HL Deb 28 July 1939 vol 114 cc644-64

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

11.8 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR)

My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I do not think it is really necessary for very much to be said. Your Lordships are all well aware why it is unfortunately necessary to put this Bill before you, and I think your Lordships are also well aware of the main purpose of the Bill and what the Bill actually contains. To state quite briefly the reason why it is necessary to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading and to take the Bill through all its stages to-day, there is at the present moment afoot in this country a special plan to force a certain point of view with regard to Irish affairs upon His Majesty's Government. This plan has been prepared with the thoroughness of any military general staff. Indeed, as your Lordships know, we have been fortunate enough to obtain at least one edition of that plan. In that plan are laid down provisions for attack on all the public services, on our munition factories, on aerodromes. But it does not limit itself only to attacks on public property; as your Lordships are unfortunately aware, it threatens life also. Up to date there have been something like 130 outrages. Apart from many millions of pounds worth of damage, already two people have been killed and seventy-three more or less seriously wounded.

It is bad enough that these attacks should be carried on at the present time, but I do not think we need very much imagination to realise what they might mean in the event of the outbreak of war. These attacks are cowardly and purposeless. They are cowardly because no regard has been had to life, particularly lately. Completely harmless people with no knowledge whatsoever of the issues at stake may be walking along a street or into a tube station and be blown out of existence the next moment. They are purposeless because surely no sane man—if these people be sane—can imagine for a moment that the attitude of this country and His Majesty's Government is going to be influenced one iota by behaviour of this character.

One of the most impressive things about this country and the workings of democracy is that suddenly, without any propaganda whatsoever, apparently without any particular lead from the top, the country as a whole from one end to the other comes to a conclusion. The country to-day has come to the conclusion that these things must stop and that not a soul is safe until they have been stopped. I do not think any of your Lordships can have failed to be impressed by the debates in another place. I think that certainly we, from this side of the House, would desire to add our tribute to that of the Home Secretary to both Oppositions for the asistance they have given in another place. There is no doubt that many of the principles contained in this Bill have caused them considerable fear and discomfort, and yet, while their attitude has at moments been critical, their criticisms have always been helpful. I hope your Lordships will feel that my right honourable friend in another place did his best to meet, and that the Amendments put down in my name for the Committee stage here are also a genuine attempt to meet those difficulties.

I can state the main outlines of the Bill very briefly. Clause 1 lays down the main principles and functions of the Bill. Subsection (2) of that clause deals with the power of expulsion, subsection (3) with the power of enforcing registration, and subsection (4) with the power of prohibiting the entry of certain people into this country. Those people to whom it is applied are defined in the Bill and are slightly further defined in the Amendments which I shall later move. Clause 3 deals with the sanctions for enforcing the orders of expulsion, registration and prohibition. In Clause 4 we take the right to detain on suspicion—all these things, of course, being done without any trial. We take the right, when we have detained or arrested these persons, to take full record of them, to measure and photograph them and to take finger prints, and later on in that same clause we deal with the right of search.

Every one of the powers that we take here is a power that no single member of either House of Parliament would for a moment think of or tolerate unless it were supremely necessary. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has therefore had to consider what limitations and safeguards it was possible to put on these powers without impairing their effectiveness. Accordingly he has laid it down that this Bill shall operate only for two years, and that it shall be limited only to those who are endeavouring to enforce a policy on this country with regard to Irish affairs and who have been resident in this country for twenty years or less. With regard to that period of twenty years, many would have desired that it should have been a lesser period, and we should have desired that too; but unfortunately, on looking into the records of those about whom we already know, it was quite clear that any lesser period would not be effective. Then, as your Lordships are aware, the Home Secretary was prepared to accept an Amendment which makes it necessary for him to give a report to the House of Commons Of his activities under this Bill every three months.

