts of summary jurisdiction. There are many human aspects to which the Home Secretary might turn his mind which do not seem to interest him at all. All that he is interested in is attacking the magistrates so that when anything goes wrong he can say that it is their fault. Things would go very much better if the right hon. Gentleman had a better appreciation of the problems which come before the courts of summary jurisdiction. I have great pleasure in hoping that the Amendment will be accepted by the Home Secretary, although I have not very much hope that it will be.

Mr. Hogg

I do not propose to prolong the debate, although if I thought that I could persuade the Home Secretary to change his mind I would prolong it for a considerable time.

The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that he was not being pig-headed about this matter. I think that he is. His mistake is not a legal or technical mistake but a political mistake. The reasons which have led a great deal of informed opinion to be against him were very well stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that when the Division bells ring, there having been not many present in the Chamber, the "blancmange" to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) referred earlier in the week will come rolling in. The voice of reason will be lost behind this amorphous but highly reliable body, and the right hon. Gentleman will get a reputation for being a great reforming Home Secretary who stood up to the Tories and reactionary elements.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, all that is nonsense because the truth is—this is the political fact—that whatever the big battalions may do when the time comes the weight of informed opinion is in favour of the Lords on this Amendment and against the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know of any organised body of informed opinion which does not take that view. Of course, they may be wrong and the Home Secretary may be right. But he has to think of a much better reason than his majority and his previous speeches, which most of us have read and all the informed bodies of opinion have read, to make us think so. In this instance he is acting against the body of informed opinion, and politically he is making a mistake in doing so.

The Home Secretary can dogmatise about sentencing prisoners. Many people do so, and usually the extent of their dogmatism is in inverse proportion to their knowledge of the subject. As yet this matter is not a science but only an art which is acquired by experience, reflection and discussion with other people with similar experiences. I think that a

not bad rule of thumb would be found in the general proposition that a mandatory sentence or mandatory fetter of sentencing, which is what this is, is almost always productive of injustice.

I share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for lay magistrates. If I were to be tried for an offence, I am not sure that I would not prefer a bench of lay magistrates to a "beak". They do a great deal of justice and, like other tribunals, they do some injustice, but I think that they form a very wise tribunal. Of course they make mistakes. That is why we have courts of appeal. Parliament prescribes limits to their jurisdiction. They make mistakes in sending people to prison when they should not and in not sending people to prison when they should. I think that I have known both to happen. One cannot count the latter statistic because in the nature of events one cannot measure it and, therefore, according to general sociological principles, what cannot be measured does not exist, although one may know perfectly well that it does. But if we are to run a system of this kind, it is far better to trust them than not to trust them because, in my experience, they are much more often right than wrong and are more likely to be right in viewing the circumstances of a particular case than Parliament is likely to be right in laying down rather dogmatic rules of thumb.

What the Home Secretary will do with his big battalions is to override informed opinion of quite different types of political thought among the magistrates, the police and the more technically qualified judiciary and substitute his own hunch, not based on a lifetime of knowledge of this matter, but supported by a Parliamentary majority which largely has not heard the debate. I think that he is wrong, and I shall oppose his Motion.

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

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 143.

