HC Deb 23 October 1968 vol 770 cc1299-331

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Speaker

I have not selected the three Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) and his hon. Friends, but they will be able to express the point of view expressed in these Amendments in the debate.

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page I, line 5, at beginning insert: Subject to subsection (1A) below,".

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)

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

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that we take, at the same time, Amendments No. 2, 3, and 4, 9 to 21, and 23.

The Attorney-General

When I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill, which, among other things, abolishes ex officio justices, I ventured to explain that the principles on which the proposals in the Bill were based were, first, that the lay bench should include men and women of integrity and intelligence drawn, so far as practicable, from all sections of the community. The other principle which I emphasised was that cases coming before magistrates' courts should not be tried by a single lay justice.

Since the Bill, including the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London among the ex officio justices who should be abolished, left this House, the Amendments which we are debating were carried in another place with the approval of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and of the Government because, in their view, they do no violence to the basic principles of the Bill. On the contrary, I shall seek to show that they achieve the substance of the Bill's intentions.

When the Bill was debated here, there was, with the exception, I think, of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck), general praise among the lawyers on the Government, Conservative and Liberal benches of the high standards of justice administered in the City of London magisterial courts. I do not think that there was any criticism of its quality. Their past record compares favourably with that of any lay bench in the country, whether the test be that of successful appeals from their decisions or any other.

It was also pointed out in the debates here, and it is the case, that the aldermen of the City of London differ from the local government ex officio magistrates in a number of very important respects which are relevant to their suitability to be justices of the peace.

First, they are selected with a view to their suitability as magistrates. Whatever system of appointment may be devised for the City of London, there appears to be little doubt that the aldermen would almost certainly find themselves among those appointed justices of the peace by reason of their qualifications and character. The City authorities have given the Lord Chancellor an assurance that the overriding consideration in selecting a person to be an alderman will be that he or she is particularly well qualified to serve as a magistrate.

Secondly, appointment as an alderman is not limited in time. Other local government ex officio justices—for example, the mayors and chairmen of county and district councils—often serve for only one year and in no case can they hold office for long without having to be reelected. The City aldermen normally hold office for life and, therefore, they are able to serve for many years as magistrates until they reach the compulsory retiring age.

The aldermen receive full training before they are allowed to sit as magistrates. They sit regularly, and their record of attendance shows a higher average than for lay justices in the rest of the country. But, in spite of these considerations, the Government took the view that a City bench consisting of one alderman sitting alone was unsatisfactory and did not represent a fair cross-section of the community. No woman has ever sat on the City bench. In the event, a court of decision consisting of one lay magistrate sitting alone is not thought to be as satisfactory a court as a court where two or more justices are able to consult together, particularly on the difficult problem of what the sentence or treatment of the offender should be.

The Bill has been discussed and considered at length since it left this House and, in my submission, the compromise, which it undoubtedly is, contained in the Amendments remedies the defects against which the provisions of the Bill were directed and fully achieves the main purposes of the Bill while preserving the best features of the present arrangements. Under the Bill as amended in another place, the City magistrates will no longer be able to sit alone, as they do now, but must sit in benches of at least two justices and not more than seven, as do lay justices throughout the rest of England and Wales.

The Lord Chancellor will appoint justices for the City of London in the same way as he does in the rest of England and Wales. Those whom he will so appoint will outnumber the aldermen by at least two to one and, possibly, by more. The City bench will thus no longer be the perquisite of the aldermen. They will be, indeed, in the minority.

The method in which the bench will work is set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule A, in Lords Amendment No. 10: The persons holding office as justice of the peace for the City of London shall constitute a single body of justices, without distinction between those holding office by virtue of the charter and those appointed by the commission of the peace, and the powers and jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor and aldermen as justices by virtue of the charter shall be the same in all respects as those of justices appointed by the commission. These arrangements, therefore, will ensure that the City bench is composed of persons representing a cross-section of the community living and working in the City of London. It will include also a reasonable number of women.

Aldermen will be subject to the same age limits and conditions regarding the supplemental list as their fellow justices. If an alderman should misbehave or consistently neglect his duties he can be prevented from acting as a magistrate by the Lord Chancellor, who can exer- cise in regard to him his powers to make an exclusion order under Section 4 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1906.

The justices who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor will be able to preside over the courts in the City of London. Although the Lord Mayor will be chairman of the whole bench, he will, of course, be able to preside only on the occasions when he is present. [Laughter.] That if I may say so, is a flashing statement of the obvious. Nevertheless, it may be worth stating. The Lord Mayor will preside when he is there, but there will have to be at least 12 courts a week and probably more. When the Lord Mayor is not sitting, one of the deputy-chairmen will preside. The number of aldermen who may become deputy-chairmen ex officio is limited to eight, which will probably be not more than one-third of the total number of deputy-chairmen required.

There was at one stage a proposal in another place that all the aldermen should be deputy-chairmen, but that was rejected, partly because it would be no great encouragement for an ordinary lay justice to become a justice of the peace in the City of London. Therefore, this compromise has been reached whereby only about one-third of those who become deputy-chairmen will be aldermen.

Accordingly, I submit that this compromise represents a satisfactory settlement of what had become a somewhat unhappy controversy. It does no violence to the main purposes of the Bill and it takes advantage of the best aspects of the present arrangements. I therefore commend to the House the Amendments which embody the compromise. Unhappily, I am not able to be in the House from 4.30 for a time, and I hope that I may be excused for what, I trust, will be only a short absence.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull)

I should like to congratulate the Attorney-General upon accepting the Lords Amendments in regard to the constitution of the bench in the City. To most of us, I believe—and I think that I speak for most of my hon. Friends on this side—it appears to be a reasonable and proper compromise. I know that the Attorney-General will not mind if I say that I welcome it rather in the spirit of the words in the Scriptures that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth

The Attorney-General

I admit to no conversion to the hon. and learned Gentleman's very restricted view on this matter when we were discussing it earlier.

Mr. Grieve

I could not for one moment concede that my views were restricted. I took the view then, and I expressed it on Second Reading that in putting forward a scheme which taken over the length and breadth of the country, had many merits and advantages, which we on this side conceded, the Government, in trying to force the administration of justice in the City into this mould, were, nevertheless, trying to force it into a procrustean bed and were doing so with more regard to a doctrinaire ideology than to the merits and necessities of the case.