As I have said, this Bill is against every natural instinct of every Britisher. On the other hand, many of us will feel that as a means of dealing with this problem not only is it essential but it is really modest compared with the danger with which we are threatened. We have tried to concentrate on the principle of prevention rather than that of punishment. We know that there is a body of unscrupulous and misguided men, caring about neither property nor life, walking about, many of them in fact known to the police; but there has not hitherto been sufficient evidence to stop them from taking this action against our security. Therefore it is with confidence that I ask your Lordships' co-operation in protecting the nation against this danger.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Earl De La Warr.)

11.20 a.m.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, I sincerely lament the necessity for this Bill, and I much regret that in existing circumstances I cannot ask your Lordships to reject it. I regret it most of all, perhaps, because the senseless terrorism that it is designed to suppress constitutes another injury to Ireland herself from which she might well have been spared. The wounds that are hardest to bear in life are those that are inflicted by your own kith and kin. It is an article of faith with these impulsive bomb placers that Irish freedom, whatever that may mean, can be won only through violence. That is a profound mistake. Freedom is the flower and fruit of order, of reason, and of restraint, but never of violence. My right to say this is twofold. First of all I had the privilege of working for Irish freedom long before these impulsive tools of reaction were born, and I had the privilege of working side by side with great Irishmen whose honourable and peaceful service to their country might well have been imitated. Such freedom as Ireland now possesses was born of their character and work and example.

Secondly, I have the right to say what I am saying as representing the British Labour Party. Your Lordships may have whatever reservations you please about the political ideas of that Party, but you must all allow that it is a constitutional Party. In so far as it is revolutionary, it means revolution by reason and by persuasion and general reorganisation, and we have pride in saying that no drop of blood stains its record; no home has ever been bereaved through any of its acts; and at the same time no Socialist Party in the world has got greater gains for those whom it specially represents than the peaceful, constitutional British Labour Party. We believe that force is no remedy for grievances. I sympathise with the desire to extend Irish freedom and so long as the effort to obtain freedom is orderly, we will give it all the support we can. But do these young rebels think that they alone feel indignant at the slow march of events; that they alone feel the pain of iron circumstances? That is an infliction that all of us have to bear, and especially the working classes.

I have closely studied during my life the history of revolutionary parties throughout modern history, I am acquainted with the teaching of all the great anarchists, from Bakounin to Mussolini, and I know that they not only failed miserably, but that their activities injured rather than helped that which perhaps they desired to achieve. Force is bad in itself. Civilisation is just the measure of the extent to which violence has been superseded by reason and by co-operation. Force is bad because it injures the cause which it is designed to serve. There, are thousands of decent people in Ireland, to-day, who feel very deeply shamed that these things should be done in her name, and we want to affirm that great events are not to be settled by emotion but by understanding and co-operation. If England is so very hateful to these people, and they want to shake its dust from off their feet, I can promise them that the English people will afford them every facility for doing so.

At the same time, when we come to this Bill, whilst we cannot resist it we cannot applaud it. I ask the House to beware of anything approaching panic legislation, and I suggest that as far as time allows we should give to the provisions of this Bill intense consideration. We do not want to punish for punishment's sake, and we have been taught by the great criminologists that punishment does not end the trouble. I remember that Lombroso said: Punishment, far from being a pall to the fanatical, and their nervous diseases, exalts them. … by exciting their thirst for martyrdom. Let us be careful of that when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill. It seems to me to be a subtle encroachment of the Executive upon personal liberty, and a drift towards government by powers vested in this or that Minister. It is not the only illustration of recent times. There was the Official Secrets Act, and in 1934 your Lordships will remember the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, when half a dozen friends and myself had the privilege of keeping your Lordships sitting until after four o'clock the next morning. I do not know that I am prepared to repeat that, although I think my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is still young enough to enjoy an experience of that kind should it be necessary.

