Clause
28
Automatic
deportation
Mr.
Clappison:
I beg to move amendment No. 58,in
clause 28, page 14, line 14,
leave out ‘1 or 2’ and insert ‘1, 2 or
3’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 7, in
clause 28, page 14, line 15, leave
out ‘a’ and insert
‘any’.
No.
134, in
clause 28, page 14, line 15, leave
out from ‘imprisonment’ to end of line 16 and
insert
‘has committed an
offence which, in the opinion of the sentencing judge, merits
deportation.’.
No.
8, in
clause 28, page 14, line 15, leave
out ‘of at least 12
months’.
No.
59, in
clause 28, page 14, line 21, at
end insert—
‘(3A) Condition
3 is that the person is convicted of an offence liable to imprisonment,
the commission of which took place when the person did not have valid
leave to remain in the United Kingdom.’.
No. 127, in
clause 28, page 14, line 32, at
end add—
‘(8) The Secretary
of State shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the operation
of the provisions under this section including the number of people
deported under
them.’.
No.
142, in
clause 34, page 17, line 26, leave
out subsection
(1).
No. 13, in
clause 34, page 17, line 28, leave
out ‘does not include’ and insert
‘includes’.
No.
55, in
clause 34, page 17, line 29, leave
out ‘whether or not’ and insert ‘save
where’.
No.
143, in
clause 34, page 17, line 31, leave
out paragraph (b).
No.
14, in
clause 34, page 17, line 31, leave
out ‘does not include’ and insert
‘includes’.
No.
15, in
clause 34, page 17, line 38, leave
out ‘at least 12 months’ and insert ‘any length of
time’.
No. 16,
in
clause 34, page 17, line 41, leave
out ‘(provided that it may last for 12
months)’.
No.
17, in
clause 35, page 18, line 21, leave
out from ‘(i)’ to end of line 23 and insert
‘for “does not
include” substitute “does
include”.’.
No.
18, in
clause 35, page 18, line 24, leave
out subsection
(3).
New clause
5—Annual report by Secretary of
State
—
‘Following
consultation with Her Majesty’s Judges, the Secretary of State
shall lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the
exercise of his powers in respect of the deportation of
criminals.’.
Mr.
Clappison:
I shall be speaking to the amendments standing
in my name and shall also say a few words about the amendments in the
name of my hon. Friend the Member for
Monmouth.
We
now come to the subject of automatic deportation, as it is termed by
the Government. Briefly, to assist the Committee, as the Bill stands,
what is described as automatic deportation will generally be triggered
when a foreign offender receives a sentence of at least12
months imprisonment. There are other circumstances in which it may be
triggered under the clause, when an offence is specified under
condition 2, but generallythe trigger mechanism is a sentence
of 12 months imprisonment. My amendments are refinements on that, as
are the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend. That is the starting point
for the
debate.
I
should say, so as to give the Committee a complete picture, that in the
case of sentences of less than 12 months imprisonment or of
non-custodial sentences the existing law on deportation remains in
place. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am
wrong—someone who does not set off or come within the ambit of
the trigger mechanism of 12 months imprisonment may still be
recommended for deportation by a court; or the Home Secretary may
decide to deport the person concerned on the grounds that his or her
presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good,
even if the court has made no recommendation. That is the existing law.
The Bill adds to that the category of automatic deportation. That is
the difference that the Bill
makes.
Amendment No.
58 seeks an additional trigger mechanism in the case of a person who
receives a sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed at a time
of not having valid leave to be in the United
Kingdom; that means, basically, somebody who is an illegal entrant or an
overstayer in the United Kingdom and who does not have permission to be
in the country. The Committee may remember that I specifically raised
that question with
Migrationwatch. I
have some sympathy with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the
Member for Monmouth. He would trigger automatic deportation when a
foreign offender receives any sentence of imprisonment, as opposed to
what is on the face of the Bill, which is a sentence of 12 months
imprisonment or one of the offences specially listed by the Home
Secretary. I do not know what the Minister will reply, but whatever
else he says, I do not think he will be able to say that my hon.
Friend’s amendments are entirely unreasonable, because the
Government had the same idea originally. The Committee will remember
that there is quite a history as far as the provisions are concerned,
from the early part of last year—the Minister winces at that
recollection. I do not propose to go over the whole of that history; I
will save the Committee that, but I think it highly relevant to the
amendment to remember what the then Home Secretary originally said to
the House when dealing with the aftermath of the problems—if I
may put it that way—over foreign
deportations:
“We
will consult on whether that presumption should be made statutory
through primary
legislation”—
he
was referring to the presumption that deportation would follow, unless
there were “special circumstances” where it could
not.
“Such a
presumption would include all criminals sentenced to imprisonment, all
those convicted for an offence listed in an order under section 72 of
the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, all those on the sex
offenders register, repeat offenders and, of course, all those
recommended for deportation by the sentencing judge. We believe that
there is a strong case for extending those proposals to any individual
who is convictedof an imprisonable offence, whether or not a
sentence of imprisonment was actually given, and we will consult on
that too.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c.
972.]
4pm
David
T.C. Davies:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving
way and for enlightening us in that manner. Is it not the case,
therefore, that the original proposals put forward by the Government
were far less moderate than the proposals that I am putting forward
today?
Mr.
Clappison:
My hon. Friend is correct. However, that was
not the final version of the Government’s thinking. To be fair,
they moved on from the position of all imprisonable offences committed
by a foreign offender resulting in a presumption of deportation, which
was going to be put into statute and presumably was what they were
thinking of at the
time.
We then moved to
the present Home Secretary, whose own proposals in this regard, which
he described to the House in a written statement, seem to be on all
fours with those in my hon. Friend’s amendment. I shall quote
what he said in that
statement:
“I
believe it is essential to be clear about our long-term policy. My
objectives are straightforward: all non-EEA nationals who are given a
custodial sentence should face deportation; and deportation should
happen as early as possible in that
sentence.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2006; Vol.
446, c.
79W.]
There is
not much room for doubt there as to what the present Home Secretary
wanted. He wanted what I think appears in the form of my hon.
Friend’s amendment.