I rise this afternoon, however, to welcome something and, therefore, I do not wish to go over old ground and to stir up old controversies [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. and learned Member already has."] I merely answered the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This compromise has the great merit that it recognises the fact that the administration of justice in the City has been second to none. As the Attorney-General himself said, the record of the City bench, for instance, in the matter of appeals shows this. Indeed, this was likely because, as we all know, the aldermen in the City underwent considerable training in their duties for serving on the City bench.

I recognise the force of the case for doing away with ex-offico magistrates in the rest of the country. That case did not apply to the City of London, where the administration of justice was extremely good. The compromise in the form of the Amendments from the House of Lords recognises that the City is a very special case in the administration of justice. I therefore welcome it wholeheartedly and hope that the House will do the same.

Mr. Christopher Price (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I would like to oppose the Amendments with all the steam that I can muster. When considering them we should remember something of the history. The Government were defeated in the Lords, which is not an uncommon occurrence these days, on this issue in Committee. That was the culmination of a sustained campaign in The Times by the City of London to defend what I consider to be very narrow interests indeed. The House of Lords felt it had a right to back up these interests, and it did so by forcing upon the Government this compromise.

I am at a loss to understand why this compromise was made at all. I suspect that it was made because, at the time, the Government were particularly anxious to mollify the House of Lords because they hoped to get some agreed reform of that House. Whatever the truth of that, it is not true any more. Hope of that type of agreed reform has very much passed away.

Just as the Lords, in speech after speech, said that it was their duty to defend the interests of the City of London, I think that it is the duty of the House of Commons as a whole to defend the Justices of the Peace Bill which this House put through all its stages and sent to the House of Lords.

I feel this particularly strongly because, although I am a Member of Parliament for the City of Birmingham, and people may ask what interest have I in the City of London magistrates, we in Birmingham also have some pride in our municipality. We, too, have a Lord Mayor, and we have had some very distinguished Lord Mayors who have been Prime Ministers and also have been ex officio magistrates. Many of them have been more distinguished than any of the aldermen of the City of London, very many of whom, to us in the City of Birmingham, are faceless men.

We have had some famous Lord Mayors in Birmingham. If the Lord Mayor of Birmingham is to be deprived of his status as a justice of the peace, why should we in the House of Commons agree to give that privilege to the aldermen of the City of London simply because they appeared to have open access over a period of months to the correspondence columns in The Times to raise a campaign of that sort?

I would like to remind the Attorney-General of his words in this House on 10th April, when he said that it was a matter of principle: The principal object of this part of the Bill"— he said— is to improve the system by which persons become J.P.s in England and Wales. Most of the Bill's provisions are based on the principle that magistrates' courts should generally be composed of lay J.P.s who are men and women of integrity and intelligence, drawn, so far is practicable, from all sections of the community and who have been specially selected to be J.P.S."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 1444.] Of the magistrates who would, if we accept these Lords Amendments become ex officio magistrates and justices of the peace, one could not possibly say by any stretch of the imagination that they would be drawn so far as is practicable from all sections of the community. That simply would not be true and in advising us to accept the Lords Amendment the Attorney-General is going back on the speech—every time I read it I am more and more convinced by it—which he made in the House in rejecting this proposal on 10th April. It is a speech I commend to every hon. Member, because I think that it bears reading again and again.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

Read it.

Mr. Price

Perhaps I may come to one or two specific points.

Why, under this compromise, as he calls it, should the Lord Mayor of London always be the chairman of the City justices? The Attorney-General has said of justices that it would not be fair to appoint lay justices if they had no hope of rising to the rank of deputy chairman. Surely that applies a fortiori to the chance of rising to the rank of chairman?

I very much hope that the Lord Chancellor will find some very eminent people indeed who, perhaps, have not time to indulge in some of the ceremonial activities in which aldermen in the City indulge, but who want to be lay justices. I hope that he will find some very eminent people to be lay justices in the City. What we are saying is that, however eminent they are, they can never rise to be chairman of the City justices. That is absolutely wrong, and is another reason why we should reject these Amendments.

Why should City justices be ex officio as of right, eight deputy chairmen? I would remind the Attorney-General that even the Lord Chancellor, who fathered this compromise, if anyone did, said in the House of Lords: I am not sure that eight ought not to be six: eight will give them a little more than perhaps their fair proportion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 23rd May, 1968; Vol. 292, c. 849.] Even the Lord Chancellor has admitted that eight is too many, and yet we are told that this is a reasonable compromise we ought to accept. I do not believe it. We ought not to accept it, but should turn these Amendments down, because every single argument that the Attorney-General has put forward is equally an argument for making them appointed justices, and not ex officio justices. If they are men of such outstanding, admirable integrity, such legal judgment, then they will be absolutely clear and obvious people for appointment. It seems to me it would be far more just, far more proper, to put on the Statute Book a piece of legislation which has the quite clear principle that we have justices who are appointed and not ex officio and will allow all those aldermen of the City of London who are qualified to be magistrates to have their chance of being appointed lay magistrates.

I see no reason at all for succumbing to this pressure and accepting these Amendments. The Government stand up to the T.U.C. they stand up to the A.E.F.; they stand up to pressure groups, particularly on the Left, all over the country. The only pressure group they seem unable to stand up to is the sustained campaign by the City of London. It is a disgrace and we ought to oppose it.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

As a London Member I can well sympathise with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) that Birmingham should have lost completely what London has in part saved, and I understand his feelings in that part of his argument. Indeed, I would go further, because I am one of those who took the view that it was quite unnecessary over the country as a whole to sever the traditional connection between magistracy and the heads of local authorities. It is a pity that this should have fallen victim to the somewhat dogmatic view of the Lord Chancellor in this matter.

As a London Member I am glad that a concession is being made to the centuries-old tradition of the City of London in this respect. This is a very vivid illustration of the advantages of the existence of another place, that a matter of this sort can be there discussed and, as the Attorney-General quite rightly said, a compromise between opposing views can be worked out there.

I see no reason whatever for any change at all in the arrangement for the administration of justice in the City of London. I do not want to weary the House by repeating all the figures, but the number of appeals, for example, shows that justice has been efficiently, fairly and economically administered under the old system. If it lay with me I should follow the advice of Lord Melbourne and say, "Why not leave it alone?".

