HC Deb 23 March 1984 vol 56 cc1363-83
Mr. Dubs

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, leave out subsection (3) and insert— '(3) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.'. If the Bill is approved by both Houses, it is intended that it should come into force two months after it is passed. I am not certain that the major differences in eligibility can be fully taken into account administratively in that time.

Mr. Watson

I thought that was the reason behind the amendment. I have given it serious thought and am prepared to accept it.

Mr. Dubs

I thank the hon. Gentleman. That will shorten what would have been a short speech anyway.

The Bill is complicated and will be difficult to administer. I want to ensure that there will be enough time. It is not for me to say how much time is necessary. I debated whether to suggest a specific period, but thought that inappropriate. Only the Minister and the Home Office can judge how long it will take to put the Bill into effect. I hope that the Minister will also agree to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Watson.]

12.58 pm
Mr. Lawrence

Those of us who support the Bill have been told that we are undermining the jury system. That is so patently absurd as to put a question mark over the judgment of those who make that allegation and who oppose the Bill's provisions.

If all the burglars, thieves and blackmailers formed themselves into a union and asked for representation here for consideration of a measure to make it a little more difficult for them to conduct their nefarious practices without being convicted, they could not do better than to assemble Opposition Members to table amendments such as we have seen here today. I do not go as far as to say that they advocate a thieves' or robbers' charter because that would be an absurd exaggeration. However, if the union were told that moderation was the sensible way and that any diminution of the strength of the proposals would be desirable, similar arguments to those advanced today would be used.

My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson) and the Minister will later refer to some of the important aspects of the Bill. Having gone so far in changing the system of sentencing, we should consider whether we should amend the jury rules to take account of those changes. For example, in 1974 when the last similar measure was passed, suspended sentences were not in existence. As a result, people were disqualified from serving on juries who now, because of the march of time and the new approach to sentencing, are no longer disqualified. Is that what Parliament originally intended? Is that what the people of this country intended? Clearly the answer is no.

The second aspect to consider is whether there are people who are not disqualified who now should be disqualified. The serious problem of jury nobbling has arisen recently. Of course, no one knows in advance whether they will sit on a jury in a certain case, but there is little point in denying the fact that a person with convictions for crime is more vulnerable to approaches from people who want to nobble juries, and certainly may be more susceptible to such approaches and less likely to report those approaches to the police. In 1982, 13 cases at the Old Bailey had to be stopped after jurors had been approached for jury nobbling. To some extent, those matters are reasonably dealt with in the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on that——

Mr. Dubs

rose——

Mr. Lawrence

Perhaps I may be allowed to carry on, because the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to speak.

I am one of those who do not believe that the Bill goes far enough. The evil that it is intended to prevent is having people who are dishonest, people who are contemptuous of our system, people who are unstable and have been proven to be so by conviction for crimes of violence, from sitting as judges—that is, as jurymen—on others.

In my opinion, therefore, the Bill deals only with a narrow aspect of the problem—the people who are contemptuous of our system. It should go wider and deal with people who are fined. When a judge makes a decision about how to sentence someone who has committed theft, burglary or some other offence — making a choice to sentence that person to probation, a short term of imprisonment, a suspended sentence or a fine — it is sometimes a matter that requires a fine judgment about the person, and it may have little to do with the seriousness of the offence. One court may fine the person; another court may place that person on probation. In the latter case, the person would be disqualified under the Bill; in the former, the person would not be disqualified. It is therefore logical and desirable that people who are subjected, certainly to substantial fines, and perhaps even to lesser fines as a result of committing quite serious offences, should also be disqualified.

So the Bill is limited. If, by any chance, the Bill is talked out — there may be Opposition Members who have no intention of allowing this desirable measure to reach the statute book—I hope that my hon. Friend will take the matter away—if not my hon. Friend, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will do so—and consider seriously, when it is reintroduced, whether to strengthen the provisions and make them wider. I say that, not because hon. Gentlemen who may wish to talk the Bill out should be taught a lesson — that is not a reason for introducing legislation — but because it will provide Conservative Members who are in favour of a stronger measure with an opportunity to strengthen the Bill.

The Bill substantially advances respect for the integrity of the jury system. That integrity is vital, not only because the public must have confidence that justice is being done while they follow their ordinary walks of life, but because the accused in any criminal trial must have confidence that the matter is being fairly judged. There is at least one example of a person with many previous convictions sitting on a jury who said, "I would convict everybody." If there is lack of confidence in our system by those who are accused, convicted and sentenced in the courts, they will have a chip on their shoulder. It makes it far less likely that they will serve their sentences in a proper way and far more likely that they will come out of prison very much more embittered. Therefore, from their point of view, it is vital that our jury system should be beyond reproach. It is extremely important that the jury system should be beyond reproach because only then can the interests of the innocent be protected.

The Bill is vital to the administration of justice because it helps to create confidence in the system. It is vital because it helps to preserve the good name of British justice which all hon. Members must be so jealous to maintain. I support the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon on advancing it.

1.8 pm

Mr. Deakins

The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made several interesting observations. He said that some Labour Members might be here to talk the Bill out. Coming from the hon. and learned Gentleman that is a serious accusation. Presumably he is speaking from a position of some moral authority. I take it that he has never turned up on a Friday to talk any Bill out on any occasion in his career in the House. I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman is smiling, so I imagine that his remarks were somewhat tongue in cheek.

The Under-Secretary of State said that Labour Members sometimes turn up to oppose Bills. I wonder what the House is coming to. Are the Government so full of themselves—particularly the Minister—that they feel that everything they do must go through with no opposition? That really is remarkable.

Mr. Soley

My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. Both the Minister's attitude and that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) have shown contempt not just for juries, but for this House. They do not want the matter discussed. I am not here to talk the Bill out; nor is my hon. Friend. We are here to raise specific issues and to dismiss what we say is an attack on the House as much as on the jury system.