So it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what has prompted
the shift in the Government’s thinking: away from the Home
Secretary’s predecessor, who wanted imprisonable offences to
result in automatic deportation; to the present Home Secretary, who
wanted all sentences of imprisonment to result in automatic
deportation, and finally to this measure, which sets the trigger for
automatic deportation at 12 months’ imprisonment. It is quite natural to ask why
the Government have engaged on this retreat. The public will want to
know and I think that it is a fair question to put: why should foreign
nationals who have abused their position in the UK by committing
serious offences for which only a custodial sentence is appropriate be
allowed to stay in this country? It might be the case that the Home
Secretary and his predecessor were thinking similar thoughts when they
made their proposals.
I would also like to point out
that, if the Bill is amended to make the trigger mechanism a sentence
of imprisonment rather than 12 months imprisonment, it appears to be
the case that all the protections afforded to an offender in the Bill
would remain. There are quite a lot of them. I have noted that there
are a large number of exceptions, some of them in the form of
protections for an offender, particularly in respect of offenders who
are claiming asylum. There is also the full range of protections for a
foreign offender under the European convention on human rights,
including article 8, the right to family life. All those protections
are in the Bill and they would apply as much to somebody who is
sentenced to imprisonment following an offence as they would to
somebody receiving12 months imprisonment. All those
protections are in place, so I would like to hear from the Minister why
he wants to give additional protections to someone who receives a
sentence of imprisonment of less than12
months.
I turn to my
amendments. Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 cover a slightly different case:
the case of a person without leave to remain in this country who
commits an offence. If I may, I pray in aid the support of
Migrationwatch, because I asked it specifically about that issue. We
heard a lot about Migrationwatch this morning; I think that the
Minister was quoting Migrationwatch left, right and centre, if I can
put it that way, and it was an unshakeable authority for the
propositions that the Minister wanted to advance. What Migrationwatch
had to say about the point that I put to it in support of amendment No.
58 was absolutely clear. It clearly thought that it was right that
somebody in the country without permission to be here who offended and
received a sentence of imprisonment should be asked to leave the
country, and deported.
The case of
somebody who commits an offence without having permission to be in the
country is different from that of somebody who does have that
permission, not least because, as the Minister will confirm, that
person is liable for removal whether or not they have committed an
offence. They will be subject to administrative removal rather than
deportation, but it has the same effect—they are removed from
the country. I know that the Government are interested in removing such
people, because they produced a paper about it two weeks ago with great
fanfare. It explained how they would crack down on people who were
illegally in the country by way of overstaying or whatever. There is an important
difference there, and in the light of that I hope that the Government
will welcome the amendment. Somebody who is illegally in the UK,
commits an offence and is arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment should automatically be deported, subject to the
exceptions and protections in the Bill. My amendment would ensure that
all offenders who commit an offence resulting in imprisonment and do
not have leave to be in the country are deported.
As I said, such people are
liable for deportation in any case. Are we to say that somebody who
goes through the process of being arrested, charged, tried, convicted
and sentenced to imprisonment should be released from prison to
continue their illegal presence in the country and perhaps, who knows,
to be texted a fortnight later to be told they should not be in the
country? Perhaps great efforts would have to be made on the part of the
IND to locate exactly where they were once they had left prison so that
they could be removed from the country. Members of the public would
want to know why such a person was not removed from the country as a
result of their sentence of imprisonment as night follows day, subject
to the exceptions in the
Bill.
I turn to
amendment No. 55 and I shall also make a few remarks about amendments
Nos. 14 to 18, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for
Monmouth. The amendments are on a separate issue. I have said that the
trigger for automatic deportation will be 12 months imprisonment, but
there is an issue of exactly what that means for that purpose. Under
the interpretation in clause 34(1), it seems to me that a considerable
number of offenders who receive a sentence of more than 12 months will
not be subject to automatic deportation because of the meaning that the
Bill gives to such a sentence.
I shall
explain why 12 months will not mean12 months in a number of
cases. The Bill prevents consecutive sentences totalling more than that
from being counted as a 12-month sentence. So for example—the
Minister can correct me if I am wrong—someone who offends on
separate occasions and receives a series of two or more consecutive
sentences in a single court appearance totalling more than 12 months
will not be subject to automatic deportation, because he has not
received a single sentence of 12 months. Under the Bill, however long
the consecutive sentences are and whatever their total, as long as each
individual sentence is less than 12 months such an offender will not
automatically be
deported.
I
shall give one or two examples. A foreign national who commits two or
three offences of burglary and receives nine months to be served
consecutively for each offence—that is how the courts are told
to sentence people who commit offences on different
occasions—could be sentenced to a total of 18 or 27
months’ imprisonment and not be subject to automatic
deportation. There is a problem with repeat offences, and the
interpretation in clause 34 can be described only as a concession to
serial offenders. My question to the Minister is why the Government are
making that concession. Why are they showing generosity to people who
repeatedly commit
offences? It is not just a single offence. They are committing repeated
offences and violating this country’s hospitality. Why cannot
they be subject to automatic deportation if their sentences total more
than 12 months? Amendment No. 55 covers a
similar point. As the Bill stands, it could give rise to another case
in which 12 months imprisonment will not necessarily result in
automatic deportation. I am talking about offenders not being deported
despite being sentenced to a total of more than 12 months imprisonment
for separate offences in a single court appearance.
AmendmentNo. 55 covers a slightly different point, too,
although it is on the same lines, because under the Bill as
drafted—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—a
suspended sentence is not taken into account even where the foreign
national commits a further offence and the sentence is activated to run
alongside a sentence for a new offence.
A foreign
offender who commits an offence and receives a suspended sentence of 12
months imprisonment will not automatically be deported, and if during
the period of his suspended sentence of imprisonment he commits a
further offence and receives a further sentence of imprisonment, he
will not be subject to automatic deportation unless the second sentence
is itself more than 12 months imprisonment. He will not be
automatically deported even if the suspended sentence is implemented
consecutively so as to make a total sentence of12 months. Thus
an offender who receives a sentence of 12 months imprisonment suspended
for two years is not automatically
deported.