4.30 p.m.

Although the Attorney-General is now giving a vivid illustration of the truth of his proposition—I see that he has come back. I was about to say that he was demonstrating the truth of his profound proposition that the Lord Mayor cannot preside when he is absent. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having been prepared to accept this compromise, which will work towards the efficiency of the administration of justice.

It is a good thing that the long tradition of the administration of justice being connected with the Lord Mayor and aldermen in the City should continue. I am not sufficient of a traditionalist to advocate that if it is shown to be inefficient, but as it has not been shown to be inefficient, but, on the contrary, has been shown to be efficient, in my view it is a good thing that it should continue in some shape or form.

I accept this as a compromise which enables an old tradition to go on. Had the Attorney-General not now demonstrated the truth of his proposition by finally departing, I would say that he, of all men, should know that there is sometimes value in the preservation of traditional ways and offices, for he is himself the holder of such a traditional office in a Royal borough, his holding of which gives great pleasure to that borough. I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General welcomes the compromise and that the Solicitor-General, with his Scottish determination, will hang on to it and not allow himself to be bullied out of it by his hon. Friends.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Bolton, West)

Every hon. Member who has spoken, including the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), has described this as a compromise. I suggest that it is nothing of the sort. It is a straightforward surrender to the forces of tradition. The speech of the right hon. Member clearly indicates that. The only compromise about the position is the extremely compromising situation in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General finds himself this afternoon. He has cogently and lucidly argued against a separate system of justices for London and against a separate one of the ex officio justices. He has led us through the Lobbies and in Committee.

In another place, when the subject came up in Committee, the Government maintained their position. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, they were overwhelmingly defeated because a lot of faces were seen there who are rarely seen there. An arrangement was, therefore, arrived at between both sides in the other place.

My right hon. and learned Friend has tried to foist that agreement on us today. I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price), namely, that this House will not be treated in this way. We, the elected House, had made a decision in this matter. We now have a non-representative, non-elected body coming to the aid and succour of another non-representative, non-elected body. The arrangements made in this so-called compromise are bad for justice in themselves. They will provide the worst of all worlds.

For example, eight deputy chairmen who are aldermen will be appointed. If the arithmetic of my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, and the city aldermen are to be outnumbered by two to one, it means that there will be 24 deputy chairmen in one court. Was ever any chairman or Lord Mayor so assisted?

How will it work? We do not know yet. In respect of juvenile courts or domestic courts, the argument in this House previously was that the very constitution of City justices precluded domestic or juvenile courts being held. Will one of the deputy chairmen, because he is an alderman with an office unrelated to justice itself, sit as chairman of a domestic court or a juvenile court?

I hope that the House will reject what the Lords are trying to do. The Bill has been uncontentious except for this item. It is a matter of principle that throughout England and Wales there should be no ex-officio justices. Another place has dared to interfere with that principle, and has sent the Bill back with the necessary Amendments. My right hon. and learned Friend now has the very unpleasant task of trying to persuade the House to accept the arrangement.

I end with a quotation from an editorial in The Guardian of 25th May, which concludes: The point at issue is whether or not every City alderman should have an automatic and inalien right, because of election to one office, to perform judicial duties which are unrelated to it. To think that he should is a strange attitude of mind in a democracy in the twentieth century. And how does the Government expect ordinary people to accept painful industrial changes when such painless change at the top is apparently too much? The Commons ought to reject Lord Gardiner's happy compromise out of hand. I hope that the House will do just that.

Sir D. Glover

It is not often that I rise to support the Attorney-General, however learned he may be, and perhaps it is a good thing that at this moment he is not here. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price)—who is now leaving the Chamber and is to be another absentee chairman—will come back I will tell him that his speech, far from destroying the case made by his right hon. and learned Friend showed that if he had his way he would prefer the Bill never to have reached the Statute Book.

The hon. Member's main argument was that he disapproved of the Amendment made in another place which would leave intact some of the traditional basis of the City of London, principally because that tradition would not also remain with the chief citizen of the great City of Birmingham.

I have a great deal of sympathy with him on that point. I was somewhat critical when the Bill was first debated, because I thought that it was one of those perfect examples of doing something for the sake of doing something and then finding that what is being done, instead of creating an improvement, will make the position even worse.

It is incredible that the chief citizens of our ancient boroughs and county boroughs who have received this ex-officio appointment should be considered by the Government as not suitable to preside over a bench of magistrates when the people of their boroughs have been prepared to accept them as their chief citizens.

Mr. Christopher Price

I was at no time arguing for ex-officio magisterial status for the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, simply because practically every Lord Mayor of Birmingham has already been a justice of the peace, appointed on his merits before attaining the office of Lord Mayor.

Sir D. Glover

Which shows that a good deal of the purpose of the Bill was not necessary.

We had a system which was working very well in the City of London, under which certain persons held magisterial office because of another appointment. It had been shown by the figures that under that system the City bench worked at least as satisfactorily as any other bench. I do not represent a London constituency, and I have no axe to grind for London. I represent a Lancastrian constituency, and we have not even a Lord Mayor who has been disfranchised, because, unfortunately, my constituency has not a Lord Mayor within its boundaries.

I dislike getting rid of a system which is working well just for the sake of getting rid of it and because people say that it is traditional. If anything happened in the City of London which could be criticised, I would be the first to complain about the inefficient working of the system of justice. But no one can say that.

In this country, we have worked our affairs with good humour, common sense and compromise. In this case, I think that it was right for the Lord Chancellor to accept the compromise in the other place and for the Attorney-General to put it before us today. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be carried away by too much ideological nonsense. All that they are asked to do is to allow tradition to continue, with large safeguards now built into it by the Lord Chancellor, keeping a bit of the colour that we all treasure and allowing a system which, over the years, has been proved to work satisfactorily to continue into the future.

When hon. Gentlemen opposite have had their bit of fun, I think that they will support the Attorney-General on this Amendment. At least, I hope that they will, because it is essential.

Mr. John Ellis (Bristol, North-West)

I hope that no one will think that I am entering into the debate with a sense of fun and that, after it is all over, if we make a wrong decision, we shall regard it as so much water under the bridge. This is a very important matter, and I shall oppose the Lords Amendment.

There have been various arguments advanced today, notably from this side of the House, and I shall not attempt to go over all of them. But some comments have been made which should be taken up.