Mr. Deakins

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has offered some concessions to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson), which I believe have unfortunately been rejected. We might not have been discussing the matter now if his suggestions had been accepted. However, that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman, who is promoting the Bill, and his hon. Friend.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton said that we should amend the law because sentencing policy had changed substantially since the original legislation on the disqualification of jurors. That is right. The question is in what way one should amend the law and how far one should go. I should have thought that the change in sentencing policy—the House will recognise that I am not speaking as a lawyer and that I am therefore in danger of treading on ground that perhaps lawyers regard as their preserve—is something that would have been warmly welcomed in the House as giving greater discretion to the courts to make the punishment fit the crime and to try to relieve the pressure on our overcrowded prisons.

I thought that the system of suspended sentences was supported in the House without that necessarily having any implications for the business of disqualifying jurors from serving. That point was obviously not made at the time when sentencing policy was changed and it is rather late in the day, some years after the change, for any hon. Members to say that that is a reason. After all, it was open to the hon. and learned Member for Burton, a s a distinguished lawyer, as indeed is the Under-Secretary of State, to suggest to the Government at any time that they should amend the disqualification for jury service legislation in the light of the changes in sentencing policy.

If that is such a fundamental part of the Government's approach to law and order—I understand that the Government are in favour of the Bill—it is surprising that the Government have not brought forward legislation of their own instead of leaving it to private Members. This can hardly be said to be a private Member's Bill which is a matter of conscience. It is very much a matter of public: policy. Public policy concerns every hon. Member. That is why some of us feel that the matter should he fully debated before the House gives the Bill a Third Reading and it goes to another place where their Lordships, who have great legal experience, will be waiting to dot the i's and cross the t's, perhaps taking into account some of the amendments moved by my hon. Friends, but rejected by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton talked about jury nobbling. That is a legal expression about which those of us who do not practise in the courts do not know much. I accept that there is a certain amount of jury nobbling. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to 13 cases at the Old Bailey. Obviously, that is not the only criminal court in the country. No doubt there are some instances of jury nobbling at Crown courts. I do not understand the logic of this. If the Bill goes through, will the amount of jury nobbling be reduced? Those who are nobbled are presumably those who complain to the judge, after which the case is set aside for a new jury. I do not know the precise procedure, but no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman could tell us.

How would the Bill affect jury nobbling? What. guarantee is there that it will be reduced? We know about it only from what goes on when a court finds out about it. Therefore, we are talking about the nobbling that is known, as distinct from that which is unknown.

I have some sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view. He believes that the jury nobbling that is known is the tip of the iceberg. That implies that the majority of people who serve on a jury, if approached for nobbling purposes by a criminal element supporting the defendant in the dock, would not reveal that to the judge. They would not say that they had been approached illegally by someone who tried to influence their views. From the amount of jury nobbling that is known, one must deduce that many jurors are got at but the fact is never revealed, which says something about the quality of those jurors. However, there is no necessary connection between a juror who is nobbled and who does not reveal the facts and the ability of that juror to take a proper part in a trial when a criminal is in the dock. The Bill will not prevent either the jury nobbling that becomes known or the vast amount of nobbling, if there is any, that is not known. Therefore, it is wrong to use such arguments when the Bill can have no impact on that procedure.

I make it clear, in case there should be any doubt, that the Opposition are opposed to jury nobbling. We want to know whether the Bill will have any impact. We are waiting for other distinguished Conserative lawyers, including the Minister, to tell us whether the Bill, if it becomes law, would restrict the jury nobbling that becomes known and on what basis one could conclude that it would restrict unknown jury nobbling—the submerged part of the iceberg of that practice—which we all condemn.

I take issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman on an unfortunate remark that he made. He goes much further than the sponsors of the Bill. I suspect that they would not advance those arguments. My argument is not with them, but with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He talked of getting rid of unstable people on juries. I stress the words "unstable people". The Bill assumes that, if there is a desire to disqualify more people with criminal convictions, there is somehow a connection between instability and a criminal record. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an important point, but it is not entirely related to what is in the Bill or what might be desirable when selecting jurors.

Mr. Lawrence

In case the hon. Gentleman is in danger of misunderstanding me, I must make it clear that I referred to those who had manifested an instability that showed itself in violence, and had then been convicted of it.

Mr. Deakins

I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman for getting it wrong. If his words were taken at face value, we should seek disqualification of those who are mentally ill. But there is no, suggestion in the Bill—or, indeed, in the hon. Gentleman's speech—that there should be any test for that. I shall return to the issue of tests later.

Mr. Soley

The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) would bar many more people. He does not realise that the very power that he is seeking to use against others could be used against him. I do not think that he is a suitable person to serve on a jury.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order. I remind the House that we are on Third Reading and we must stick closely to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Bottomley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will want to reconsider his remark about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Conduct between hon. Members should not go so far as to suggest that any of us would not be suitable to serve on juries. I know that none of us do, but the remark should be withdrawn.

Mr. Soley

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The remarks of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) might apply if I were not following the logic of the hon. and learned Member for Burton. His logic is that some people should be judged as not suitable to serve on juries. My argument, which is perfectly reasonable, is that, if we go down that road, I could say that he was not a suitable person to serve on a jury. It is intensely dangerous to the hon. and learned Gentleman, myself and everybody else to take such a line. I did not intend to insult the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is simply my view of the position.

Mr. Deakins

I am grateful for the opportunity of being allowed to continue my speech following those interruptions.

Having clarified a number of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton, I turn to the Bill itself. I am not a lawyer. Perhaps the lips of lawyers might curl at the idea that someone who is not a lawyer should presume above his station to speak about a Bill that is basically a matter of law. However, I hope to show that the Bill goes a long way beyond the interests of law and lawyers. It deals with the whole question of the sort of society in which we wish to live.