Let us
suppose that that offender commits a further offence within that
two-year period for which he receives a sentence of nine months
imprisonment in a separate court appearance. If he is sentenced
to21 months imprisonment in which the 12-month suspended
sentence is activated consecutively to the nine-month sentence of
imprisonment, which is how courts regularly sentence people who are
subject to these provisions—they are probably told to do
so—he will not be subject to automatic deportation, even though
he is a repeat offender. In his case, not only is he a repeated
offender, but he has repeatedly appeared in front of the courts and
taken no notice when they have told him, in no uncertain terms, that he
will be sent to prison if he commits a further offence during the
period of his suspended sentence.
The proposal
is another concession for serial offenders which is capable of
producing perverse results, and the public, if they heard about it,
might well regard it as a loophole. I can easily envisage a scenario in
which a foreign citizen receives sentences of more than 12 months in
one of the ways that I described and in accordance with court
sentencing practice he is not automatically deported and goes on to
commit further, serious offences. The question would be asked why the
person concerned, having received a sentence of more than 12 months
imprisonment, was not deported in the first place, and the answer would
be that Parliament left a loophole.
The amendment provides us with
a chance to ensure that we do not leave a loophole, that we bring some
coherence to the Government’s provisions and that we send a
clear message to people that they should behave themselves in this
country, especially if they are here
illegally.
Chris
Mole (Ipswich) (Lab): I appreciate the hon.
Gentleman’s point about what he described as a loophole but I am
sure he realises that there is a back-stop in section 3 of the
Immigration Act 1971 that allows the individuals he described to be
considered for deportation by the Secretary of
State.
4.15
pm
Mr.
Clappison:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s
intervention. I said that the public might regard it as a loophole. As
I am sure that he will recollect that, at the beginning of my speech in
support of the amendments, I mentioned that the Bill is in addition to
the provisions in existing legislation. The court recommended the
deportation of offenders or a separate power for the Home Secretary to
deport someone whose presence in the country is not conducive to the
public good. Those provisions were in place in the spring of last year
when we experienced all those problems.
The provisions are subject to a
legal mechanism and a series of appeals. The proposals before us are
the outcome of the Government’s attempts to improve the
situation in the light of last spring. It is the case that the sort of
person who I described might be deported, but as we found out last
spring, that is not always the case. Let us imagine that the public
found out that such a person, having not come under the provisions of
the Bill, had committed more serious offences, having already received
more than 12 months in prison, but not been automatically deported. I
can picture in my mind’s eye the television reporters on the
steps of the court saying that because of a loophole, X, Y or Z was
able to remain in the country, even though theyhad been
sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment. The Committee
has the chance to say, “We have seen the loophole so let us
close
it”.
John
Hemming:
This is a complex area, with which the Bill tries
to deal with too few words, unless discretion is given to the courts. A
lot of different circumstances could arise. Reference has been made to
EEA citizens, but the Bill refers only to British citizens. The legal
position of EEA citizens with a legal right to be here is unclear.
Furthermore, it is entirely unclear whether suspended sentences count
as periods of
imprisonment.
We
face an odd situation. The clause provides for a simple process of
automatic deportation when certain conditions are satisfied. Where else
should that apply? What approach should we take? In a couple of words,
we could specify whether any sentence of imprisonment, or one of a year
or more, would be necessary. Alternatively, would it be best to leave
that decision to the discretion of the judge who can consider all the
issues on the hearing at first instance? In effect, the judge could
apply a number of sanctions: fines, imprisonment—suspended or
otherwise—or he could press the button for deportation,
although, obviously, the Secretary of State would actually order the
deportation. Under the previous system, the Secretary of State could
consider deportation. The newer one says that it will ensue, unless the
Secretary of State pulls
back.
Let us consider
the example of a repeat burglar, which was a good one. Clearly, we do
not want such a person in this country: they have come in on a
visitor’s
visa and carried out burglaries. There is no reason for that person to
remain in this country and, frankly, there is no reason to lock them up
for three years and then deport them when we could lock them up for six
months, save ourselves a lot of money and then deport
them.
David
T.C. Davies:
A lot of people would say that that is not
correct. The message needs to go out to fellow burglars from the
country that that person came from that they cannot simply come here,
commit burglaries, wait until they have been caught and then be given a
free flight home with nothing lost. People who commit burglaries should
be punished, which means that they should, indeed, spend several years
in prison before
deportation.
John
Hemming:
I am not saying, “Come here, steal things
and we will give you a free ticket back”. I gave the example of
six months vis-Ã -vis two years. We must consider the extent to
which we need to go beyond that. It is an issue to be considered, but
not necessarily now by this Committee. Our amendment gives the judge
the discretion to say in certain circumstances that are not covered by
the automatic provisions or the list in the statutory instrument,
“Let us put this person on the conveyor belt towards
deportation. When he has completed his sentence, he will be
deported.”
The
point is that different people find themselves in very different
circumstances, and that needs to be considered at the court of first
instance. One of my constituents, who does happen to be a British
citizen, was imprisoned for five years for dropping a cigarette. It is
a complex case that has gone badly wrong, and we are hoping to take it
to the Court of Appeal.
However—
David
T.C. Davies:
I do not know whether it is entirely in
order, but that is such an incredible example that I think that the
hon. Gentleman should spell out in more detail how anybody can have
been locked up for five years for dropping a
cigarette.
John
Hemming:
It happens that my constituent has mental health
problems and he dropped the cigarette in his home, where his parents
live. A fire ensued and it was deemed to be reckless arson. Let us look
at the mens rea issue—the question of intent. Consider the
offence of careless and reckless driving by somebody who has lived in
the country for a number of years. They lean down inside their car to
pick something up, and it happens to run into other people. They get a
short period of imprisonment, not necessarily a year. Are we saying
that, having lived here for 30 years, they should automatically be put
on the conveyor belt for deportation? That is a very different sort of
offence from that committed by somebody who goes around burgling lots
of people, where there is identifiable intent to cause misery to
others.
Consider also
circumstances where somebody on a student visa goes out with other
students, they get a bit drunk and do something rather stupid. That is
not the same mens rea as the situation in which somebody commits repeat
burglaries. That person would effectively have ended their studies
because they went
out and did whatever the other students happened to do at the time. We
cannot try to deal with those circumstances using the form of words
that we are considering here. There is, therefore, logic to giving the
judge the discretion to decide in circumstances that do not already
fall within condition 2 whether a particular sentence or conviction
warrants deportation. Whether that is taken into account to any extent
in terms of the period of sentencing—obviously, taxpayers have a
concern about what is done in given circumstances—is a matter
for Home Office guidance and further work. We are proposing an alternative
approach. In certain circumstances, it will be a lot firmer because it
will involve a shorter sentence than a year—so the example of
the repeat burglar would be trapped by that. However, in other
circumstances, it will allow consideration of the circumstances of the
individual. As I mentioned, people come here on student visas, and odd
things can happen. It is a complex situation and I do not think that
trying to deal with it simplistically deals with it properly in the
long term. A good example is that of the lad in the Orkneys. Hon.