One is the argument that we should leave matters as they are because these magistrates, as one hon. Member said, are doing a good job on the whole. When we think of the administration of justice, I hope that we shall strive for as near perfection as we can. The point that they are doing a fairly good job on the whole is no argument.

For a short period of my life before leaving the area, I was a justice of the peace. My right hon. and learned Friend made great play of the fact that aldermen of the City of London would be required to go through exactly the same mechanism as everyone else and that they would be required to attend training courses. Comparatively recently, it was decided that such courses were necessary. In other words, it is nonsense for anyone to say that justice has been served in the best possible way by the traditional system in the City of London and elsewhere.

It was recognised that people being appointed to the bench under the old procedure, either as City of London magistrates or as lay magistrates elsewhere, needed training. It was for that reason that after a good deal of pressure that a system of training was established. It was felt to be necessary if a man was to be a good justice of the peace.

However, this is only one aspect of the present selection procedure. Before people deemed to be suitable are given extra training, the theory is that the Lord Chancellor has an advisory body which goes through the list of suggested names. It is not known to the general public who the people are who compose this body. They may have served for many years on the bench. They may know something of the law. But before the point is reached of selecting magistrates and training them, each person's qualifications are examined.

Another flaw in the argument is that local councillors, elected to do a different job altogether, are the people who decide who should be appointed aldermen, following which the aldermen automatically become justices of the peace. That will remain the position if the Lords Amendment is accepted.

4.45 p.m.

Sir D. Glover

The point which the hon. Gentleman is making gives cause for a good deal of disturbance. How are these people selected by the Lord Chancellor? Are they elected? Who are they? It is almost a secret court. Hardly anyone knows who they are. What, for example, are their qualifications compared with those of the average alderman?

Mr. Ellis

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see the warning look in your eye, and it may be that the question of how we get justices of the peace is one which we could debate on another occasion. I know that you will rule me out of order if I pursue it now.

The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) questions whether the people selected by the Lord Chancellor are any good. In reply, I say that it is generally understood that the Lord Chancellor selects the people who examine the qualifications of would-be magistrates because they have experience in these matters. Whether that is the best way for him to get advice is open to doubt, but I am sure that it has some merit. The Lord Chancellor has to do the job, and it may be that he could draw on greater expertise if he went elsewhere for advice, but it cannot be denied that the persons who perform this function make up a specialist body—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Ellis

It is a body which has an important rôle to play in the selection of justices of the peace, but its work does not apply to aldermen of the City of London.

I hope that the House will treat this matter seriously, because I am sure that we all want justice not only to be done but to be seen to be done. It is a great honour to be appointed a justice of the peace, because it is known that such persons are selected from all walks of life because they are people of integrity. Those are important qualifications. I doubt whether aldermen of the City of London come from all walks of life, but that is just a small point that I put in for the sake of argument.

There is great feeling about this, and it is important to demonstrate that justices of the peace are selected for their capabilities and their sense of integrity. If there is any hint of jobbery, snobbery, fobbery, or tradition associated with the post, the whole concept of justice will be lost. I hope that the Lords Amendment will be rejected by an overwhelming vote.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)

The House is talking about my constituency, as indeed it was on the recent Ten-Minute Rule Bill. I have never had any connection with the Corporation of the City of London, and when this Measure and this issue first appeared I felt, without thinking about it, very much as hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed themselves this afternoon. But on inquiry—[Interruption.] I am not ashamed to inquire. On inquiry, I was converted.

The hors. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) expressed many of the misconceptions which have bedevilled this issue. He began by saying that it was not sufficient that the aldermen should do quite a good job. They do not do quite a good job; they do a job which, statistically, cannot be bettered—in 1967 there were only six successful appeals out of 19,000 cases. Can that, in this imperfect vale of tears, be bettered?

The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West also mentioned training. The aldermen of the City of London have for many years, before other justice in this country were trained at all, been required to undergo a course of training which, even now, is more rigorous than the Government have proposed for other justices.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the measure of success of justice depends on the number of appeals that are allowed? If so, we can imagine, and, indeed, we could mention, many nations where no appeals succeed, but we reckon it to be bad justice.

Mr. Smith

Much as I should like to enlarge on world affairs in general, I feel that we must limit ourselves to justices of the peace and not look into the perfection or otherwise of judges who deal with appeals.

The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West also asked "Who are these aldermen?". Well, who are these turtle-fed plutocrats? The Lord Mayor is an architect. Two aldermen are lawyers. One is a solicitor. [AN HON. MEMBER: "How many live in the City?"] About the same proportion of aldermen live in the City of London as the proportion of the people who appear before them for justice. Another alderman is an accountant. There is also a textile agent, a builder, and a grocer who started from scratch. They come from all walks of life, but some have demonstrated that they can get out of a walking pace. Another alderman is a fruiterer and there is another builder—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many wage-earners?"] We have had these aldermen criticised as justices because they are not elected. But, unlike all other justices of the peace in the country, they are elected. They are the only justices of the peace to be elected.

The happy conversion of the Attorney-General and his colleagues has brought relief in my constituency, relief not satisfaction—relief that at least one thing which works is not to be dismantled. I have made four speeches on this subject—they were all much the same—and I will not make it again now—but it gave me a humble pleasure, with no wish to crow about it, that the Attorney-General this afternoon made the same speech as I have made previously. I am not in the least concerned with tradition, face or pressure groups. I am not called Smith for nothing. I am simply concerned with what works, and this system does work.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have allowed their fondness for abstract principle to run away with them. They are obsessed with uniformity. We have even had quibbling about the relative merits of eight deputy chairmen or six deputy chairmen. I am not in the least concerned with uniformity. There are two Lord Mayors in my constituency. The fact that one is to be ex officio chairman of a bench and the other is not does not bother me. Uniformity has always bedevilled us. Almost all advances in civilisation and all worthwhile human progress has come from strictly non-uniform people. It would be difficult to assemble 630 more non-uniform people in a more non-uniform place than this House. I hope that arguments based on uniformity will never be advanced nor listened to here.