There is a basic fallacy in the Bill — that only criminals are opposed to law and order. In other words, only those who have been convicted are a danger to the jury system. I wish to make it quite clear that I fully support the present law that those convicted of and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for serious criminal offences should be disqualified from jury service.

The Bill goes much further than that. It virtually excludes not all—as the hon. and learned Member for Burton would have us do — but most categories of criminals who are not currently excluded from the right of jury service for a period of 10 years. If criminals are thought to be the only persons who are a threat to the jury system, I have news for the promoter and sponsors of the Bill, and perhaps the Minister if he also believes that. Many other people in our society, not convicted of criminal offences, may have a great deal of sympathy for defendants in the dock.

A noble earl, a prominent Member of another place, has great sympathy for some of the most prominent criminals in the country. Two such criminals—I am sure that most hon. Members would not share his sympathy for them — are the moors murderers. Hon. Members will know the noble earl of whom I speak. I am not in any way seeking to denigrate him. However, if he were to serve on a jury, which I understand is not possible, he—there must be many, good Christians and others with great personal convictions about law and order and the way in which we should treat criminals in society—might feel kindly disposed towards the defendant in the dock on the basis, there but for the grace of God go I.

Such people would not be disqualified from jury service under the Bill or even under the draconian proposals of the hon. and learned Member for Burton. Some people feel that we are here not to judge one another, in the words of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Member that the Bill deals with disqualification from jury service on criminal grounds. He should relate his remarks to that.

Mr. Bottomley

Given the drift and length of the hon. Gentleman's speech, may we have an assurance that he will be present next week for the Bill's Third Reading, when it will be top of the business if today's debate continues?

Mr. Deakins

Certainly, if I am still speaking when the time for debate runs out this afternoon.

Many criminals are not caught, but the Bill does not cover that aspect. Indeed, the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Burton to extend the proposals for disqualification beyond the limits of the Bill would ensure that many people who were capable of being on a jury and delivering an honest verdict in the light of the evidence would be excluded. That would endanger our whole system of justice.

Will the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon explain why the period of 10 years has been specified? What is the special virtue of that time? Why not five or 15 years? Is it suggested that criminals will somehow have a change of heart during those 10 years and that after 10 years they will not merely have purged their original offence but, so to speak, will have relieved themselves of the accusation that they could be got at during the course of the prosecution case being presented in court?

I suggest that after 10 years nobody will change much more than they would have changed after five years, and in that respect the Bill is illogical. If I am told that the Bill must contain a period, then, following the logic of the Bill, which I do not accept, convicted criminals should be excluded for life. Why think that a criminal after 10 years will be fitted to serve on a jury but will not be so fitted after five, six or seven years?

It seems that the whole purpose of the Bill is to shore up the crumbling edifice of law and order under the Conservatives. The police capability of bringing criminals to court and getting them convicted is diminishing all the time. A recent parliamentary answer from the Home Office told us that clear-up rates for crime in different areas vary from the excellent in Durham and Northumberland, for example, to the extremely poor in the Metropolitan police area. One of the factors behind the Bill is that the police are so worried about their ineffectiveness in combating and clearing up crime that they are more than ever determined that, when they have a potential criminal in the dock, he will be convicted. That is a serious threat to civil liberty.

If the Bill is enacted, how many criminals are likely to be excluded from the right to serve on a jury?

Mr. Mellor

I know that the hon. Gentleman is terribly upset that we are all getting at him because he has not played a part in the Bill's consideration hitherto. However, we become irritated when he asks questions of the sort that he has just posed, because it is clear that he has not even read the reports of the previous proceedings. At the beginning of the consideration of the Bill in Committee the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) properly asked me how many disqualifications there would be, and I told him that they would increase from the present 250,000 to about 500,000. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is doing himself much good by the way in which he is conducting himself in this debate.

Mr. Deakins

I thank the Minister for that information. It seems that the Bill will exclude many people who, in the opinion of many of my hon. Friends, should not necessarily be disqualified from jury service on the basis of disqualification within the Bill.

It is alleged that one of the reasons for introducing the Bill is to tighten the system of securing convictions by ensuring that criminals who appear in the dock are properly convicted and not let off. The theory seems to be that it is more important that we put criminals away than to safeguard the interests of defendants when there is considerable doubt whether they committed a crime.

Basic to the Bill is getting rid of people who have been convicted and who are, therefore, unworthy. In the speeches that I have heard today it seems that there is an underlying feeling that certain undesirable people—the definition of "undesirable" being a criminal conviction—should be excluded. It is thought that that would make the jury system work much better, which really means that more convictions would be secured. The Bill will not make the jury system fairer or more just, which are surely worthwhile objectives in a democratic society. It appears that the objective of the Bill is to secure more convictions. I do not necessarily regard that as a worthy aim. We need to ensure that criminals who commit offences are apprehended by the police and brought before the courts. It is then for the courts and juries to determine, in the light of the evidence, whether they should be convicted. There will obviously be factors, such as extenuating circumstances, to be taken into account.

The Bill deals with only certain categories of criminals, and many categories are not included. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton said, should those who are fined be disqualified from jury service? Many minor offences carry the penalty of a fine, a suspended sentence, a community service order or a probation order. Is there any logic in making a distinction on the basis of the sentence that is passed by the court? Should one try to measure the seriousness of the crime by the category of offence?

The Minister made the point that theft covers a variety of serious and trivial offences. I do not know whether sentences necessarily reflect the seriousness of an offence—sub specie aeternitatis—but it is certainly true that courts in different parts of the country impose different sentences for similar offences. How will the sponsors of the Bill deal with that point of logic?