Members might remember that there was a major campaign to prevent his
deportation. It had a lot of public support. He was not deported. That
related to an arson offence committed on a previous
occasion.
There is a
role for condition 2 and a statutory instrument determining a list of
types of offence. However, wherever the number of months or years is
set, there is going to be a problem. That problem is best resolved by
giving discretion to the judge. I wish to press amendment No. 134 to a
vote later.
David
T.C. Davies:
This country has a proud history of offering
hospitality to people who have chosen to come here for different
reasons, and it is right that that should continue. Unfortunately,
while there have been many good examples of people coming here in large
numbers and living constructive lives, there has been a tendency
recently for some people from certain countries—I might give an
example later—to come with the deliberate intention of breaking
the law, in order to profit from doing so. My view, which may be shared
by Labour Members and even Liberal Democrat Members, is that we should
not have to tolerate that. There is a widespread view among all
communities that if people come here and abuse our hospitality, any
obligations that we have to them become null and void.
The purpose of my two
amendments is to ensure that anyone who received a prison sentence
would face automatic deportation as a result. Given what my hon. Friend
the Member for Hertsmere has just said about the Government’s
original proposals, they are very moderate amendments indeed. I
probably ought to become the hero of the Guardian-reading
classes for coming up with something that is eminently more
moderate.
Mr.
Byrne:
Polly
Toynbee.
David
T.C. Davies:
Indeed, Polly Toynbee will
probably laud me in her column in T
he
Guardian
next week, because what I have suggested is far more reasonable and
liberal than what the Government proposed some
time ago. They originally talked about automatic deportation for anyone
who broke any rules whatsoever, but I am suggesting automatic
deportation for anyone who is sentenced to any form of imprisonment. As
we know, it is quite hard to get thrown into prison these days. One has
to do something very serious indeed to earn any sort of prison
sentence. I have heard a few examples. I have to say to the hon. Member
for Birmingham, Yardley that the example of the cigarette end was a
little bit misleading, if it resulted in arson in a house in which
somebody was living.
John
Hemming:
Let us understand a little about that case. The
people who came to me to complain about the sentence were the other
people living in that house, because they felt that it was
wrong.
David
T.C. Davies:
I think that I would probably feel that it
was wrong if somebody had put out a cigarette and started a fire in my
house. I am not aware of the full situation that the hon. Gentleman is
talking about. He was a bit misleading when he gave that as an example.
He gave us a few other examples, though. He talked about the drunken
student; I have never been a student, but I have been drunk a few
times.
David
T.C. Davies:
Yes, it is shocking, isn’t it? In my
teenage years I did one or two rather silly things. Let us put it this
way: it did not involve dressing up in £1,000 tail-coats. Let us
not go down this road; I can feel an imaginary shovel in my hands as I
continue.
Let us be
reasonable. People who are young—by that I mean under the age of
20, and even a little bit older—do silly things. I should think
that most of the people in the Room have done silly things and I
certainly include myself in that. One does not go to prison for doing
one-off silly things, or for doing things as a drunken
student.
John
Hemming:
The question is: which rules, if contravened,
should result in deportation? Students can do silly things that
contravene the rules and get fined for it. We are talking about the
wider issue of how far somebody goes before they get
deported.
David
T.C. Davies:
It is clear from the amendment. We are
talking not about people who get fined, but about people who get
sentenced to any form of imprisonment. I purposely tabled the
amendments so that they would not include people who get involved in a
drunken prank while they are a student, or somebody else who shoplifts
something. They would not face any form of imprisonment and therefore
would not be automatically deported either. We have to draw the line
somewhere. I have clearly referred to anyone who gets a sentence of
imprisonment. It is quite difficult to get such a sentence. One has to
do something quite serious to get
it
John
Hemming:
It comes back to the question of mens rea and
intent. Do people intend to achieve the results that are achieved? I do
not want to go through a list of offences or examples of people who
have been
imprisoned. I cited that example from my constituency because it
involved somebody who happened to be mentally ill at the time. He
dropped a cigarette and did not do anything about it. He pleaded
guilty, which perhaps was also a mistake, but that is life. He has now
got a problem. There are situations in which someone might get a short
prison sentence. We have to look at the wider issue of where we set the
limits on the
rules.
4.30
pm
David
T.C. Davies:
To be truthful, the problem with setting any
limits on any rules is that there will always be cases that make the
rules look a bit silly. The truth of the matter is that if the
amendments are passed, there will occasionally be somebody deported who
one might reasonably think should not be deported. That will happen,
but rarely. The problem at present is that there are many thousands of
people in this country who should be deported—I believe that
Government Members would agree with that—but who are
not.
I give one
example. I was looking on the force computer a couple of weeks ago and
learned that a gang of pickpockets from Chile is operating in tube
stations. There are about a dozen in the gang. They are constantly
being arrested, but every time one is arrested, everyone else clubs
together to get them a solicitor and get them out of jail, whereupon
they go straight back to the tube and carry on picking pockets. It is
done in an organised fashion and the people who are involved are doing
nicely out of it. They are never, or very rarely, sent to prison, which
surprises me, but if they were sent to prison, they would not be sent
for12 months, because one is not sent to prison for12
months for picking
pockets.
I suspect
that everyone in this room would agree that those people should
automatically be deported. There is no reason why they should not be
sent back to Chile or why we should enable them to stay here to pick
pockets on the tube, yet they are not
deported.
John
Hemming:
I did not mention the last
thing on my piece of paper, but the hon. Gentleman must have seen it.
The point is that those people are clearly causing a continual public
nuisance, but are not being imprisoned. Should not the judge be given
the opportunity to say that the offence warrants
deportation?