I should like before I close to say that whilst we cannot resist the Bill we do very deeply regret that it has to be brought before this House. No Government, of whatever Party, could possibly allow foreign-fed rebellion of this kind to go unsuppressed, but there are things in this Bill which I shall hate to see upon the Statute Book. I intensely dislike taking powers away from the Courts and vesting them in the Home Secretary. I do not see how, under the provisions of this Bill, I am to escape having my finger prints taken, and perhaps being "dragged in" by some Home Secretary at any time. I am perfectly willing to trust Sir Samuel Hoare, as I should have been glad to trust the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, when he, too, was Home Secretary. But it is the investment of the powers of the State in the hands of a single Minister that I think is to be watched very carefully. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to a most highly significant statement which appeared in The Times of two days ago made by Mr. Gandhi in regard to India. India and Ireland are in some ways comparable. They have their differences of religion and differences of race, they are disunited as between loyalists and separationists; the Princes are reluctant to join in. It is almost a parallel case with Ireland, and Mr. Gandhi demands from the Princes full civic liberty, so long as it is not used to promote violence directly or indirectly. He asks that every person accused should have an appeal to the High Court, and he pays this significant tribute, which I ask your Lordships to note: This is the one institution which the British have built up with persistent care. Let us beware lest in our own country we rob the people of the great safeguards that our Courts have offered.

I do not want to say more except, before I sit down, to express my very deep sympathy, I am sure on behalf of your Lordships, to all those who have been injured, and very specially to Mrs. Campbell, a bride so wickedly and tragically widowed. She will receive, I am sure, the sympathy not only of the entire English people, but of all the best that belongs to Ireland herself. We shall with great reluctance consent to the passing of this Bill, but we venture to appeal to your Lordships most carefully to scrutinise its provisions, that we may not carelessly or permanently throw away deeply cherished liberty.

11.33 a.m.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I feel sure that there is a general opinion, not merely in this House but elsewhere, that a measure of this nature is urgent and necessary, and the noble Lord who has just sat down in his most eloquent speech said nothing which showed that he differed from that opinion. At the same time, we all have to recognise that the terms of this measure involve a marked departure in certain respects from the established rules of British justice, affecting those who are suspected or accused of the commission of crime. We recognise from what occurred in another place, and from the speech of the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading, that His Majesty's Government in no way resent a close examination of the manner in which such a departure is included in the Bill, and I think it is fair to say that they have done their best to limit the scope of such departure.

At the same time I hope it may not be pharisaical or too complacent to point out that there is probably no country in the world in which a measure of this kind would be discussed as it is here, or in which such a measure would include so many limitations as does this. If a series of outrages of this kind had occurred in Berlin, Rome or in Moscow, the fate of persons guilty of committing them would not have been so carefully guarded, as similar suspects are treated by this measure. But it is by no means only in countries where the government is arbitrary, and where there is a force of secret Government police that this would be true. I believe there is no country in either hemisphere, however liberally governed, in which a measure of this kind would receive the close attention and examination which this measure has done, and I think that is a fact on which we can congratulate ourselves.

A few days ago a noble Lord opposite, Lord Templemore, very kindly alluded to the long period during which I have been a member of your Lordships' House, and I greatly appreciated his kindness. I may perhaps therefore be excused for a moment for referring to what happened in the years 1883, 1884 and 1885, because the history of those years seems to offer a definite excuse for the introduction of a measure of this kind. I do not say anything about what happened in Ireland, but during those three years there was a series of dynamite explosions and outrages in London. Several railway stations were attacked, showing that history repeats itself, the office of The Times newspaper was attacked and the Junior Carlton Club received a violent assault. Why that particular institution was specially singled out I am afraid I cannot attempt to explain. But, beyond that, more than one Public Office was attacked. There was a very narrow escape of a bad explosion in the Houses of Parliament and the Tower of London was seriously damaged. Many trials and convictions took place. If I remember rightly, there were fifteen sentences during those years of penal servitude for life, and a number for shorter terms. In spite of that these outrages continued during the course of three years.

No doubt there was a more widespread discontent among Irishmen and a more extended dislike of the British Government of the day than can be said to exist at present. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, has stated what is the extent of Irish resentment at this moment; but in spite of that it is a defence for the introduction of this measure that during the whole of these three years the dynamite outrages continued notwithstanding the severe punishments which were inflicted. We have also to remember that in some respects there is a greater probability of serious damage than there was then. We all know what science has done for industry, but science has also helped in some respects to facilitate crime, and it cannot be denied that, with the present increased power of explosives and the far more extended knowledge of their use than existed then, harm may well be done on a larger scale than was possible fifty years ago.