If an offence is committed in one part of the country, it may be dealt with by a police caution or in a magistrates' court. If it went to the Crown court, it would bring the offender within the provisions of the Bill. The sentencing policy of Crown courts varies in different parts of the country. In some areas an offence could lead to disqualification from jury service under the Bill. In other areas, the offence would result in a different sentence and would not lead to disqualification. There are many variations in the way in which minor offences are treated by different courts, even if they are tried by juries.

The provisions of the Bill are illogical. They are a threat to the civil liberties of those who are accused of crimes. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. We do not want to have a system under which people get a biased trial because all 12 good men and true on the jury are dedicated to bringing criminals to justice and have a pathological hatred of the criminal fraternity.

Mr. Bottomley

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Bill which deals only with disqualification would lead to juries being biased in one way or another? Is he also suggesting that every jury should include someone with a criminal record?

Mr. Deakins

No. The Bill disqualifies a certain number of people from jury service, but the whole thrust of the Bill and of the arguments made by Conservative Members is that the jury system needs to be tightened up. The thinking behind the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill lies behind this Bill, too. The two should be viewed together as not tightening up law and order, but tightening up in a way that should be resisted because the desired effect will not be achieved. This Bill will present a serious blow to people's ability to sit in judgment on their peers, merely because some have a minor criminal record.

1.33 pm
Mr. Mellor

I do believe that I am alone in being startled by the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins). We have known the hon. Gentleman for many years. He is a pleasant enough chap and has served his turn at the Department of Trade and the Department of Health and Social Security. Who knew of the volcanic passions lurking beneath the surface, waiting to be unleashed in a great speech exhorting us to keep crooks on juries? Was that in his election manifesto? Perhaps not.

Mr. Soley

Cheap.

Mr. Mellor

It is all very well to say "cheap", but the hon. Member for Walthamstow subjected me to virulent abuse for daring to point out that, although filled with opinions about the Bill, he had not taken the trouble to attend the debate or to read the report of the Committee stage, which would have dealt with most of his arguments. There is a professional approach to our work in this place. It includes preparing the ground before making a speech.

The hon. Gentleman has made a travesty of the arguments. First, there was the little interplay between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to the effect that what we were really saying was that we did not want hon. Members to speak in the debate in opposition to the Bill. That is patent nonsense. What we do not want is that those who oppose the Bill should hide behind amendments which purport to be designed to help but which are in fact designed to hinder and to obstruct.

Let people have the courage of their convictions. The effect of my saying that was that the hon. Member for Walthamstow at least came out in his true colours and showed that his intentions towards the Bill were as black as the gear that he is wearing. He is entitled to do that. At least there has been some honesty instead of everyone claiming to want to improve the Bill. The hon. Gentleman does not want the Bill, and neither does the official Opposition spokesman.

In their efforts to avoid the essential logic of the proposal the Opposition have teetered on the edge of what even on their not very elevated standards have been some of the most ludicrous pronouncements that I have heard in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) anticipated me, leaping to his feet with even more alacrity than I, when the hon. Member for Walthamstow seemed seriously to suggest that the only way to maintain criminal justice in this country was to ensure that every jury the length and breadth of the kingdom had a leavening of criminals to ensure that justice was done. The hon. Member for Walthamstow shakes his head. Perhaps he will take more care in the aftermath of the debate then he did in preparing for it and will read the report of his speech. Certainly no sensible person hearing it could fail to be driven to that conclusion.

It is tempting to spend my allocated time dealing with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, but I end my comments as I began them in Committee. The Morris committee recognised in 1965 that to preserve public respect for the jury system and to preserve the jury system as the basic bastion of our liberty which I believe it to be, the committee believed it to be and indeed we all believe it to be, changes were necessary because we could not continue with a situation in which almost no one was excluded from jury service. To their credit, the then Labour Government supported the Morris committee's view and legislated to the effect that people who had served more than five years in prison should be excluded for life and those sentenced to imprisonment for between three months and five years should be excluded for 10 years.

In the 20 years that have elapsed since then, penal policy has changed and penalties not yet devised when the Morris committee reported have been introduced—for instance, community service orders and suspended sentences—which are expressly, or in practice, alternatives to imprisonment and are certainly used only for people who have become fairly immersed in crime. Those sentences are at the graver end of the disposal range, even though they are non-custodial. It is beyond peradventure that many, if not all, of the people who now receive such sentences would previously have been sent to prison.

On probation orders, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North——

Mr. Soley

Hammersmith.

Mr. Mellor

I apologise. I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman's web of influence now extends to the south as well as the north. That is one of the few happy things that I can find to say about him today.

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the probation service has rightly extended the gamut of its activities to take in far more serious criminals than before. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nod his assent to that. We are not prepared to say, as Opposition Members have teetered on the brink of saying, that the arrangements carefully thought out by the Morris committee 20 years ago and adopted with appropriate alacrity by the Labour Government were wrong. The Opposition are trying to turn back the clock, whereas my hon. Friend merely seeks to keep the exclusions in line with the present trend of penal policy. Try as I may—I believe that at my best I can be quite ingenious—I cannot think of even one good reason why anyone should take the trouble to come here and say that people sentenced to some of the graver penalties available to the courts have any real or sufficient interest in the administration of justice such that they can be trusted to sit on juries without exclusion for a period of years.

It is no good Opposition Members criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson) for the essential modesty of his proposal by saying, "Why do we not ban them all for life?" My hon. Friend has striven hard to find a consensus. The extent to which some Opposition Members are alienated from common sense, despite a Bill which is generous in recognising that a case can be made for a number of people with criminal records staying on juries, can be seen in the number who are outside the fold. That says less about the proposal's merits and more about many Labour Members' attitudes towards law and order.