David
T.C. Davies:
I hear sounds behind me that indicate that
another intervention may be coming my way. The hon. Gentleman makes a
perfectly reasonable intervention, but my suggestion would also take
care of the matter. The judge would have the power to sentence somebody
for repeatedly picking pockets to at least several weeks, if not
months, in
prison.
Mr.
Clappison:
I understand the Liberal Democrat
Member’s point, but is not the answer that neither my hon.
Friend’s amendments, nor my amendments, nor the Bill itself will
take away the existing power of the judge to recommend deportation if
he thinks that it is appropriate—that is the discretion to which
the hon. Gentleman refers—or for the Home Secretary, quite
independently of what happens in the courts, to make an order that
somebody’s presence is not conducive to the public good? The
problem is that the procedures
are so labyrinthine and subject to uncertainty and bureaucracy that we
end up with the problems that we had last spring, but the powers remain
in
place.
David
T.C. Davies:
Before we start to go around in circles, I
want to come back with one point about mens rea, which, as the hon.
Member for Birmingham, Yardley knows, is all about intent. I shall not
name the country this time, because I know that it will get me into
trouble, but there is a problem in my force area with a certain
community that is constantly breaking driving regulations. That has led
to accidents, and people are driving around without tax, insurance,
MOTs or anything else
whatsoever.
The issue
that concerns me is not simply that the driving rules are being
flouted, but that people driving without licences are causing a danger
to others. Should they be involved in an accident, imprisonment of more
than 12 months is unlikely because there will not have been an intent
to cause serious harm to somebody, although that might be what actually
happens. I put it to the Committee that people who deliberately flout
rules in a systematic fashion should not be made welcome in this
country, and we should have no obligation to them, regardless of
whether they do or do not intend to cause somebody a serious
injury.
John
Hemming:
On the power to recommend and consider, Liberal
Democrats are simply suggesting that the court of first instance deal
with the matter. That would mean that a system that does not currently
work would actually start
working.
David
T.C. Davies:
If the hon. Gentleman considers what I have
suggested, he will find that it is very simple. Automatic deportation
will be presumed if somebody is sentenced to any period of
imprisonment. I do not see anything wrong in that, given the fact that
people are not sent to prison unless they have done something fairly
serious or are doing less serious things on a repeat basis. It is a
perfectly reasonable amendment and far more reasonable than the ones
put forward earlier by the Government. I offer it up as a third way. It
is a moderate compromise that we can all get behind and support, and I
put it to members of the Committee that they should do
so.
Damian
Green:
I rise to support the amendment of my hon. Friend
the Member for Hertsmere, to speak to my own amendments and, as my hon.
Friend did, to put this large group of amendments in the context of the
debate of the past 15
months.
For a few minutes, the Committee appeared to agree that if a person is drunk when they commit a crime,
it is somehow not as bad. That is simply not the case.
David
T.C. Davies:
At that point in the debate I was taken down
a path down which I would rather not have been taken. I thank my hon.
Friend for putting more eloquently than I did exactly the point that I
was trying to make before I was rather cleverly distracted by hon.
Members.
Damian
Green:
I give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham,
Yardley.
John
Hemming:
What I was trying to get at is that we are
looking at the wider issues. At what point is it appropriate to deport
somebody?
Damian
Green:
Exactly so. I am particularly grateful to the hon.
Gentleman for clarifying his
position.
I
shall return to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere
carried out an extremely good forensic examination of the way in which
the Government’s position on deportation has oscillated, not
just from Home Secretary to Home Secretary, but between the existing
one and the legislation before us. However, I seek always to be kind to
the Home Secretary. The phrase that makes an extraordinary appearance
in clause 28—“automatic deportation”—should
not be laid at his door. I think that that phrase was used originally
by the Prime Minister in an unguarded moment at Prime Minister’s
questions. Many of the difficulties and knots in which the Government
have entangled themselves ever since have resulted from an attempt to
justify the use of that phrase by the Prime Minister. Nothing in the
Bill suggests that anything will be automatic.
In that regard, the remarks of
the Immigration Law Practitioners Association are very relevant. On the
provisions to which the amendments refer, it
said:
“These
provisions do not address the problem, which came to light last
year—that IND had not been making decisions in respect of
foreign criminals, who were then released from prison into the
community without any consideration of whether a deportation order
should be made. The Bill refers to automatic deportation, which is a
misnomer. Deportation will not follow automatically. Officials will
still have to apply the provisions, and if officials do not do so no
deportation will
follow.”
That is clear,
and to a large extent unarguable. ILPA
continued:
“These
provisions constitute an abrogation of responsibility on the part of
the Secretary of State. He is empowered to make a deportation order,
but currently has discretion not to do so if deportation is not
justified on the particular facts of the individual case. As drafted,
the Bill would remove the Secretary of State's
discretion”.
Again, I am
sure that that point appeals to the hon. Member for Birmingham,
Yardley. I hope that the Minister will address it when he responds to
the amendments.
ILPA
went on to make a point that I feel very strongly
about:
“These
provisions effectively allow for indefinite
detention”.
To
a large extent, that is what we are now witnessing. Not unreasonably,
the Government have reacted to a crisis—foreign criminals simply
being let out—that led
to the sacking of a Home Secretary. Now we are just trying to lock them
up anywhere. Indeed, only yesterday, we saw that the Government are
putting such people in immigration detention centres. At places such as
Harmondsworth and Campsfield, violence and serious disorder has ensued.
That is not only bad in itself, but bad for the future operation of
detention
estates.
Mr.
Byrne:
Will the hon. Gentleman take this
opportunity—I know that it is not on his point—to
congratulate the emergency services on their response to the incident
at
Campsfield?
Damian
Green:
Absolutely. I am more than happy
to do so, because I know how serious it was. It clearly could have been
even more serious, as the Harmondsworth incident became. I know that
the emergency services and those who were sent in to sort out the
situation behaved admirably, bravely and quickly to minimise its
effect. However, the incident illustrates starkly the fact that if we
carry on doing what we are doing, the position will remain
unsatisfactory.
The
clause is not one of the parts of the Bill that will affect what might
happen in future or in a theoretically constructed situation. It
affects things that are happening now and going very wrong. That is why
there are so many amendments for us to discuss and why I, my hon.
