Clause 12.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.) (Hansard, 4 July 1961)

§ Mr. Galbraith
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
1348 The Clause as it stands permits the flood prevention authority to arrange with the sewerage or water authority to divert a sewer or water main which is causing an obstruction and likely to cause flooding. As part of this arrangement the flood prevention authority may make a contribution towards the expenditure incurred by the sewerage or water authority in carrying out the work.
I am advised that without specific provision in the Bill there may be legal doubt about the right of the flood prevention authority to make a contribution to the sewerage or water authority where that authority happens to be a department of the same parent authority as the flood prevention authority itself; in other words, where a single authority is carrying out a separate function as a flood prevention authority and as a sewerage and water authority.
I am told that it might be held that any adjustment of a local authority's accounts in such circumstances could not properly be held as a contribution for the purpose of the Bill and that, accordingly, the expenditure would not rank for grant. It is important that any doubt on this point should be removed and as the Amendment will have that effect I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

§ Mr. Ross
Can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us exactly what is meant by paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection"?

§ Mr. Galbraith
I understand that paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection does not appear in the copy of the Bill that we are looking at now, but it is in Bill (45), where these two Amendments (a) and (b) are drafting Amendments.

§ Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)
We can only work on the Bill that is provided for us in the House. In the copy of the Bill before us, I see that Clause 12 appears on page 8 as two subsections. The Amendment now before the House proposes to put in an additional subsection which is to become subsection (2). Subsection (2) will read as follows: Where a local authority are a sewerage or water authority and as such incur expenditure in carrying out, or paying compensation in 1349 respect of, any operations such as specified in paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection… On looking at subsection (1) of the foregoing subsection, I find that there is no paragraph (a) or (b). I cannot understand the Joint Under-Secretary saying that if we look at another edition of the Bill (45), we shall see that there was paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). The authorities of the House provide us with copies of the Bill for the purpose of our discussion.
There are no paragraphs (a) and (b) in in the copy of the Bill which we have. How on earth can we do our work properly if we are referred to a copy of the Bill which apparently does not exist or is not available to hon. Members? I do not know whether the Joint Under-Secretary has taken the point, but I should be obliged if he would put us in possession of the facts and the circumstances which led to hon. Members being put in possession of a Bill which apparently is not the Bill that we are seeking to amend.

§ Mr. Willis
This is another example of Government ineptitude. I obtained my copy of the Bill from the Vote Office about half an hour ago. There is certainly no paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection in it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has said, how can we be expected to understand what this means unless we have the appropriate Bill in our possession? My Bill is No. (29). If there has been another printing of the Bill, No. (45), surely it is incumbent on the Government to have withdrawn this copy and put copies of Bill No. (45) in the Vote Office.

§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
I have just obtained my copy and it is still No. (29).

§ Mr. Ross
It is even worse than that. On the Notice Paper containing the Lords Amendments to the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill with which we are dealing there is a note which says: The page and line, refer to Bill (29) as first printed by the Lords.

§ Mr. Willis
My hon. Friend is quite correct. At the top of the Notice Paper 1350 referring to the Bill to which we are now seeking to agree the Lords Amendments, it says: The page and line refer to Bill (29) as first printed by the Lords. We have Bill (29) and there is no paragraph (a). I have been handed a copy of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill as amended on Report, which is No. (45). So, apparently, there must have been some hasty work on the part of the Scottish Office and this copy has been rushed to the Vote Office.
This Bill left this House nearly six months ago. There has been a gross mismanagement of business on the part of the Government who have not brought this Bill here before now. In view of the very long time which has elapsed, I should have thought that there is still less excuse for the Government having made this hopeless blunder than would have been the case had they proceeded with the Bill at their customary speed and passed it some time before Easter.
We have waited a long time for the Bill and as a result of waiting all we have is muddle, incompetence and ineptitude. It is about time that the Secretary of State thought about—I was going to say resigning. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but it is disgraceful that a simple bit of Government business cannot be put through the House without this running to and fro from the Treasury Box and the Government Front Bench to the Vote Office. Here we are discussing something which is not in the Bill at all. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to give us a good explanation and be most apologetic for the great inconvenience he has caused.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like your help about this matter. We have before us Lords Amendments to the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill. It states on the Notice Paper containing the Amendments: The page and line refer to Bill (29) as first printed by the Lords. If we refer to page 8, line 17, as was suggested by the Joint Under-Secretary, we get absolute nonsense. Surely, in dealing with our business in this House we have not reached the stage where we must have two copies, two different printings, of a Bill in order to understand what the Amendments are about. Bill 1351 No. (45), which I presume is the Bill which was last printed, was ordered to be printed on 14th March.