1.41 pm
Mr. Soley

My attitude to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson) differs from the attitudes of the Under-Secretary of State and some of his colleagues who are supporting him. I respect the hon. Gentleman who, for the wrong reasons, has gone down a road which is mistaken in terms of what he wishes to achieve. The Bill will achieve other measures which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman does not intend. I cannot extend that generosity to the Under-Secretary of State or to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who have different aims. I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was considering conceding certain amendments at a later stage, and I am sorry that that is not the case. My attitude towards the Bill is hardening. That view has implications for the choices open to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon took up the issue in the light of publicity about certain people serving on juries. That was felt to be undesirable in view of certain matters known about them. As other hon. Members have said, the hon. Gentleman went down that road in the context of talk—unsubstantiated in the majority of cases—about jury nobbling. The hon. Gentleman said, "Here is a popular issue to which I can respond. I can do something about it. What can I do about it?" The hon. Gentleman made a basic mistake in the logic he used in thinking that the way to get to the core of the problem is to screen out from juries people who have certain convictions.

I have argued that the Bill does not screen out those people whom the hon. Gentleman intended to disqualify. It allows some people to be eligible for jury service after waiting a longer time than at present. On both those counts, the Bill fails. There are other ways of achieving the hon. Gentleman's aim. I respect the hon. Gentleman's position, although I disagree with him. He took the wrong road. The hon. Gentleman failed to exercise political judgment and leadership in responding to people who were shouting about the need to stop juries being nobbled. He found himself embarked on a path that would neither achieve his aim nor do anything to give credit to the jury system, of which we are rightly proud.

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has been supported—I do not think supported is the right word—by the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. and learned Member for Burton, whose intentions differ. The hon. and learned Member for Burton—I am not sure how much this point applies to the Under-Secretary of State — made it clear that he would like to go further. In responding to my points, he made it clear that he would like people with a history of psychiatric illness to be excluded from jury service as well. I said that the hon. Gentleman might not be a good person to serve on a jury.

If we allow people such as the hon. and learned Member for Burton to judge who is a suitable person to be on a jury, then I too could make such a judgment. would make the same subjective judgment about him as he has made about others. I could not possibly share, his attitudes and values. I would not trust him to make what I would regard as a good judgment on a jury. If I believe that, I can say that he is not a suitable person. It is intensely dangerous.

The Bill undermines the jury system. The Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Burton have consistently avoided that issue. The Minister has cottoned on to the Bill because he knows that it is a popular issue. If it were not. the Government would have brought forward the measure themselves as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) pointed out. The hon. and learned Member for Burton, and possibly the Minister, support the Bill because they do not like certain aspects of the jury system and would like to cut them out. The hon. and learned Member for Burton wants to limit jury trials to certain cases.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

The hon. and [earned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is disqualified from serving on a jury because he is a barrister and a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Soley

I am greatly relieved to hear that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must remind the hon. Member that we are discussing disqualificaton on criminal grounds.

Mr. Soley

I was going to say—perhaps I should not—that that does not disqualify the hon. and learned Member for Burton from practising in court and putting forward the values about which I am so critical.

I shall return to the central criticism that I made about a number of amendments. The argument has been advanced that some people serving on juries can be get at or can give perverse judgments. That is the core of the argument of not only the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon but of other Conservative Members. The Minister presumably agrees with that. He wants to stop such people serving on juries. Not a shred of evidence has been produced by anyone during the debate nor, to my knowledge — I will be corrected if I am wrong — by those who have studied the background discussions in more detail, or in Committee, to show that the people who make perverse decisions on juries are necessarily themselves, or are connected with, people who have convictions of the type described in the Bill.

I have had the advantage, I suppose, of mixing over many years with a great many people who have been criminal offenders. As I have already said, many of them will back the court in giving harsher sentences. That is one of my problems. The hon. Member for Eltharn (Mr. Bottomley) readily conceded that many of them have harsh and punitive attitudes towards other offenders.

My guess is that what happens on juries — no one knows because we do not do the research in the way that we should — is that the people who make the perverse judgments are often not offenders but those people who have certain attitudes and views about the police and other beliefs, some of which may be about the political system. It is not necessarily easier to nobble someone who has a previous conviction. I will expand on that in a moment.

Mr. Deakins

My hon. Friend is making the point that I tried, inadequately no doubt, to make earlier. The Bill is an inadequate substitute for what the Government would really like. I do not make this accusation against the Bill's sponsors. The Government, and people who think like the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), want psychological testing of jurors to ensure that they will be suitable.

Mr. Soley

My hon. Friend has made a very telling point. The hon. and learned Member for Burton said that there were some people whose attitudes, or whatever, were unsuitable, and he was not unique in saying that.

Mr. Bottomley

We had that point a few minutes ago. We are being subjected to something that is pretty close to repetition and empty filibustering.

Mr. Soley

The hon. Gentleman should realise that I have replied to an intervention.

Once it is decided that some people should serve on juries and that others should not, certain logical consequences flow. However, before coming to that point, I should add that those who have committed offences will not necessarily be the easiest jurors to nobble. Unless the juror is known to the individuals concerned, it is not that easy—although unfortunately it is still too easy—to get hold of his records from the Criminal Records Office. However, some people can manage that all right, and sadly they have sometimes been connected in one way or another with Government. But by and large that is not the problem. Sometimes people are nobbled because they are known, but more often they are got at because there is something in their background that enables them to be blackmailed or threatened. Obviously, that "something" could be an offence, but it could be—and often is—a host of other things.