Friends and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley are seeking to
improve the provisions. At the moment there is a toxic interaction of a
prison estate that is too full and a deportation system that is not
working. The only safety valve is the immigration detention estate,
which is not designed to take people who have been sentenced to prison
for serious offences. I am sure that that particularly unpleasant
combination of failures is one thing that keeps the Minister awake at
night.
I shall speak
briefly to the amendments in my name. As the Bill is drafted, people
will be liable to automatic deportation only if they have been
sentenced to prison for at least 12 months. We have all sought
different ways to improve that and relax that constraint. I seek to
remove that criterion so that automatic deportation applies to any
person who has served a prison
sentence.
Despite the
length of the debate, I suspect that nobody has said much with which
the Minister does not agree. We all agree that the deportation of
foreign prisoners is desirable in most cases—the debate is about
prisoners only, which is an important distinction. We know that at the
moment only people who have committed serious offences are sentenced to
prison. That is all the more true given the current overcrowding in the
prison estate. It therefore seems to us extremely easy to argue that if
a foreign criminal has been given a prison sentence, by extension they
should lose their right to stay in this country. They have abused the
hospitality that it has afforded them and should therefore lose their
right to be here.
I
have referred several times to prison overcrowding. I am sure that it
would help if the ability to deport foreign criminals who have been
given a prison sentence were extended so that it was not restricted to
those who had been sentenced to more than 12
months.
Amendment No.
127 is another of our amendments requiring the Secretary of State to
report back. We had a lengthy, good debate this morning on the amount
of
parliamentary accountability that ought to come with such a Bill. It is
clear that the clause is one of the most important parts of the Bill,
so that applies particularly here. I have no wish to repeat what we
said this morning, but I wish to make one point: this is an area in
which ministerial rhetoric has been extremely strong. It was
instructive that on Second Reading the Minister said that his best
guess was that of the 10,000 or so foreign prisoners in British
prisons, about 4,500 would be subject to the deportation provisions
expressed in the
Bill.
Mr.
Byrne:
Obviously, we need to distinguish the stock and the
flow. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me to clarify
that point. The stock of foreign national prisoners is about 10,000,
but what I said on Second Reading was that there would be about 4,500
considerations each year. Obviously, some people will be locked up for
much longer and that figure will not always be
appropriate.
4.45
pm
Damian
Green:
I appreciate that. Clearly, the prison population
changes on a constant and daily basis. Nevertheless, the underlying
point is that the process will not be automatic for a large
number—many thousands—of foreign prisoners. Frankly,
there is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality of what the
Government are
promising.
Amendment
No. 142 is consequential to the previous amendment and, again, it would
expand the range of the clause. This debate has been enormously
important and if the Bill is designed to secure our borders, a much
better deportation system than the present one is necessary. I am sure
that the Minister recognises that and it is presumably why these
clauses are in the Bill. The various amendments tabled by me and by my
hon. Friends simply try to make that system genuinely effective and,
once and for all, to make it clear that Britain’s borders are
open. People are welcome to come to this country, but they are not
welcome to come here and prey with criminal intent on its people. We
need to clearly send out that message.
Mr.
Byrne:
I am grateful to hon. Members for an excellent
debate. In some of the exchanges betweenthe hon. Members for
Hertsmere, Monmouth and Birmingham, Yardley—who is my
neighbour—we have seen the different dynamics and ends of the
debate. I will take the Committee through the journey that I have
travelled because I have an enormous amount of sympathy with the
argument that has been eloquently put by the hon. Member for
Hertsmere.
What the
Government have tried to do in the clauses that we have structured is
provide for a degree of balance. The starting point for the debate is
that those who come to this country, commit a crime and receive a
criminal sentence face the prospect of deportation. As the hon. Member
for Hertsmere said, existing powers on the statute books provide for
that. The question left is how to ensure a stronger link between
criminality and deportation. What we have tried to do, as the
Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has recommended, is
to remove some of the Home Secretary’s discretion when making
those decisions. The Home Secretary was clear
that those who commit offences should face the prospect of deportation.
What we are debating in these clauses is the manner of execution for
that decision. These
clauses will accelerate the removal of foreign national prisoners from
the country while increasing the certainly of removal. One of the
current problems is that when foreign national prisoners are considered
for deportation and handed a deportation order, nearly three quarters
appeal against the order despite the fact that about 55 per cent. of
appeals are dismissed and25 per cent. are withdrawn. That
process of appeal takes up to six months and that is too long. When
serious offences have been committed, we need to deport the individuals
effectively and if they wish to undertake an appeal, they can do so
from their country of origin, thanks very
much.
The amendments
that we have debated this afternoon fall into four categories.
AmendmentsNos. 7, 8, 15 and 16, and 142, which is in the name
of the hon. Member for Ashford, challenge the threshold. The hon.
Member for Hertsmere raised a related point about offences committed by
individuals without leave and raised points, on which there a number of
related amendments, about suspended and consecutive sentences. The hon.
Member for Birmingham, Yardley put a point from the other end of the
spectrum about eliminating some of our proposals. I shall canter
through those points as quickly as I can.
I shall reflect again on the
debate that we have had this afternoon, because it has been important.
I need to consult with colleagues in both the Home Office and the
Department for Constitutional Affairs in order to explore whether there
are areas in which we need to go further than we have provided for in
the Bill. I understand that hon. Members may wish to put some of the
issues to a vote, and that is fine. However, this is a signal that I
shall reflect carefully on what has been said.
The starting point for the
question of balance is important. We have deliberately drawn the debate
widely; we have drawn the applicable population as broadly as we can. I
said earlier that the debate covers some 3.4 million foreign nationals.
The hon. Member for Monmouth asked where that figure came from. It came
from the operational modelling, data analysis and reporting services
published by IND in February 2007. If he wants more details, I shall be
happy to try to provide them.
The point about the foreign
national population in this country is that it includes individuals who
might have arrived in this country moments after they were born.
Indeed, there may well be foreign nationals in this country who were
born in Britain after 1981 to parents who were not British, and are
therefore not British citizens. They are foreign nationals with
indefinite leave to remain; none the less, for the purposes of the
Bill, they are classed as foreign nationals and are therefore subject
to the foreign nationals clauses. Those individuals might have spent
all their lives in this country, so we need to inject a degree of
balance into cases in which we take into account people’s
personal circumstances. That is why I think that it is not necessarily
appropriate to remove all discretion for all offences that carry a
sentence.