On this occasion hon. Gentlemen opposite must overcome their understandable and natural horror of anything which actually works. They have got what they want. The Bill introduces a bench in the City of London like all other benches in the country. Surely they cannot object to having the aldermen thrown in as well for nothing. I earnestly hope that the Attorney-General will not listen to his hon. Friends, but will persevere with this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Ben Whitaker (Hampstead)

I listened to the arguments with an open mind and I approached these Lords Amendments with impartiality. Indeed, I must declare an interest: I am a London lawyer. I was born and live and work in London. However, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will assure his constituents in Liverpool that geographical factors will not come into this argument and that London people are no different from Liverpool people.

One of the more endearing habits of the legal world is that when a learned judge gives a really indefensible judgment containing a ludicrous error it is said that he has misdirected himself. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, two people whom I respect as much as anybody in these two Houses, have on this matter sadly misdirected themselves.

I found the Attorney-General's speech much more convincing the last time he spoke on this matter when he was arguing in precisely the opposite direction. Her Majesty's Opposition are at least consistent in their subservience to illogical privilege, but we are sorry to see some recent converts on our Front Bench.

On the previous reading of this Measure there were many speechs of elegance and intelligence, and none was more so than that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, when he said: it is unthinkable, indeed incredible, that the status and reputation of the City, the Lord Mayor and aldermen will be whittled down one iota if they are deprived of the inherent and automatic right to be made justices of the peace when they are made aldermen.… The House has generally accepted the fact that a man is appointed mayor should not be a ground for entitling him to administer justice in the magistrates' court. The principle which underlies that argument applies with a good deal of force to the arrangements for the City of London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 1442–4.] 5.0 p.m.

Any alderman who is worth being made a justice of the peace will be made one under the normal procedure. What is indefensible is that a man who is unsuited to being a justice of the peace should be one ex officio. Surely it is wrong to appoint anyone to any position, and, above all, to one involving judicial power, because of the mere fact that he holds another post?

The American example of elected judges is not an encouraging one, but these aldermen are not even elected democratically in the way that American judges are. At least, the American judges have to face democratic re-election at intervals, and, therefore, the weeds can be removed. I think that I am right in saying that these aldermen elect each other, which is no form of democratic sanction.

All the letters which I have received on this subject from people who live in the City support the rejection of these Amendments, though I must admit I have only had one.

Mr. John Smith

If the hon. Gentleman gets letters from my constituents, if he will forward them to me I shall deal with them.

Mr. Whitaker

I am glad to hear that. I have a great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I listen to his speeches with real amusement. The fact is that his constituent said that he had despaired of the hon. Member's views on this matter.

Perhaps I can recall to the House the words of the Lord Chancellor in the other place. He said: We all know that in America a number of judges are elected, not appointed. I should not have thought that that was a good basis for appointment. I have yet to meet any American judge or lawyer who likes that method.… So far as election is concerned, in a sense it is a self-perpetuating body, in so far as nobody can be appointed an alderman unless the Court of Aldermen elects him.… He can never be a justice unless he is prepared to start off by canvassing people and standing for election to the Common Council. Then he has to be promoted from the Common Council to the bench of Aldermen. I suggest that, on the face of it, that is not a sound method."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 13th May, 1968; Vol. 292, c. 46.] I submit that we want to get away from this type of appointment to any judicial bench, and that the ideal should be the open appointment of justices of the peace and judges openly arrived at; but I appreciate that it would be out of order to carry on that argument on this occasion.

As has rightly been said by my hon. Friends, the only reason the Government are behaving like a spaniel on this occasion and lying on their back and wagging their tail is that they are capitulating to the incumbents at the other end of the building. Once we let those incumbents run Parliament, it will be the end of any sense and purpose of hon. Members being in the Commons. This is an illogical method of legislating, because many of the noble peers who steamrollered the Amendments through have never been seen since, and, indeed, were rarely seen before in their Chamber. This is a question of one indefensible skeleton coming along to try to prop up another indefensible skeleton.

If we accept the Amendment it will be as logical as if we solemnly constituted ourselves as judges. Just because we have been elected for one function, according to the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite we are, therefore, ipso facto, qualified to do something totally different. Surely the Labour Party exists to put an end to such illogical privileges which affect other people?

The reason the Government accepted the Amendment, or intended to before the vote this afternoon, was that they were still attempting to appease the other end of the building, but that policy failed notably. The appetite of the other end of the building was only whetted, as was seen at the time of the Rhodesia Order.

In their hearts I believe that the Government know that these Amendments are totally indefensible. I suggest to the House that we come to the assistance of the Government in their embarrassment and that we help them out of their predicament by rejecting these Amendments. We had a similar task last night. I for one have no wish to cause any trouble to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench: if, therefore, the Government will withdraw the Amendments, I shall not divide the House against them.

Sir Peter Rawlinson (Epsom)

The quarrel between the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) and his hon. Friends, and between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and his friends, if he has any, is a pretty one, but not one in which I ought to intervene.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), this will be the fourth speech that I have made on this subject. I think that the hon. Member for Hampstead has made three. It is welcome to hear now different speeches from others on a subject which we have canvassed very fully in the House.

I believe that one of the straitjackets we sew for ourselves in this place is that the Government can never give way without, apparently, losing a great deal of face, without the Minister in some way having his nose rubbed into what he has said before. It seems to me that one of the most sensible things any Administration can do when a good case is made against it is politely and courteously to end with a compromise. This compromise is not what we would wholly like or what hon. Gentlemen opposite would like, but it is a sensible compromise. I think that when the Government do that they ought to be congratulated.

We put forward our arguments both on Second Reading and in Committee. They found support from that side of the House, and from the Liberal benches. On Report, the mighty majority of the party opposite sank to 18, so we must have convinced some of the people that our case was a good one. We must have convinced those who abstained, or were not here, and I can only believe that that was because of the arguments we advanced.

Our case was that if one took the criteria of what worked well in justice, what the superior courts thought of it, whether they thought it was effective and whether, at a low cost, it was an efficient exercise of the machinery of justice, we ought to retain it and not tamper with it. Our case was on the basis of considering the end result of this form of administering justice. We could see no reason for altering it at greater expense and requiring more man hours to operate the altered system.