The Bill does not deal with that and, indeed, it is almost impossible for it to do so. We then come to the logical contradiction that has already been mentioned. I do not want to go over it in too much painful detail, but there is a danger that if we do not put feelings on the record—that is the importance of these debates, even if the Minister does not like having them—we shall return to the same problem in a few years' time. I shall not repeat the reasons that I gave earlier, but it will need only another newspaper case in which the man who has been disqualified for 10 years serves on a jury in his 11th year and gives an interview saying this or that for the Minister or someone else to come back to the House and say that the period must be extended. That is why the issue is so important. The Minister is getting his foot in the door and trying to push it open. I do not think that the hon. Member for Skipton is doing that intentionally, but I believe that the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Burton are. That is one of the most fundamental differences, which I hope that the hon. Member for Skipton will consider. There is a noticeable difference in his approach.

There is a case for saying that some people should not serve on juries because they will not support the criminal justice system, and that some people should be excluded on that basis. The hon. Member for Skipton has used the sentence as his basis——

Mr. Watson

I am the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, not the hon. Member for Skipton. I do not mind, but the people of Ripon do.

Mr. Soley

I appreciate that. My constituency was once called Hammersmith, North but it is now just Hammersmith although its boundaries have not changed one iota.

The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and his hon. Friends have fallen into the trap of using sentences as the basis. After all, it could be said that after the period has expired, the person's attitudes and values have not changed so he is still a problem on the jury. There are several ways of dealing with that. The next step is to carry out some psychological test. However, that psychological test would really be about attitudes and values. To screen out the type of person cited by the Minister in the article in the Daily Mail one would have to ask him controlled questions about his attitude towards the police and law and order, as well as questions about his previous background and experience, such as the sort of work that he had done and his convictions. If one concluded that the person's attitudes and values were particularly unattractive and challenged the basis of the rule of law, one would have to say, "This person is not suitable to serve on a jury." One would disqualify a person not for five years or 10 years, but until his values and attitudes had changed. That would be impossible.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton came close to going down that road. He made it clear that he wanted to include people with a psychiatric history. That is a behaviouralist approach which has nothing to do with morality. A person who has been mentally ill can have a powerful and proper sense of justice and of what is right and wrong. A person who has never been mentally ill or caught for any criminal offence can be evil and immoral.

The other road is the logical road, if we must go down any road at all. The logical road would operate on the basis of the offence rather than the sentence. That method would still not be perfect, but it would be more clear-cut. One could say that someone convicted of serious corruption or bribery is a person who, by the nature of the offence——

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not heard other speeches, but I have been listening to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Surely he is arguing about what he would like the Bill to contain. I thought that on Third Reading one could discuss only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is relating his remarks to what is in the Bill and is saying why he is criticising it.

Mr. Soley

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important to explain why the Bill's provisions are not adequate. I cannot do that and deal with interventions unless I discuss the alternatives.

One could specify people convicted of corruption or other serious crime. That would overlap the Bill's provisions. Attempted murder, for example, might be specified. One might restrict the provision to people whose case has been heard by a jury. That would be another way of drawing a line.

There is no hard evidence to show that the problem that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is trying to solve will be solved by this method. If that is so, are we not right to say that the whole jury system is so precious and important to us—it is to the Opposition, although I am beginning to wonder about the Minister and some of his colleagues — that it is worth defending in its original form? I suggest that it is.

The Minister made great play of Lord Harris's view. Lord Harris changed his political party, which is not surprising in view of certain of his attitudes and values. One of the problems that Lord Harris encountered was the assumption that one can deal with problems of this nature by eroding the civil liberties of jurors. We are talking about what type of people make good jurors. It does not necessarily follow that such a person will be one of those mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Mellor

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is striving vainly to find a philosophical reason to justify talking out the Bill. He asks whether the jury in its original form is worth defending. What does he mean by its original form? Does he mean when every criminal was permitted to serve on a jury, save in one or two exceptional cases? Does he accept the Morris committee reforms of 1965? What is he really saying? There seems to be a lack of definition in some of his extraordinary philosophical observations. What should the disqualifications for jury service actually be?

Mr. Soley

That is a fair question. All I am saying is that the system is working satisfactorily. Of course there are problems in it, and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has identified them. However, he has not told us how to deal with them. In my opinion, it would be better to leave the system unchanged, because even what I suggested would produce problems at the margins. I make no bones about that.

The Minister is not on good ground when he says that we must change the system because of changes in the sentencing policy in previous years. We know from experience, whether in this century or the last, that juries make perverse judgments. They do so for many reasons, not least because they sometimes do not like the excessively heavy sentences that are imposed. We all remember, in the capital punishment debate in the House, that some Conservative Members rightly pointed to the danger that juries would not convict if they knew that the person would be hanged. That argument carried a lot of weight. It was a classic case of trying to deal with a technical problem by means of an inappropriate response which, in this case, would merely label people as criminals for a long time and not allow them to be rehabilitated in the normal way, simply in an effort to stop something happening that has been happening for many years, and which in any case would not be stopped by this Bill.

I want to say a word about the type of sentences that the hon. Gentleman proposes in the Bill. I come back to the subject of probation, because it gives the lie to the position that the Government have adopted in this connection. As I said earlier, many people are placed on probation for serious offences. Incidentally, may I correct the Minister on one issue? Probation is not particularly new. I was having serious cases put on probation as long ago as the early 1970s. So there is nothing new about that. The courts took into account the circumstances in which the offence took place and then made a judgment as to whether it was likely to happen again.

The classic case is that of a person who has seriously assaulted — and sometimes attempted to murder — a member of his own family, but when there is no other history of violence towards people outside the family. On looking into the background, one discovers all sorts of problems within the family, that being where the danger lay. Attempted murder is a serious charge. The court takes the view, often correctly, that the person is not really a danger to society once he is removed from the family situation. Such a person can end up on probation.