§ Mr. Willis
Months ago.

§ Mr. Ross
The Lords Amendments to the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill were ordered to be printed three days later. I wonder whether you can guide us about whether these proceedings are in order. It is difficult for us to read and properly place these Amendments when, in the normal course of business, we go to the Vote Office and get a Bill and then discover that there is no paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection printed in it at all. We depend on the hon. Gentleman to tell us which printing of the Bill it is, and discover that we have to have two separate Bills printed in a different way so that we may find out exactly what we are doing. This is an inexcusable muddle when we bear in mind that the Lords Amendments that we are discussing were printed on 17th March and, three days before that, the Bill was printed as it left another place.
I do not blame the Joint Under-Secretary, but I think that the Government, and the organisation which is supposedly behind them, are pretty rocky when we are presented with a situation such as this. I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you can help us about the position of the procedure of the House regarding this matter.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)
I should like to hear what the Minister has to say.

§ Mr. Galbraith
I do apologise for the great difficulty in understanding this small matter which I think is really only a question of printing.

§ Mr. Willis
Do not blame the printer.

§ Mr. Galbraith
No, but I should like the House to see whether it finds that the explanation I propose to offer is reasonable.
I think the situation is that in order to understand the Amendment which I have just moved, Clause 12 (1) of the Bill has to be divided into paragraphs (a) and (b). If it is not so divided this Amendment does not make sense, because it refers only to the second part of Clause 12 (1). I understand that when 1352 an Amendment of this nature is moved, what might be called the "signposts" indications like "(a)" and "(b)" and "(1)" and "(2)"—are put in by the printer without their actually having been moved.
When I referred to Bill No. (45), that, of course, is not the Bill as it left the House of Commons. We are dealing with the Bill as it left the House of Commons, which is Bill No. (29). But Bill No. (45) shows the Bill when these "signposts"—paragraphs (a) and (b)—had been inserted, after the Amendment had been moved in the Lords. I was not saying that we ought to have a copy of Bill No. (45) before us. I was merely indicating that if any hon. Gentleman did happen to have a copy in his possession—as I have—it would make clear that paragraphs (a) and (b) are only punctuations, as one might call them—changes which make clear the meaning of the Amendment that I have just moved.
I appreciate that this is rather a complicated and difficult matter, and I hope that the explanation which I have given will help the House to realise that there is nothing extraordinary in the procedure which has taken place.

§ Mr. Manuel
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I want to ask your advice. I understand that there is no second copy of the Notice Paper and that the Amendments we have before us refer exclusively to Bill (29). How can we deal with these Amendments, which refer exclusively to Bill (29), when the Bill we have to deal with is Bill (45)?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It has been explained that subsections (1) and (2) should be paragraphs (a) and (b).

§ Mr. Ross
No.

§ Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Could you enlighten us on the position? The only Notice Paper which we have before us at present is headed: Lords Amendment to the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill". The Amendment we are now dealing with is, in page 8, line 17, at end to insert the new subsection. But we cannot insert anything there because in Bill (45) which we have been given line 17 ends with the word "improve".
1353 Obviously, the Notice Paper that we have has no connection with the Bill as at present constituted. In these circumstances, there cannot be an Amendment because it is not, from the phraseology point of view, in order in any shape or form. To that extent, I submit that you have more or less no alternative but to adjourn the proceedings on this Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The question for me is whether the House agrees or disagrees with the Lords Amendment.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Our difficulty, with which you will have to help us, is that we have not yet been convinced that we can possibly agree to this Amendment. You said a moment or two ago that you understood that subsections (1) and (2) are now paragraphs (a) and (b). With the greatest respect, even that has not been suggested.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I was wrong about that.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
May I suggest, then, that we cannot amend Bill (45) at the end of line 17 in page 8, because, as has been pointed out that, line ends in the middle of the word "improvement". We clearly cannot insert a new subsection between "improve" and "ment".
We resolved at the beginning of these proceedings to deal with Amendments proposed in Bill (29). Now we are asked to make an Amendment at the end of line 17 in page 8 by the insertion of a new subsection. This new subsection refers to …paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection … It seems to us to be pretty odd to invite the House to put in a new subsection which refers to …paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection … when there is no paragraph (b) in that foregoing subsection.
I ask for your help in this matter. The Government have not given us much help. They have said that there is another copy of the Bill, and we have looked at it, though we are supposed to pretend that it does not exist. We have had our attention called to Bill (29) which is the one which, according to the Order Paper today, we are seeking to amend. I suggest that the only Bill available 1354 to us is Bill (29), and in that Bill subsection (1) of Clause 12 does not have any paragraph (b). That being so, it would seem to be wrong for the House to put in an Amendment which refers to paragraph (b) when there is no paragraph (b).

§ Mr. Willis
Further to that point of order. We are now asked to amend Bill (45).

§ Mr. T. Fraser
We are not.

§ Mr. Willis
We are asked to amend Bill (29). Bill (45) is already amended. This new subsection is already in Bill (45).

§ Mr. Manuel
They took it for granted.

§ Mr. Willis
Bill (45) was printed on 14th March before the Amendment we are now asked to endorse had even been considered by this House. This puts the House in a difficult position. We are being asked to pass an Amendment which is already incorporated in a Bill printed three months ago. It is incorporated in Bill (45) as subsection (2). We are in very much of a muddle.

§ Mr. Charles A. Howell (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I realise the predicament in which you find yourself. At this stage, the Government have not been too helpful. You have ruled that we can decide either that this Amendment shall be in or shall be out.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I have not ruled on this question. It is for the House to say whether it agrees or disagrees with the Amendment.

§ Mr. Howell
You have said that it is for the House to decide, but the House is not even being asked to decide. You will appreciate why I have had to move to the back benches, for I am not allowed to speak from the Front Bench. I must raise this point of order because it is one of my duties to see that my leaders have adequate and correct papers, and until the Joint Under-Secretary of State mentioned Bill (45) we had no copies of it on the Table of the House. Therefore, the Order Paper which indicates what we are to discuss refers at the bottom to Bill (94) but at the top reads The page and line refer to Bill (29) as first printed by the Lords. 1355 Bill (45), which is dated 14th March, is not included in the Lords Amendments we are now dealing with. Bill (45) is actually the Report stage, as amended, in the House of Lords, not in the House of Commons, though it does not indicate that but simply says "as amended on Report". That is, however, as amended on Report in another place, not here.
Therefore, the Table of this House, or your servants, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have supplied us with the requisite data and Bills which this House is to discuss tonight and have not given us Bill (45) but Bill (29). This is indicative that it was never intended to discuss Bill (45).
As the Joint Under-Secretary of State quoted Bill (45) he should withdraw it or ask leave of the House to adjourn these proceedings and bring the Bill back next week. We are not being obstructive. It is not necessary to have a long debate. But, in fairness to you and to the Table, we should have the Bill brought back at a time when the Order Paper says exactly what we are to deal with.

§ Mr. Galbraith
Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I made a mistake in ever referring to Bill (45). I apologise if that has caused any misunderstanding.

§ Mr. Galbraith
I should like to finish. I am on a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in what he has said about Bill (45). I referred to it only to indicate what the Bill would look like after we had amended Bill (29), which, of course, is what we are concerned with.
I understand that the procedure on which we are engaged just now is the normal technical procedure for dealing with this sort of situation, and I would ask the House not to make a mountain out of a molehill, because there is nothing unusual or technically incorrect about what is happening.