Division No. 488.] AYES (6.39 p.m.
Albu, Austen Anderson, Donald Ashley, Jack
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Archer, Peter Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Alldritt, Walter Armstrong, Ernest Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alica
Barnett, Joel Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Newens, Stan
Baxter, William Haseldine, Norman Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Beaney, Alan Hazelt, Bert Norwood, Christopher
Bishop, E. S. Heffer, Eric S. Oakes, Gordon
Blackburn, F. Henig, Stanley Ogden, Eric
Blenkinsop, Arthur Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret O'Maltey, Brian
Boardman, H. Horner, John Oram, Albert E.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Orbach, Maurice
Boyden, James Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Oswald, Thomas
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Howie, W. Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Bradley, Tom Hoy, James Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Brooks, Edwin Huckfield, L. Paget, R. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Palmer, Arthur
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Park, Trevor
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hunter, Adam Parker, John (Dagenham)
Carmichael, Neil Hynd, John Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Pavitt, Laurence
Coe, Denis Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Pentland, Norman
Coleman, Donald Janner, Sir Barnett Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Concannon, J. D. Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Conlan, Bernard Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Probert, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rees, Merlyn
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Judd, Frank Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Kelley, Richard Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lawson, George Rose, Paul
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Leadbitter, Ted Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dempsey, James Lee, John (Reading) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Dewar, Donald Lestor, Miss Joan Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Dickens, James Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Sheldon, Robert
Doig, Peter Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Driberg, Tom Lipton, Marcus Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Dunn, James A, Lomas, Kenneth Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dunnett, Jack Loughlin, Charles Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dutwich)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Eadie, Alex Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Slater, Joseph
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Small, William
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McBride, Nell Spriggs, Leslie
Ellis, John McCann, John Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
English, Michael MacColl, James Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Ennals, David McGuire, Michael Symonds, J. B.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mackie, John Taverne, Dick
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Mackintosh, John P. Thornton, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew Maohennan, Robert Tinn, James
Fernyhough, E. McNamara, J. Kevin Tuck, Raphael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) MacPherson, Malcolm Urwin, T. W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Foley, Maurice Mahon, Simon (Bootle)) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ford, Ben Manuel, Archie Wallace, George
Forrester, John Mapp, Charles Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fowler, Gerry Marquand, David Wellbeloved, James
Freeson, Reginald Mason, Roy Whitaker, Ben
Calpern, Sir Myer Maxwell, Robert Whitlock, William
Garrett, W. E. Mayhew, Christopher Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Mendelson, J. J. Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Gourlay, Harry Mlllan, Bruce Winterbottom, R. E.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Miller, Dr. M. S. Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Gregory, Arnold Molloy, William Woof, Robert
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Moorman, Erie
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Mr. Walter Harrison.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus,N&M) Dalkeith, Earl of
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Buck, Antony (Colchester) Dance, James
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Bullus, Sir Erie Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Awdry, Daniel Carlisle, Mark Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Baker, W. H. K. Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Channon, H. P. G. Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Berry, Hn. Anthony Chichester-Clark, R. Drayson, G. B.
Bessell, Peter Clegg, Walter Eden, Sir John
Biffen, John Cooke, Robert Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Errington, Sir Eric
Black, Sir Cyril Corfield, F. V. Farr, John
Body, Richard Costain, A. P. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Bossom, Sir Clive Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Fortescue, Tim
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Crouch, David Foster, Sir John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Cunningham, Sir Knox Gibson-Watt, David
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Currie, G. B. H. Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Clover, Sir Douglas Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Goodhew, Victor Loveys, W. H. Robson Brown, Sir William
Grant, Anthony Lubbock, Eric Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Grieve, Percy McAdden, Sir Stephen Royle, Anthony
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J, MacArthur, Ian Russell, Sir Ronald
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) Sharpies, Richard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Harris, Reader (Heston) McMaster, Stanley Smith, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Maginnis, John E. Stodart, Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Marten, Neil Summers, Sir Spencer
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Maudlmg, Rt. Hn. Reginald Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hastings, Stephen Mawby, Ray Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hill, J. E. B. Mills, Peter (Torrington) Temple, John M.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Mills, stratton (Belfast, N.) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Miscampbell, Norman Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Holland, Philip Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Hooson, Emlyn Monro, Hector van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hordern, Peter Montgomery, Fergus Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Homby, Richard Mott-Radolyffe, Sir Charles Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Hunt, John Murton, Oscar Ward, Dame Irene
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Neave, Airey Webster, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Nicholls, Sir Harmar Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Osborn, John (Hallam) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Jopling, Michael Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kaberry, Sir Donald Pardoe, John Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kimball, Marcus Pearson, Sir Frank (Ciltheree) Worsley, Marcus
Kirk, Peter Pike, Mies Mervyn Wylie, N. R.
Kitson, Timothy Pounder, Rafton Younger, Hn. George
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Langford-Holt, Sir John Pym, Francis TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Amendments made to the words so restored in the Bill: In page 21, line 36, leave out 'for an' and insert 'in respect of one'.

In page 22, line 13, after 'of', insert 'corrective training'.

In line 27, leave out subsection (6).

In line 29, leave out 'so made' and insert: 'made by the Secretary of State under this section'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Consequential Amendment made: In page 114, line 27, after 'words', insert 'thirty or'.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.