I shall not say anything about the proposed Amendments which, I take it, in every case are designed to carry out promises made in another place by His Majesty's Government, and designed to meet certain objections which were raised there. The only point in the Bill to which I would call attention is in the proviso in subsection (1) of Clause 2 in which it is stated that if a person upon whom a notice has been served objects that there are no good grounds or no sufficient grounds for the making of an order against him, the Secretary of State shall, unless he considers the reasons to be frivolous, refer the matter to "a person nominated by him (not being an officer of police or of any Government Department)." I am not quite sure that the intention of that proviso is that in each separate case of objection, as it may occur, the Home Secretary should nominate some person whom he considers qualified to undertake the task, or whether it is proposed that there should be some permanent adviser of the Crown. I should have thought myself that it would add to the comfort and convenience of the Home Secretary if one or two persons were nominated from the first to act as assessors to him in all cases which come before him.

That is a matter in which I have no doubt the Home Secretary will consider the wisest course to take. I fully understand the objection which has been raised to attempting to bring about a quasi-judicial inquiry by nominating a Judge of the High Court to assist the Home Secretary in these cases. That might prove to be misleading; but I should have thought there must be men well qualified by experience in India, perhaps, or in some of the great Colonies, whose advice and assistance regularly given to the Home Secretary in the case of all the inquiries he has to make would have been of real service.

I observe that the noble Earl repeated what has been said elsewhere, that the object of this measure is prevention rather than punishment. That is a hope we shall all share. The more that this can be done by inducing potential criminals to leave the country rather than by waiting until they have committed a crime, the better it will be from every point of view, and the hope may be realised that within the two years named by the Bill the whole danger may, in the main, have disappeared. We all, I think, also agree that it is highly desirable that the Home Secretary should make these periodical reports to Parliament—not to the House of Commons, as I believe the noble Earl inadvertently stated. The report is, of course, made to Parliament, and not to either House individually. In those circumstances, I have nothing to add except to say that I trust the measure may have all the success which His Majesty's Government hope for it, and that it will not bring about any of the unhappy incidents which have been feared by some people.

11.51 p.m.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

My Lords, I feel quite certain that everyone of your Lordships will recognise that this measure has been forced upon us by a deplorable emergency, and we all wish His Majesty's Government every success in dealing with the grave menace to our national life with which we are faced. At the same time, I would venture to express a certain degree of personal disappointment that His Majesty's Government did not find it practicable to deal with the situation by the institution of a system of passports or of identity cards to control to some extent the migration of persons from Southern Ireland to these shores. I do not believe that the migration movement from Ireland to England is a very large one at the present moment. It is not the quantity but the quality of that migration movement that in the opinion of a good many persons who are concerned with social work needs some restriction and control.

I very much hope that the Government will give earnest consideration to the fact that the migration movement from Ireland to England is, as far as I know, the only migration movement in the world which is in no way controlled, and that they will consider the evidence which tends to show that some degree of control such as might have been afforded by a passport system is urgently called for, not merely in the interests of this country but in the interests of Ireland, and above all in the interests of certain persons who undertake the adventure of migration from one country to another without possessing those qualities which are very urgently needed for the successful migrant. I am of opinion that the day will come when such a system of control will have to be set up, and it should include—here again I am speaking particularly in the interests of the migrants themselves—some efficient system of deportation, not of criminals so much as of those persons who are not fitted by their character to face life in the cities of this country. I am well aware that I have opened a subject which cannot now be considered, but I would venture to take this opportunity of urging future consideration of this migration upon His Majesty's Government.

11.54 p.m.

LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)

My Lords, I think it is quite clear the country as a whole is so heartily in support of His Majesty's Government, though disappointed in some respects that such a necessity has arisen, that it is not necessary to raise any voice in support of this measure. I rise, however, because of a phrase that fell from the lips of my noble friend Lord Snell opposite, which I fear might possibly be torn from its context and be used for purposes that he never intended. He made use of the phrase "beware of panic legislation." That phrase has a sense which we all know well here, but it might be used in certain quarters to suggest that a state of panic was arising, and that these abominable practices were, to a certain extent, meeting with success. I feel sure the noble Lord holds no such view, and that he would ridicule the suggestion that the working classes of this country are panicking. And what is true of them is equally true of other classes in this country. I feel sure that anyone who is not seriously mentally unbalanced, will realise that the attempt to produce panic among British people by means of violence is a long and an uphill task leading invariably to disappointment and disillusion.

11.56 a.m.

LORD SEMPILL

My Lords, crimes such as these against God and man must be dealt with vigorously, and the Bill now being debated by your Lordships is a most necessary one. I very much, however, regret to note that in the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, no mention at all was made of the most effective deterrent against crimes of this nature, that of flogging, and that there is no mention of it in the Bill. Looking back on my youth I can speak with considerable feeling and much personal experience of that matter, as no doubt many of your Lordships will be able to do, too. I feel that a matter of this kind is so serious that I will ask your Lordships to consider as to whether some specific provision should not be made to include in this measure the greatest deterrent against dastardly crimes of this kind—that of flogging.

11.58 a.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I rise only to thank your Lordships for the reception that has been given to this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, will forgive me if I do not follow him into what seems to me rather, perhaps, anticipating another Bill. I think the noble Lord, Lord Darcy (de Knayth) can rest assured that no one in this House or the Government is thinking of panic legislation. Indeed I hope the noble Lord may have noticed that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, on that point were received with applause on the Benches of His Majesty's Government. There is in fact, as we all know, no state of panic whatsoever in this country, but one of quite steady determination to deal with this matter. If I may say so, I think all these discussions have been yet further proof that Parliamentary freedom of discussion means not weakness but strength and that we here in this country have sufficient confidence in our belief in justice and law to be prepared to suspend, for dealing with a specific problem, the normal operation of the law, confident because we know that it will leave untouched our principles of real freedom and liberty. Only one other point has been raised in the debate which might be allowed to mention. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, put forward certain considerations with regard to the appointment of the advisers of my right honourable friend and I can assure him that I will certainly lay those considerations before the Home Secretary.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended in pursuance of the Resolution of the House of Monday last:

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Power of Secretary of State to make orders.

1.—(1) With a view to preventing the commission in Great Britain of acts of violence designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to Irish affairs, the Secretary of State may exercise the powers conferred by this section:

Provided that he shall make a report to Parliament at least once in every three months as to the number of occasions upon which such powers have been exercised and the number of persons affected thereby.

(2) If the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied that any person in Great Britain, not being a person who in his opinion is and has been throughout the last preceding twenty years ordinarily resident in Great Britain, is concerned in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence as aforesaid, or is knowingly harbouring any other person so concerned, he may make an order (in this Act referred to as an "expulsion order") against that person requiring him to leave Great Britain.

12.1 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the Amendment to subsection (2) should be read together. The purpose is to make it clear that the Secretary of State shall not make an expulsion order in the case of a person under twenty years of age if he has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain throughout the whole of his life. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, leave out lines 11 to 14.—(Earl De La Warr).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment deals with the same point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("Britain") to the end of line 18.—(Earl De La Warr).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment, in subsection (2), is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 3, after ("concerned") insert ("and that he is not a person who has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain throughout the last preceding twenty years, or in the case of a person under the age of twenty years throughout his life,")—(Earl De La Warr).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 13, after ("name") insert ("and")—(Earl De La Warr).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, leave out from the first ("person") to ("is") in line 22.—(Earl De La Warr).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 25, after ("aforesaid") insert ("and that he is not a person who has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain throughout the last preceding twenty years, or in the case of a person under the age of twenty years throughout his life,")—(Earl De La Warr).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (5): (6) Any notice of an order served on a person in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section shall contain a statement informing him of his right to object and to make representations to the Secretary of State within forty-eight hours after the service of the notice and of the manner in which such representations may be made, and in the case of a notice of an expulsion order or registration order the notice shall also inform the person upon whom it is served whether the order has been made against him—

  1. (a) by reason of his being concerned in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence as aforesaid; or
  2. (b) by reason of his knowingly harbouring another person so concerned."