§ Mr. Charles A. Howell
I think that the Joint Under-Secretary is misleading you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

§ Mr. Ross
This is not making a mountain out of a molehill. It is just examining another Government muddle. The 1356 only thing that can be in order here surely is self-explanatory. We are asked to agree with the Lords Amendments to a Bill which left this House, and the Bill which left this House was Bill (29). Nothing else is in order.
The Amendment reads: Page 8, line 17, at end insert— '(2) Where a local authority are a sewerage or water authority and as such incur expenditure in carrying out, or paying compensation in respect of, any operations such as are specified in paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection …'. There is no paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection in the Bill as it left this House.
The Government have to justify how they came to change a Bill after it left this House without making an Amendment in the other place. This is what the hon. Gentleman has said. Presuming that we, by reference to the original Bill as it left this House, should be able to understand their Amendment, I think that the Government are taking an awful lot for granted. I feel, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are still entitled to a certain measure of guidance about whether this is in order or not.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Hon. Members may argue reasons for voting against the Amendment because it is not logical, but that is a matter for hon. Members themselves and not a point of order for me.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
But can we do this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Can you help us? Can we insert this Amendment? Are you inviting us to put in an Amendment which refers to paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection when the foregoing subsection contains no paragraph (b) at all?
I submit that the Government have just made a mistake. They have forgotten to put down earlier Amendments to Clause 12 (1). They have apparently made certain Amendment to Clause 12 (1) since the Bill left this House. As the Bill left this House it does not have subsection (1) divided into paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). In Bill 45, at which we ought not to be looking at all because that is the Bill as it will look after we have made all these Amendments, Clause 12 (1) is divided into paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Somehow or other the Government have made the Amendments to this subsection without consulting either another place 1357 or this House. All I am suggesting is that the Government have slipped up in not putting down Amendments to this Clause.
It may be, of course, that if they did not trouble to ask the other place to make these Amendments they could hardly ask us to agree with the other place in the Amendments. In any case, if the Bill as it is now does not have subsection (1) of Clause 12 divided into paragraph (a) and paragraph (b), I cannot see how the Bill can become an Act of Parliament without Parliament making this alteration. All I am asking is whether we can proceed in this rather clumsy and slipshod way. Ought we not to have these proceedings adjourned to enable the Government to have another look at the matter and see whether they can put it right?

§ Mr. Charles A. Howell
I disagree with the Joint Under-Secretary when he says that he ought not to have mentioned this. He had no option but to mention it, because my hon. Friend asked him where the paragraph was to which this Amendment refers. The words are very simple in so far as they refer to: such as are specified in paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection… My hon. Friend asked where paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection was, and it is just not there.
I suggest, with all due deference to your position in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when this started you had not a copy of Bill (45). Consequently, you have not a copy of subsection (b) unless someone has supplied you with one while the controversy has been going on.
Surely, therefore, from the point of view of respect for the House and from the point of view of the procedure which will be recorded in HANSARD and referred to at some other time, it is wrong to try to amend something which is not there. If it is not there, then I suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that your Ruling should be that there cannot be an Amendment to a Bill which does not exist. There cannot be an Amendment to a subsection which does not exist, unless we are presented with a Notice Paper telling us that we can discuss Bills 29 and 45.
1358 The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that he ought not to have referred to Bill (45). I do not doubt that he wishes he had not done so, but he had no option because my hon. Friend asked about the subsection which it was sought to amend. If there is no subsection in Bill (29) to amend, we have no jurisdiction to discuss an Amendment which occurs in relation to something other than this Bill.