The Minister and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon have a fair point when they say that in such circumstances we must make it five years before such a person can serve on a jury. However, that does not cover two crucial issues: first, the person's attitudes and values may be perfectly acceptable as a juror, as compared with a person who has not committed an offence, who may have the most appalling attitudes and values, and who may be quite prepared to sell for a certain amount of money his vote on the jury; secondly, if that person is excluded for only five years, and the charge is one of attempted murder, he can go to The Sun or the Daily Mail in six years' time and say, "I was on that jury, and I know why I think … " and so on. It is wide open to abuse. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has not solved that crucial problem.

Mr. Deakins

Does my hon. Friend feel that people who are prepared to sell their civil rights would necessarily be appropriate people?

Mr. Soley

That is a fair point.

I have already made the point, and I do not want to go over the ground in great depth, that suspended sentences did not result, as they were supposed to, in people who would previously have gone to prison getting a noncustodial sentence. What it resulted in was people who would previously have got a non-custodial sentence getting a suspended sentence. The Minister knows that that is correct, from his figures. He has been told that by civil servants, as have all his predecessors since the late 1970s, when it became overwhelmingly clear from the figures. I defy the Minister to deny that what I have just said is correct. That is the view of the present Home Secretary, the previous Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary before that.

A suspended prison sentence is a prison sentence that has been imposed by the court but suspended until such time as it expires or the person commits another offence and the sentence is imposed. We are in the rather ridiculous trap of excluding people who are subject to a suspended sentence, which should be treated as a prison sentence, even though the statistics tell us that those are not usually—although in some circumstances they will be—people who would have been sent to prison.

The argument on community service orders is even more powerful. It is not, as the Minister implied in one of his contributions, used almost universally as an alternative to prison. It is used frequently as an alternative to imprisonment but I have no hesitation in quoting a magistrate at Clerkenwell court for whom, as I have already said, I have respect, even though his decisions caused me many problems as a probation officer. He took the view, rightly, legally and properly, that Parliament intended a sentence of community service to be a sentence in its own right. Nothing in the Act says that community service is an alternative to imprisonment. Because he wanted to send fewer people to prison he chose to use that as an alternative to imprisonment.

Mr. John Fraser

I am sure that that is not what Parliament intended at the time. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm that it is not unusual, when there has been a breach of a community service order, for a fine to be imposed instead of the sentence of imprisonment which, notionally, it was supposed to replace. Equally, it is by no means unusual, even where a suspended prison sentence is imposed and another offence is subsequently committed within the suspension period, for a prison sentence not to result. Whatever Parliament intended, such provisions have become sui generis.

Mr. Soley

My hon. Friend has anticipated me. The Minister was less than forthcoming to the House. He knows from the figures available to him that my hon. Friend is right. People sentenced to a community service order who are in breach of that order are frequently not sent to prison. My hon. Friend took that further. I can think of some cases, although they are a little more rare, where people have committed yet another offence while a community service order has been in effect, yet they still have not been sent to prison.

The rest of the lie in the Government's argument is in the overall figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) will tell me if I am wrong, because I have not kept up with these matters as much as I should have liked in recent years, but I think that the prison population figure is between 43,000 and 44,000 at the moment. That is as high as it has ever been in Britain. Yet somehow or other the Minister has tried to argue that all the non-custodial sentences have made a change in the law necessary. That was the core of his argument. We know from the statistics that non-custodial sentences have had virtually no effect upon the number and length of custodial sentences. The Home Secretary knows why, although he does not like to talk about it. The previous Home Secretary knew and, to his credit, did talk about it. The courts have extended the period of sentences at the higher level and jacked up sentences all along the line. In doing so——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We must now come back to the provisions of the Bill and deal with them.

Mr. Soley

You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to bring me back to the Bill. I was going to say that previously there would have been prison sentences and fines in some cases, but now there is a wider range of options including community service orders, suspended sentences and probation.

It is not a good Bill. It was conceived by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon in good faith. I accept that, and that his intentions were good. However, for the wrong reasons, he travelled down the wrong road under the pressure of public opinion. He did not exercise the quality of leadership and judgment that people are sent to the House to exercise. At the same time he has allowed the Government and some of his colleagues who would like to restrict the use of the jury system to use this as an opportunity to undermine it, which is sad. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of doing that intentionally.

Everything that we have heard from the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Burton confirms that. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was present when he heard me say to his hon. and learned Friend that he wanted to include in the Bill people who had been mentally ill. He saw the hon. and learned Gentleman smiling at me. He knows that to be true. I know his position, having talked to him about it previously. He is opening the door to a dangerous measure that is unnecessary and will not achieve what he wanted. I ask the House to think carefully before it passes the Bill.

2.11 pm
Mr. Cohen

I endorse a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), who made an excellent contribution to the debate.

There is no challenge to the present law whereby those who have been in prison for five years or more are disqualified for life from serving on a jury. It is accepted that that is reasonable; it is not at stake. Another factor relevant to our considerations is the right of the prosecution as well as of the defence to challenge jurors at a trial. Before a trial there is a panel of jurors. If the defence feels that the presence of a juror on the jury will be prejudicial to his client, he can challenge that juror. The prosecution has that right as well. That is an important part of the system. That must be borne in mind when we consider how loaded the jury system is against the prosecution. That is the argument of Conservative Members, but the prosecution has that right.

The Government have tried to introduce measures similar to that of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson). However, they are worse in many respects, showing the road that the Government want to go down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith rightly said, the Bill is opening up the way for the Government's measures. The Government tried it in 1982. On 6 July 1982, The Guardian stated: The change proposed by the Government"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are talking about the provisions of the present Bill. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to them.

Mr. Cohen

It is valid to say that the Bill is the thin edge of the wedge. The Government's original proposal is relevant to the debate. I wish only to quote briefly from the newspaper, and I hope that you will allow me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The article says: The change proposed by the Government would have excluded millions more people. Many minor offences are still liable to imprisonment—carving initials on a park bench, for example, or stealing a milk bottle. To have excluded all these people from jury service would have meant disqualifying millions because every year over two million people aged over 17 are found guilty of indictable or summary offences. That is what the Government were proposing in 1982. They were forced to abandon that measure.