Some individuals, such as those
born here to foreign national parents after 1981, have grown up in
Britain and are to all intents and purposes British, but are not
British citizens. If one of them committed an offence that was subject
to a sentence of imprisonment, he would automatically be deported.
Having reflected long and hard on that, I think that that would be
disproportionate.
We
have therefore sought to structure in a supporting mechanism, and that
is recourse tosection 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and
Asylum Act 2002. I do not know whether Committee members have had a
chance to look at that, but it is important to do so. It is about 40
pages long and lists some 324 offences. Almost all of the examples that
have been given by hon. Members this afternoon, whether of burglary,
picking pockets or other types of theft, concern offences that appear
on the section 72 list and therefore carry the sanction of automatic
deportation. We wanted to avoid the situation in which somebody who was
born in this country after 1981 is convicted of the non-payment of a
fine and sentenced to a period of imprisonment and is then
automatically deported. That is not the same as saying that he should
not face deportation; provisions that are already in place mean that he
would do so. However, the outcome would beat the discretion of
the court or of the Secretary of State.
An important point was very
well made by thehon. Member for Hertsmere about the automatic
deportation of those who commit offences when they are here without
leave. I confess to him that I started in precisely the same place as
he did. However, what leads me to suggest that his amendments Nos. 58
and59 should be withdrawn is the fact that there could be
situations in which injustice results from the changes that he
proposes.
The
scenario that has been put to me—it is, I am afraid to say,
perfectly plausible in my experience as a constituency MP—is
that of a woman who came over as a spouse, possibly through an arranged
marriage, and her husband did not allow her to apply for indefinite
leave to remain. Through no fault of her own, she therefore found
herself without leave to remain in this country and then became a
victim of domestic violence. Maybe one day she fought back, committed
an offence and was therefore liable for imprisonment—that is how
the hon. Member for Hertsmere has drafted the amendment—and she
ends up being given a community sentence. However, under the precise
drafting of the amendment, she would therefore be automatically
deported. The protections that we have put in place might simply not
bite in that case.
That is not to say that that
individual—the woman in question—would not face automatic
deportation; indeed, she would face automatic deportation. My argument
is that, in cases as complicated as that, we may need the consideration
process rather than an automatic process to unfold and it may be
appropriate to provide for an in-country right of appeal, rather than,
say, an appeal from Pakistan.
Mr.
Clappison:
I appreciate the way in which the Minister is
contributing to the debate and promising to take matters away and think
about them. However,
may I come back to him on the example that he has just given to the
Committee? I think that it was the amendments by my hon. Friend the
Member for Monmouth that would change the wording to a sentence of
imprisonment rather than 12 months’ imprisonment. The way that
the Minister put it was that that individual would be liable to a
sentence of imprisonment, but instead would receive a community
sentence. That situation would not be covered by my hon.
Friend’s amendment; there would have to be a sentence of
imprisonment.
In the case that the Minister
has outlined to us, if the lady in question committed an offence that
resulted in a sentence of more than 12 months’ imprisonment,
under his own trigger mechanism she would face automatic deportation in
any case. In both cases, whether it is any sentence of imprisonment or
more than 12 months’ imprisonment, that person would have the
full protections afforded by exception 1, which would bring into play
the question of her rights under the European convention on human
rights, including the right to family life under article 8. I suspect
that those rights would cover the sort of case that the Minister
referred
to.
Mr.
Byrne:
I think that the amendment that was tabled in the
name of the hon. Member for Hertsmere is No. 59, which
says:
“Condition
3 is that the person is convicted of an offence liable to imprisonment,
the commission of which took place when the person did not have valid
leave to remain in the United
Kingdom.’.
I understand,
however, that there are a lot of amendments in this group.
I am less
convinced than the hon. Gentleman that article 8 would kick in as a
protection and I agree that, under my own provisions, if the sentence
were for longer than 12 months there would indeed be automatic
deportation. However, I do not think that there would be a court that,
on review of the facts of that case, would necessarily hand down such a
sentence.
I was also
grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point about administrative
removal, which is, of course, important. That is because against
administrative removal, the right to appeal is out-of-country; to come
back in, one would obviously require entry clearance.
The point
about suspended and consecutive sentences was one of the most important
parts of the debate this afternoon. The examples of offences that were
given were all offences that would have been captured by section 72 of
the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and therefore would
have resulted in automatic deportation. The argument about suspended
sentences comes back to some of the points made by my neighbour, the
hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. We want to try to retain the link
between serious offences and automatic deportation.
However, the
issue with consecutive sentences is different. The hon. Member for
Hertsmere was quite right to question me quite closely about this
matter when I gave oral evidence to the Committee at the beginning of
our deliberations. The issue with consecutive sentences is this: if
somebody commits a series of offences that accumulate, should there be
automatic deportation or
should there be a more flexible process of consideration by the
Secretary of State, with an in-country right of appeal? There is no
question whether someone is facing deportation; they do face
deportation. The path is simply different. The reason we propose the
latter course is that it is difficult to define in the Bill the period
over which the offences might be committed. For example, someone may
have committed an offence when he or she was 15 or 16; for the sake of
argument, let us say that the person was 18. The individual may have
been born in this country after 1981, grown up here, and then have
committed an offence 20 or 30 years later.Under these
provisions, that would result in automatic
deportation. 5 pm
I do not dispute the fact that
that individual should face the prospect of automatic deportation, but
I think the force of the automatic deportation provisions may be the
wrong approach and risk an injustice, which would be unwise. The
protection of an in-country right of appeal may also be important in
order to provide that the Secretary of State does not get it wrong. The
point is simply that the period is difficult to stipulate and the
number of offences committed within that period is difficult to set in
stone. Again, I am not in a very different place from the hon. Member
for Hertsmere, because his real concern is about serial offenders or
recidivists.
A
different way to tackle that problem is by amending section 72 of the
2002 Act. That Act contains an order-making power, so it would not be
difficult for the Government to amend the section 72 list and introduce
changes. I was interested that the hon. Gentleman included burglary in
the crimes he mentioned, because that is already on the list. It is a
faster, more appropriate way to tackle the problem that he highlighted.