The noble Earl said: The purpose of this additional provision is to make sure that a person served with a notice of an expulsion order or a registration order is informed that the order is made on certain grounds. Those grounds are by reason of his being concerned in the preparation or instigation of acts of violence, or by reason of his knowingly harbouring another person so concerned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 38, at end insert: (6) The Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament at least once in every three months as to the number of occasions on which orders have been made by him under this section and the number of persons with respect to whom such orders have been made."—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Effect of expulsion orders and prohibition orders.

2.—(1) Any person on whom notice of an expulsion order or of a prohibition order made against him has been served, shall leave Great Britain in accordance with the requirements specified in the notice and shall thereafter, while the order is in force, remain outside Great Britain:

Provided that …

EARL DE LA WARR

The first Amendment to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 1, at the beginning insert ("Subject as hereinafter provided").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), after "Great Britain," immediately preceding the proviso, to insert "and any person upon whom notice of a registration order has been served shall comply with the requirements specified in the notice." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the succeeding Amendment should be read together. The purpose is to give any person against whom a registration order is made the same right to object as is given to a person served with an expulsion or prohibition order. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 6, at end insert ("and any person upon whom notice of a registration order has been served shall comply with the requirements specified in the notice.")—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 7, leave out ("such a") and insert ("any such").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD STRABOLGI

I do not rise to oppose any part of this Bill at all, and I follow entirely the line taken by my noble friend Lord Snell, but before we pass this clause I think it right to point out how drastic an alteration we are making in the law. I think it is well that the public at large should know this. It has a bearing upon what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said. These are British subjects with whom we are dealing. It would be wrong, I suggest, to treat them as foreigners and give them passports. I have here the unrepealed portions of Magna Carta which, after all, is the foundation of our liberty. The original document is now in New York, where it has been the subject of the very greatest interest. With your Lordships' permission I will read the relevant part of it. I have had to quote it in Parliament before in connection with the misuse by the Executive of the passport regulations and the withholding of visas which I have always said is ultra vires. This is the passage: No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. Prohibition of outlawry is on the Statute Book, and we are waiving it now for this period of two years to meet these particular circumstances. We cannot help it, we support it, but I think that fact should be known.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Detention and identification of suspects, and searches.

4.—(1) Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably suspects to have committed an offence under this Act or any person whom he reasonably suspects to be a person against whom an expulsion order or a prohibition order has been made, and may detain any person so suspected of being a person against whom such an order has been made pending the determination of the question whether he is such a person:

Provided that no such person shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours except with the authority of the Secretary of State expressly given in each case.

(2) Any person detained under powers conferred by this Act shall be deemed to be in lawful custody and may be detained in any prison or in any other place directed by the Secretary of State; and the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under Section eight of the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, as to the measuring and photographing of prisoners who may for the time being be confined in any prison, shall extend to the making of regulations as to the measuring and photographing of persons arrested or detained under this Act who may for the time being be detained in any place.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "has been made," where those words first occur, and insert "is in force, or to be a person concerned in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence as are mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of this Act." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the next three on the Paper ought to be read together. Their object is to confer additional powers on a constable to arrest a person on suspicion—on suspicion, that is, that he is concerned in the preparation of an act of violence described in the Bill. Under it that person may be detained until the Secretary of State has had time to consider the case and to decide whether it is one in which he should make an expulsion order or a registration order. These Amendments provide that a person may not be detained more than forty-eight hours without the authority of the Secretary of State and in no case for more than seven days. Recent events have shown that the police are very greatily handicapped in having no power to arrest or detain people who may be believed to be implicated in a conspiracy, because although they may be seen with certain persons, be discussing certain matters with known suspects in very highly suspicious circumstances, the information that the police could place before a magistrate would not ordinarily be enough to justify the magistrate ordering a remand pending the prosecution of inquiries. The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, leave out ("has been made") and insert ("is in force, or to be a person concerned in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence as are mentioned in subsection (1) of Section one of this Act").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 31, leave out ("has been made") and insert ("is in force or of being a person still concerned as aforesaid").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("no") to ("for") in line 34 and insert ("person shall be detained under the powers of detention conferred by this section").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