The Bill then went to another place. I do not know how Lord Goodman would be regarded from the point of view of his political persuation. As far as I know he sits on the Crossbenches, but he is closely associated with many hon. Gentlemen opposite. He moved the Amendment from which this compromise has come. Many of those who took part in the Division were Crossbench peers. They did so because, on the balance of the argument, they decided that it was not wise to start taking away the administration of justice in the City of London from what hitherto had been a sensible and efficient mechanism. Eventually, a compromise was evolved. The absent Attorney-General told us that this was a compromise. I repeat that it is not what hon. Gentlemen opposite want, nor what we on this side want.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)

The Amendment is not a compromise. It is discrimination against aldermen and other civic leaders in the rest of the country.

Sir P. Rawlinson

The hon. Gentleman may think of it in that way. Our case is that the City of London should be left alone because it works and because it is efficient. As my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster said, anything that works well arouses the hilarity of hon. Gentlemen opposite who see it so rarely and unusually. Therefore, this was a compromise. If the hon. Gentleman will study the debates which took place before the Bill went to the Lords and the speeches made and the views adopted by both sides, he will see that this proposal is a compromise which I, for one, think that it was wise to make.

Therefore, I will, strange as it may seem, join the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and their friends, if they have any friends, in the Lobby when this is put to the test.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine)

When I find criticism for a proposal I am putting forward coming from this side of the House and when support for it comes from the other side, I look into the merits of the issue with special anxiety and concern. I assure my hon. Friends that I have applied this test very carefully on this occasion. I do not think I have had the pleasure of hearing the Lords Amendment welcomed or recommended by any of my hon. Friends.

Then I ask myself: have we got in the Amendment, despite the fact that it is acknowledged to be a compromise, the substance of what we sought to achieve? With as much seriousness and sincerity as I can command, I invite my hon. Friends to take the view that we have got a good deal of the substance of what we sought to achieve. It is significant that the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) said, with perfect candour, that what the Opposition want is that the City of London should be left alone. Whatever can be said about the Bill, even as amended after, as I trust will be the case, this Lords Amendment is accepted, it does not have the consequence of leaving the City of London in this respect as it was. A change of some importance is being made.

I am not resorting to sleight of speech or to triviality when I say that we have the substance here. As an outcome of the Bill and with the Amendment in it, albeit that the Amendment is there, there will be important changes in the administration of justice henceforward in the City of London. In future aldermen will not sit alone to try cases. For the first time, the way will be open for a woman to be a justice in the City of London. There will be justices—this is the key to the matter—appointed by the commission of the peace who will outnumber the justices who hold office by virtue of the Charter.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (Lichfield and Tamworth)

Why retain the latter?

The Solicitor-General

I ask my hon. Friend to acknowledge that that is an important change and, from the point of view which we on this side share, a change for the better.

Mr. Dunn

My hon. and learned Friend makes a very valid point. Does he recall that the original intention behind the Bill was to do a certain thing to a section of privilege? My hon. and learned Friend is now arguing that this is becoming a smaller minority, but he is not arguing against the continuation of the privilege.

5.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I take that point. I do not conceal for one moment from my hon. Friend or from any other hon. Member that the proposal has the character of compromise. That is what I think my hon. Friend was emphasising. What I am concerned to satisfy him and other of my colleagues about is that this is a compromise from which we are getting substantial advantages and achieving a substantial degree of progress towards the objectives which we hold to be desirable.

There are additional factors which can reasonably and fairly be brought forward in support of the Lords Amendment. I do not resort to the concept of tradition here. For my present purpose I do not call tradition as such in aid. It is probably true as a matter of record that in London, no doubt because of the practio3 of aldermen to try cases alone, the practice in the selection of persons to serve as aldermen has been to have regard to whether they will prove to be good magistrates and carry out their magisterial function completely and effectively.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York) rose—

The Solicitor-General

I think that I should be allowed to develop this point.

The circumstances that particular regard is had to this quality in the selection of aldermen in London may well account for the undoubtedly interesting and significant fact that the record of the decisions made by London aldermen is remarkably impressive, if one applies, as I think that it is reasonable to apply, as a test of their capacity, the extent to which their decisions stand up on appeal.

I want to consider as fairly as I can, and in the same spirit as that in which I have thus far advanced this argument, the proposition put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) and others, that what is proposed in the Lords Amendment is on analysis found to be, as it were, disparaging and derogatory of other great corporations and of the Lord Mayors of our great cities.

Nobody has a more deep respect for the heads of our local authorities and for their record and capacity than I have. However, again having resort to a matter which I will describe as a matter of record, in London special attention has been paid, again because the prospect has usually been that of aldermen sitting alone in court, to training as magistrates. This has been a significant feature affecting this matter in London and affecting it more prominently and more emphatically than in the case of our other corporations.

This is a function and an aspect of another point which I have advanced, namely, that in London there has been a particular disposition, which I do not think has applied elsewhere, to select aldermen having regard to their potential qualifications and merits to carry out their functions and duties as magistrates.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

The basis of appointing lay magistrates surely is to have representatives of all sections of society with varied backgrounds and records of experience in the community. What special qualities have these gentlemen in the City of London which give them an undiluted right to sit on the bench?

The Solicitor-General

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), with characteristic skill, has put forward an emotional case against this proposition. It does not alter the facts and matters of record to which I have referred. It is still the case, despite what he has said, and although he may not attach weight to it, that this is a distinctive character which attaches to the aldermen of the City of London. When they are selected to be aldermen special regard is had to the prospect of their serving in a magisterial capacity, and that fact is reflected in the special training which they receive.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Does this not apply to Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow or Edinburgh? Are they not equally qualified there?

The Solicitor-General

My hon. Friend is still further emphasising the point I have sought to deal with. I have endeavoured to put before the House the factors which are present, and which I regard as significant and factors of importance, which in some measure distinguish the position in London from the position in the greatest of our provincial cities.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Edinburgh.

The Solicitor-General

I ask my hon. Friends to acknowledge that this part of the argument is contained in the context of what I invite them to regard as a substantial advance being made in the direction we want. The situation in the City of London is not going to be the same after this Bill as it has been before. To the extent that privilege to an undesirable degree has been a characteristic of the administration of justice in London, it will be diminished and reduced by this Bill. Because these are the governing factors, I recommend the House to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South)

At the risk of being described as characteristically skilful. I wish to say one or two things quite sincerely about this matter. Rather than being skilful, I think most of us on this side of the House have the utmost difficulty in trying to sort things out. It would appear that in an excess of zeal and dedication the noble Lords have thrown a sprag into the machine. As a result of their deliberations and of our deliberations today, the whole administration of justice in the magistrates' courts is once again being called into question.