The problem of defining the time window in which the offences are
committed is so difficult that it may warrant a different process for
considering automatic deportation.
I think I have picked up most
of the points that were made except the one that was raised by ILPA,
cited by the hon. Member for Ashford, which was concerned that we might
be locking people up indefinitely. There are, of course, the usual
protections under the European convention on human rights. We cannot
lock people up indefinitely; the IAT—the immigration appeal
tribunal—takes a pretty stiff view of that and looks for the
immediate prospect of deportation and
removal.
Mr.
Clappison:
I am grateful to the Minister for the manner in
which he has replied to the debate. My hope throughout has been that he
would at least indicate a preparedness to think constructively about
the amendments, which highlight problems that must be tackled and would
improve the Bill if they were implemented.
I want to get
one little disagreement out of the way and then I shall move on to more
constructive matters. The Minister deftly fudged the distinction
between facing deportation and automatic deportation. When the Home
Secretary was speaking about facing deportation he was clearly talking
about these provisions for automatic deportation. There would have been
no point in his
making those statements if he was going to leave the existing system as
it was in the spring of last year. We all know about the existing
provisions for deportation; one could say that somebody was facing
deportation in those circumstances. But when the Home Secretary talked
about facing deportation he meant automatic deportation, as is clear
from the context and the words that he used. However, we will not get
far by going over that ground again. I am trying to improve what is
presented as automatic deportation.
On the person who is
here illegally, the Minister is quite right; I was talking about the
amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth. The
amendments that address people who are illegally present in the country
relate to the commission of an offence. However, I would ask the
Minister to reflect on that. I listened to the example of the lady who
comes to this country in the sad circumstances of a marriage that does
not turn out to be happy and has problems of domestic violence; if she
does not have leave to remain, such a person would be liable none the
less for administrative removal.
Such a person would have rights
to have that case considered, but I believe that those rights would be
on all fours with what is contained as a protection in the existing
Bill—namely, the right to have the case considered against the
background of the European convention. Such a case would be covered by
the exception of the person’s rights under that convention. As I
have already pointed out, if the sentence that the person received
happened to be more than 12 months, quite likely in those
circumstances, that person would face automatic deportation in any
case. I would invite the Minister to think about
that.
Would the
Minister also think carefully about the position of repeat offenders?
He has been trying to find examples which might give a little wriggle
room on these questions. His point was about repeat offences which were
a long time apart, of somebody who commits an offence as a young man
and then later commits another offence.
I would respectfully remind the
Minister that this amendment is about somebody who is being sentenced
on the same occasion for a number of offences. It is not a question of
repeat court appearances; it is about someone who is sentenced on the
same occasion and the court chooses to impose consecutive sentences for
each
offence.
Mr.
Byrne:
The hon. Gentleman is being generous, but as I
understand it—and I am not a lawyer—it is possible that
an individual might be sentenced on the same day in the court to
consecutive sentences for offences that were committed a very long time
apart. It could just be that the offences are brought together on that
day.
Mr.
Clappison:
The Minister is right. That was the case that I
had in mind. However, at a single court appearance that person might
receive a sentence of imprisonment for one offence, which, although it
is unlikely, may have been committed some time beforehand, and then
receive a prison sentence for
another offence, which was presumably committed more recently. Therefore
that person would receive a total of two sentences. It is still repeat
offending.
I cannot find it in myself to
feel that such a person should receive additional protections. If a
person repeatedly offends, even if the offences are a little way apart,
and on each occasion it is considered that the offence is so serious
that only a custodial sentence can be imposed, the totality of that
person’s offending should bring that person within these
provisions for automatic deportation.
The Minister’s example
goes to the furthest reaches. Nine times out of 10, if not 99 times out
of 100, the offences will be much closer together in time than that.
Such a person would have the protection of the exception for their
convention rights, the right to family life and all the other
protections that arein place. I ask the Minister to think
carefully about
that.
I would also
like the Minister to consider the problem of suspended sentences.
There, even his example could not apply because when someone receives a
suspended sentence, that person is told that it will last for a certain
length of time. It is usually two years, although the time could be
shorter—I think it is a maximum of two years; it might be three.
It is certainly for a limited period. We are talking about somebody who
receives such a suspended sentence and then commits another offence
during the currency of that suspended sentence so as to produce a total
sentence of more than 12 months imprisonment; a person who repeats
offences close together, has two court appearances and refuses to heed
thewarning that has been given through the first court
appearance.
I am
grateful to the Minister for confirming that my understanding is
correct—at least he has not said that it is wrong. However, it
is just that the Minister can think of some examples that might result
in hard case stories. That is my interpretation of the provisions. I
cannot see any conceivable circumstances in which a person in that
position should be treated more leniently than a person who appears in
court and for a single offence receives a prison sentence of 12 months
and faces automatic deportation. It is not just or in the public
interest to have someone in this country who commits repeated offences
and takes no notice of what the courts have said.
I am grateful to the
Under-Secretary of State for the spirit with which she has replied to
the debate. I am not prepared at this point to retreat from the
substance of what I have said, but I will reflect carefully on what the
Minister has said. He has promised to think carefully about what I have
said in the debate. If he is prepared to do that he may produce
amendments that are better technically and have the same effect of
dealing with the problem of repeat offences, or perhaps deals with them
in a different way.
There is a problem here of
dealing with repeat offenders. In other evidence that it has given,
Migrationwatch highlighted that problem. I think that it may have been
mentioned on Tuesday, but it has been highlighted on previous
occasions. I believe that in existing provisions, which the Home Office
has had as guidelines for dealing with deportation, recognition has
been made of the case of repeat offenders. Therefore, we have to deal
with repeat offenders here. On the basis that the Minister is prepared
to think about and reflect on what I have said and possibly come back
with some further measures at a later stage in the Bill’s
consideration, I seek leave to withdraw my
amendments.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
proposed: No. 134, in clause 28, page 14, line 15, leave out from
‘imprisonment’ to end of line 16 and insert
‘has committed an
offence which, in the opinion of the sentencing judge, merits
deportation.’.—[John
Hemming.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes
10.
Division No.
12
]
Davies,
David T.C.
(Monmouth)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Alan
Campbell.]
Adjourned
accordingly at thirteen minutes past Five o’clock till Tuesday
20 March at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