If the Government support the Bill, why did they not introduce their own Bill in their own time, rather than taking up private Members' time? They had to scrap their measure in 1982 because it was unworkable and unpopular. They are trying to reintroduce it through the back door.

There has been a major change in sentencing policy since the existing rules were drawn up. However, we must remember that there has been excessive gaol sentencing in Britain compared with other European countries. Indeed, Britain has the highest proportion of its population in gaol. That is one reason why suspended sentences, community service orders, and so on, were introduced. They are good measures — certainly far better than putting people in gaol.

Rather than such sentencing being a reason for barring people from jury service, I believe the opposite to be true. That sentencing relates to minor offences. If they were not minor, the people involved would find themselves in gaol. I see no reason why such people should be disqualified from jury service.

Mr. Bottomley

Many of the hon. Gentleman's arguments were put forward on Report by other hon. Members. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the Committee stage of the Bill, which lasted for less than one and a half hours? Why are we now hearing speeches from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that are taking a full day on a Bill that most people think should be passed?

Mr. Cohen

I was not appointed to the Committee, but I have read the Official Report of 7 March. I spoke to one of the amendments, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman speaking to any of them. I feel strongly about the Bill covering persons on probation orders.

Mr. Mellor

The hon. Gentleman is attempting to subvert the will of the majority by prolonging the debate. Did he apply to serve on the Committee? I know that he did not. Was the hon. Gentleman here when many of the arguments were put forward? It is no good the hon. Gentleman smiling, because it is not funny. If he feels so strongly about the Bill, why was he not in the Chamber when the amendments were dealt with on Report?

Mr. Cohen

The Minister is wrong. I was here earlier and contributed to the debate on the amendment concerning the probation service. However, I thank the Under-Secretary for his intervention because I did not know, being a relatively new Member, that one had to apply to serve on a Standing Committee. I shall now apply to serve on various Committees that interest me. I thought that one spoke on, say, Second Reading and then the Whip might approach one and say, "You made a reasonable contribution. Would you like to be a member of the Standing Committee?"

Mr. Mellor

If the hon. Gentleman's party ever becomes the Government, the best way for him to keep off any committee is to carry on making the sort of speeches that he is making today.

Mr. Cohen

That intervention does not warrant comment.

Mr. Dubs

The Minister made a monstrous suggestion when he said tht hon. Members who wished to contrbute on Report should first have served on the Standing Committee. That would negate many of our procedures and unduly restrict the right of many hon. Members to contribute to debates.

Mr. Cohen

I agree with my hon. Friend. No hon. Member should be debarred from speaking in debates on the Floor of the House, irrespective of whether they have previously participated in Committee, on Report or whatever.

The Bill would, for the first time, extend disqualification from jury service to people who have been subjected to suspended sentences, community service orders and probation orders. That would represent an additional sentence. When they were given their sentences, they were not told in court that they would also lose their civil right to serve on a jury. This is a bit of double sentencing on the part of the Government, if they support the Bill.

Let us not forget that we are speaking of minor offences. Suspended sentences, community service orders and probation orders are imposed on people who have committed minor offences, and in my earlier contribution—during which I can only assume that the Minister was asleep—I referred to what the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) had said. As a QC, he said, in effect, "We must get tough and deal with serious offenders in relation to jury service disqualification." That was the purpose of the Bill, he added.

We do not dispute the fact that serious offenders should be kept off juries, but the Bill is concerned with minor offenders and those who have served their time. That is far from what the hon. and learned Member for Fylde and other Conservative Members have been saying about the need to disqualify serious offenders. Even the Daily Mail, in some glossy language, has written about disqualifying serious offenders.

In part, the Bill undermines the jury system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) pointed out. If the Government want a fair jury system, why was their response, such as it was, to the question of police vetting of jurors so negative? The great advantage of a proper jury system is that it represents a cross-section of the community. In my submission, rehabilitated minor offenders — for example, those who have been on probation — represent part of that cross-section of the community. They should have a right to a place on the jury. Although Conservative Members have not had the frankness to admit this, they are trying to influence the attitudes of those who serve on juries. They wish only those with the "right attitudes" to serve upon them. The game was given away by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) when he talked about unstable people serving on juries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is directed to criminal records and not instability.

Mr. Watson

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Cohen

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the Question be put in the middle of a Member's speech?

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 0.

Division No. 200] [2.25 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard Jackson, Robert
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Bottomley, Peter Kilfedder, James A.
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Lawrence, Ivan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Cope, John Luce, Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey Macfarlane, Neil
Garel-Jones, Tristan MacGregor, John
Greenway, Harry Maples, John
Howells, Geraint Mellor, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Moynihan, Hon C.
Patten, John (Oxford) Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian Watson, John
Proctor, K. Harvey Wheeler, John
Rhodes James, Robert Wiggin, Jerry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Wood, Timothy
Stern, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) Tellers for the Ayes:
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) Mr. Gary Waller and
Stradling Thomas, J. Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.
NOES
Nil Miss Betty Boothroyd and
Mr. Harry Cohen.
Tellers for the Noes:

Whereupon Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for Closure).

It being after half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 30 March.

Mr. Bottomley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance. We are now on Third Reading and we have been faced with the most curious display of lengthy speeches by London Labour Members who seem to be following the GLC antipolice and anti-justice line. Will the debate be resumed as first business next Friday, and are as many hon. Members likely to be present as there have been today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter of judgment for the Chair.

Mr. Watson

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Opposition Members to talk endlessly about their deeply held objections in principle to the Bill but produce a total of zero when the time comes to vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Whether speeches are in order is a matter for the Chair.

Back to