This is regrettable and deplorable because the administration of justice in our country has a great deal to commend it. In view of what we see happening in other countries, I think we can say that the way we manage affairs in our courts is the envy of the world. One or two things worry me. I do not think that in a democratic land we should be arguing whether it is right and fitting that aldermen and mayors should become lay magistrates. That beggers description and takes us away from the old belief that we want in our courts people who are wise and true.

An hon. Member who has now left the Chamber said that it was a wonderful thing to have legal people acting as magistrates. I hoped that he would stay long enough to hear me say that I do not concur in that view. I believe it better to have in our courts sitting in judgment people with a normal human heart.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

A lawyer?

Mr. Mahon

I am not an authority on that. Without professing to be a jack-of-all-trades, I have had much experience of local government and magistrates' courts. It is better to have a normal human heart than a critical legal mind. It is bad enough to have legal luminaries taking preponderance in affairs in our courts and having too many of these people at times, rather than laymen who can bring a clearer jurisdiction into play. If there are any shortcomings in our courts, the legal people in their professional capacity have to take their share of responsibility.

I have not agreed with all the criticisms expressed by my colleagues today, although I can appreciate that they are hopping mad about the situation which has been presented to us. To say that mayors because they are mayors, or aldermen because they are aldermen, are entitled to be magistrates is stretching democracy too far. I should describe it as a travesty of democratic procedure. For 15 years or more I was in local government. When I became a mayor I became a magistrate, but I think I would have been just as good a magistrate before I was a mayor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. I must ask the hon. Member to come a little nearer to the City of London, which is the matter concerned in these Amendments.

Mr. Mahon

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am aware of what I am expected to do.

Magistrates must know how to adjudicate and to conduct the affairs of a court. With all the complex problems with which people engaged in local government have to contend, the number of committees—we have the Maud Report and ideas for limiting responsibilities of people in local government—I know that you are about to call me to order again, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Richard Crawshaw (Liverpool, Toxeth)

Will my hon. Friend tell us which side he is on?

Mr. Mahon

This applies in an intimate way to the work of the courts. Those of us who have served in the dual capacity know that only too well.

I remember the magistrate who asked a young man why he had taken some property, and the reply was that he had spent his money, on wine, women and song and wasted the rest.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The relevance of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment escapes me. I hope that he will help me to understand how he is speaking to the Amendment.

Mr. Mahon

I am grateful for your tolerance, good will, and even cooperation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But I realise that I must come to order. In sitting in judgment on these matters and trying to arrange the best possible system in a democratic way, we must try to be wise and objective. I do not agree that this is the most democratic way in which we can tackle the problem. We should always try to bring into our courts the best people from all spheres of life.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) rightly took pride in his constituency. I take pride in my constituency, which goes back a little further than his. We were Roman quarters when his was a swamp. We have a Lord Mayor who, like the Lord Mayor of the City of London, is an ex officio member of the Privy Council. They are the only two in the country. We have a Mansion House, in which the Lord Mayor resides, which is older than the Mansion House of the City of London.

Therefore, when I considered the Bill I had a little apprehension about removing part of the colour and trappings which are an essential part of the life of my city. But, like the hon. Gentleman, I did not find much ideological passion about it, and I did not make any inquiries about it because I did not think that it required inquiries. It seemed to me that it was a somewhat innocuous Bill, and that on the whole it might do good. I do not care very much whether it arrives on the Statute Book in its original form or the form in which it now is.

What worries me is how the compromise was arrived at. How on earth did we come to this situation? I accept everything the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) said about the desirability of hammering out compromises between different points of view if it can be done in the course of the passage of legislation through this Chamber. But in the Lords something quite different happened. Vested interests in the City got on to their friends to appear in the Lords and there upbraid the Government for taking—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to use the traditional form of address of the other Chamber.

Mr. Lyon

They took the opportunity of their presence in the other place to put the case for what are really vested interests. Whether or not the vested interests have a good case—and I express no view about that—it is highly regrettable that this should be an avenue open to them and probably to no one else.

If I had decided to make an issue of the right of my Lord Mayor to sit on the York City Bench on the grounds that that was part of the historic trappings of my constituency, I should have had to scratch my head to find friends in the other place who could have raised the matter. It is true that His Grace the Archbishop of York and the Vice-Chancellor of my university, Lord James of Rusholme, are members of the other place. But neither is a member of my constituency, deeply regrettable to me as that is. Therefore, it was not their personal concern. The only voice for the City of York in the whole of this Legislature was my humble self.

As a result, the Lord Mayor of York will not be sitting on the York City Bench ex officio. But it was different for the City of London. Quite apart from the fact that it had the distinguished services of the hon. Gentleman opposite, valuable and honourable services that he can give to the City, it also had a large number of noble Lords in the other place who could exert influence.

It is about time that stopped. I still do not feel any ideological passion about the Bill, and I am prepared to allow the compromise to go through, but I share the views that have been expressed on these Benches about the method by which the compromise was reached. I hope that the Government will take note of them. It will not be enough for them to come forward with reform of the House of Lords, which will be another botched up compromise hammered out as a result of the probings of vested interests. We must have a thorough, root and branch clean-up of the other place in order that this kind of thing cannot go on.

Mr. Dunn

In introducing the Lords Amendment my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made particular play of certain words. He said that no violence was done to the principle by the Lords Amendment. I respect both him and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but I carefully noted that neither suggested that this reflected credit, and it is on this point that I wish to speak.

It was originally contended in the provisions dealing with ex officio magistrates that mayors and lord mayors had a ceremonial attachment to the office of magistrate, which was given to them because of their local representative office. Now we hear that flowing from this the aldermen in the City of London not only enjoy the privilege of ex officio office but, my right hon. and learned Friends tell us, perform a most useful service.