There is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move—

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 34, leave out from ("hours") to the first ("of") in line 35 and insert ("or such further period not exceeding five days as may be authorised by direction").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "other places directed" and insert "police station or other similar place authorised." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to make it clear that a person can only be detained in a prison or a police station or similar place authorised by the Secretary of State. There was some criticism made in another place that as the Bill was drafted the Secretary of State could authorise a person to be detained at some other place, that is, at some secret place of which his friends did not know. That was never intended, and this Amendment is designed to make that clear.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 39, leave out from the second ("any") to ("by") in line 40 and insert ("police station or other similar place authorised").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think I ought perhaps to mention to your Lordships that when the noble Earl was speaking on his first Amendment to this clause an Amendment was handed to me proposing in Clause 3 (1) to insert, after "two years," in line 6 on page 2, the words "and ten strokes of the birch." I could not put that Amendment then because it was too late. I understand, however, that the noble Lord who handed the Amendment to me will wish to have it considered on Report, and as the Report stage will follow immediately I thought I should inform your Lordships.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of Amendments be now received.

Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

Clause 3:

Offences and penalties.

3.—(1) If any person on whom notice of an expulsion order or of a prohibition order made against him has been served—

  1. (a) fails to comply with any requirement specified in the notice, or
  2. (b) is after leaving Great Britain or after being placed on board a ship in accordance with the provisions of this Act found in Great Britain while the order is in force,
he shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months.

12.12 p.m.

LORD SEMPILL moved, in subsection (1), after "two years", to insert "and ten strokes of the birch". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have nothing more to submit to your Lordships on this matter, but I feel that this is an addition that could properly be made.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 6, after ("two years") insert ("and ten strokes of the birch").—(Lord Sempill).

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but I think this is rather a sound suggestion. There is nothing that the Irishman objects to so much as ridicule, and if he gets even ten strokes of the birch it will not do him any harm except that, when he gets into the prison and meets his fellow-convicts, they will all turn round to him and significantly rub the seats of their trousers. That may act as a much greater deterrent than several years in prison.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I think I said what little I had to say on this matter on the Second Reading. I would only add one word—namely, that the principle of this Bill is prevention rather than punishment. We have to realise that the offences that are provided for under this Bill are all offences in anticipation, and also matters to be dealt with without trial. Such punishments as are provided under this Bill are for the disobeying of certain orders that are laid down. Whatever we feel about the merits of flogging—I see that the Amendment does not actually deal with flogging but with birching—surely none of us could say that people should be birched for being thought to be contemplating some future action. You might say that they should be expelled, and we certainly do say that they should be expelled, or compelled to register, or refused permission to enter the country. The noble Lord is, however, seeking to carry the matter very much further.

LORD LLOYD

May I ask the noble Earl if, where punishment is meted out, flogging is a part of it? Presumably there is punishment under this Bill. I have not had the opportunity of studying it very carefully, but I suppose that is so.

EARL DE LA WARR

No, my Lords, and I think it would be completely missing the purpose of this Bill if it were. After all, if a person has actually committed an offence, he then comes under the normal law of the country. This Bill is for dealing with people who have not committed an offence; it is to prevent them from having the opportunity to commit an offence. I stress again that the only point at which any punishment comes into this Bill is when a person disobeys an order of the Government. It is like committal for contempt of court, but actually in this case it is contempt of an order of the Home Secretary.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment, for many reasons. The first is that if it is accepted and goes to another place, it will be resisted and the Bill may not pass at all. Secondly, remember that if it were passed it would include women as well, according to the wording of the Bill. Thirdly, we are not here to produce dramatic legislation of that kind. In justification of his Amendment, the noble Lord said that when he was young he had had personal experiences of punishment of that kind. Well, I really cannot say that I think the result justifies his experience, and I hope your Lordships will not accept his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.