The House recognised that a useful service had been performed by the aldermen of the City of London before the Bill was introduced. The original intention was to remove the automatic right of appointment to the office of magistrate of aldermen, mayors or lord mayors. My right hon. and learned Friends say today that we have gone part way to achieving this objective, and that we should accept the compromise as going far towards the original principle. But it still leaves an area of doubt in that people—a diminishing number, I accept—can be appointed ex officio on the basis of privilege. If my right hon. and learned Friends were really looking for a compromise they could have gone one step further and said that they were prepared to accept an Amendment that a limited number of aldermen from the City of London should be appointed ex officio, subject to recommendations being made to the Lord Chancellor and to there being provision for them to be able to carry out the function, just as other magistrates are appointed, and they would by the very nature of things be appointed. That would have been a protection, and I am sure that the Opposition would have been prepared to accept such an Amendment.

Under this present compromise there is the possibility—I put it no higher—that a person could be appointed an alderman and automatically made an ex officio magistrate, and that some part of his life as an alderman could render him unsuitable as a magistrate, if he was not originally unsuitable for that position. That is a wrong situation to allow under any revision of the law, but that is what the Bill really does.

I ask my right hon. Friends not to press the Lords Amendment. We were all very much persuaded and heartened by the statements made from the Government Front Bench on the Second and Third Readings of the Bill. It would be churlish of me to say that it is wrong to change one's mind, and I accept the suggestion by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) that it is not always a bad thing to do so, but it reflects less than credit when one changes one's mind on a deeply held principle, and this is a deeply held principle. If it was the implementation of some different practice I could have accepted this, but I honestly believe that one is hard put to it to compromise on the basis of principle. I ask my right hon. Friends to remember this when they press the House to accept the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I hesitate to intervene at this stage, because most of the arguments have already been canvassed, but I take the opportunity of the Attorney-General's return to the Chamber to invite him to reply to a point made in a number of speeches earlier which he did not have the advantage of hearing and to which his hon. and learned Friend did not choose to reply.

It relates to the predicament in which hon. Members find themselves when the Government convince them at earlier stages of a Bill that an important and

contentious issue should be decided in a certain way and then when the Bill comes back at a subsequent stage after a compromise has been reached In another place seek to persuade them with the arguments they rejected earlier, which stands the whole debate on its head. This is a highly embarrassing situation for hon. Members to find themselves in, and it calls for some explanation from the Government. We have had no explanation why the compromise was arrived at, why the principles enunciated with such force at earlier stages have been jettisoned and why we should be sold the compromise as something acceptable in these circumstances.

Finally, how can the Attorney-General possibly say that this so-called compromise does no violence to the principle of the Bill when he has so clearly outlined that the main principle is to abolish ex officio justices throughout the country and ensure that members of the bench are appointed by the regular proceedings on the sole criterion of their suitability to exercise judicial office?

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

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 82.

Division No. 309.] AYES [5.42 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Costain, A. P. Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Grey, Charles (Durham)
Alldritt, Walter Currie, G. B. H. Grieve, Percy
Archer, Peter Dalkeith, Earl of Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Dalyell, Tam Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Dance, James Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Gurden, Harold
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hall, John (Wycombe)
Beaney, Alan Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Bell, Ronald Davies, Harold (Leek) Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Delargy, Hugh Harper, Joseph
Biggs-Davison, John Dempsay, James Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Digby, Simon Wingfield Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Black, sir Cyrll Dobson, Ray Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Blackburn, F. Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Haseldine, Norman
Bossom, Sir Clive Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hazell, Bert
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Emery, Peter Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Boyden, James Ennals, David Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Ensor, David Hirst, Geoffrey
Bradley, Tom Errington, Sir Eric Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Brinton, Sir Tatton Eyre, Reginald Holland, Philip
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Fernyhough, E. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Finch, Harold Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Hunt, John
Buchan, Norman Fortescue, Tim Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Foster, Sir John Janner, Sir Barnett
Bullus, Sir Eric Calbraith, Hn. T. G. Jeger, George (Goole)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Garrett, W. E. Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Ginsburg, David Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Glyn, Sir Richard Jopling, Michael
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Goodhew, Victor Kenyon, Clifford
Carlisle, Mark Gower, Raymond Kershaw, Anthony
Clegg, Waltor Grant, Anthony King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Cooke, Robert Grant-Ferris, R. Kitson, Timothy
Knight, Mrs. Jill Oswald, Thomas Snow, Julian
Lane, David Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Speed, Keith
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Page, Graham (Crosby) Stainton, Keith
Longden, Gilbert Page, John (Harrow, W.) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
McAdden, Sir Stephen Pentland, Norman Tapsell, Peter
MacArthur, Ian Percival, Ian Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
McBride, Neil Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
McCann, John Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Tinn, James
MacColl, James Pink, R. Bonner Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien) Pym, Francis Urwin, T. W.
Manuel, Archie Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maude, Angus Rankin, John Waddington, David
Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C. Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Rees, Merlyn Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Miscampbell, Norman Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. Walters, Dennis
Monro, Hector Rhys William, Sir Brandon Weatherill, Bernard
More, Jasper Ridsdale, Julian Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Rodgers, William (Stockton) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Rose, Paul Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Ross, Rt. Hn. William Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Russell, Sir Ronald Worsley, Marcus
Murton, Oscar Scott-Hopkins, James Wright, Esmond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Sharples, Richard Wylie, N. R.
Neave, Airey Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Younger, Hn. George
Nott, John Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
O'Malley, Brian Sinclair, Sir George TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Orbach, Maurice Skeffington, Arthur Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
Osborn, John (Hallam) Slater, Joseph Mr. J. D. Concannon.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Smith, John (London & W'minster)
NOES
Abse, Leo Gregory, Arnold Norwood, Christopher
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Oakes, Gordon
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Orme, Stanley
Booth, Albert Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Heffer, Eric S. Pardoe, John
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Park, Trevor
Cant, R. B. Horner, John Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Probert, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Crawshaw, Richard Hunter, Adam Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Cronin, John Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.) Silverman, Julius
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, Dan (Burnley) Spriggs, Leslie
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.) Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dewar, Donald Leadbitter, Ted Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Dickens, James Ledger, Ron Tomney, Frank
Doig, Peter Lomas, Kenneth Watkins, David (Consett)
Dunn, James A. Lubbock, Eric Whitaker, Ben
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Wilkins, W. A.
Eadie, Alex Macdonald, A. H. Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom' ty) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Ellis, John Maclennan, Robert Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Woof, Robert
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Yates, Victor
Faulds, Andrew Mapp, Charles
Fraser, John (Norwood) Marks, Kenneth TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gardner, Tony Miller, Dr. M. S. Mr. Christopher Price and
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Newens, Stan Mr. Arnold Shaw.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Back to
Forward to