§ Mr. Galbraith
May I try once again to help the House? We are dealing only with Bill (29). I am assured that there is no need for these consequential Amendments to be formally moved in this House and that arrangements will be made for them to be picked up by the printers. They were not moved formally in another place, but they were incorporated in the latest print of the Bill. I referred to Bill (45) to show what this would look like when it was finally dealt with.
I am assured that these two minor amendments were not formally moved in another place and that therefore consideration of them in this House does not arise. As I tried to explain, and I thought that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was understanding my point, the Amendment does not make sense unless there is a reference to paragraph (b), because subsection (1) is divided into paragraphs (a) and (b), and the Amendment on which we are engaged refers to paragraph (b).

§ Mr. Ross
So that we can get the debate on a proper footing, Sir Gordon, would it be in order for me to move to adjourn the debate?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I would not be prepared to accept such a Motion.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)
We are dealing with a highly technical point, but I am assured that the procedure is normal and appropriate to deal with a situation like this. One can go on indefinitely asking "Why?", but, unless I am assured by the authorities that the procedure is wrong, I am sure that the document and the method are correct. One cannot go on asking why without rewriting Erskine May. I believe that we are technically correct in the way that this has been done.

§ Mr. Ross
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would disqualify the appointment of a chief constable for less than this. I do not see why we should resist the temptation to ask the Government to explain why they refer to a subsection which is not in the Bill as it left the House. If they want to make punctuation changes, the time to do so is after the Bill has left the House of Commons and before it has received its final consent.
We are presumed to understand a subsection which has never been mentioned and which is not in the Bill as printed. What kind of people does the right hon. Gentleman take us for? It is not for the Officers of the House to explain this. This has not been done by them. The House is being asked to accept an Amendment which refers to operations such as are specified in paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection… The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that there was no subsection (b) in the Bill which left the House. It is as simple as that. It is utter nonsense to suggest that the answer is that the right hon. Gentleman has power to do this. If he has that power to do it, he could have got it by putting down an Amendment in another place. We would then have been able to understand it because we as the House of Commons would have approved it and we would have known what we were doing.
The House of Commons cannot be justified in passing something that is nonsense. It is taking liberties with the law as we pass it for the Secretary of State to adopt the attitude that this is just a technicality. I can remember a Bill being withdrawn only a short time ago for just a technicality. I think that it was a question of the singular instead of the plural, or vice versa, during an all-night sitting. The technicality was such that because of the procedure of the House, a very important Money Resolution had to be withdrawn.
I should like to give the Secretary of State time to rethink what he is to do about this, because we are now in the position that if, as a House, we disagree with this Amendment, as I think we must, it cannot be taken back to another place and be put right. These technicalities are very important, as I am sure the 1360 hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart), a former Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will appreciate at once.
We had a confession in relation to the Finance Bill because, at the last moment, someone in Southport spotted an error that had evaded all the eagle eyes at the Treasury, but in that case the Financial Secretary came here at the last minute with an Amendment to put the matter right. I am sure that the Secretary of State needs time to study what he is to do about this, and I think that he ought to be a little more apologetic to the House about this muddle.

§ Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like your guidance, because the great confusion on the Government side has confused me. I understood from the Under-Secretary that these Amendments from another place were put down to Bill (29) but did not appear to make sense because of certain wording in the Amendment in page 8, line 17. I understood that the Government then ordered another Bill—Bill (45)—to be printed to show us what the Measure would look like as a result of certain Amendments made in the Department.
I presume that they were made in the Department; they were not made in another place, and they certainly were not made in this House. The Executive must have decided to alter Bill (29) into the style of Bill (45). That was not done in this House or in another place, but in the Department, and the Bill was printed on 14th March, to show what it would look like when these people, whoever they were, had made the appropriate changes in the Bill.
As a Member of Parliament I have not been given an opportunity to express a view on whether the change in form from Bill (29) to Bill (45) is reasonable and appropriate. I am now asked to discuss an Amendment to Bill (29) which did not make sense to me until my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) managed to find Bill (45). Neither in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of this House nor of another place can I find a report of any change in the structure of the Clause being made. If we let this go, it seems to us that we are agreeing 1361 to the right of the Executive to alter the framework of a Bill or a Clause in an institution other than the House of Commons or another place—perhaps in Dover House. That is quite unacceptable.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That may be a reason for voting against the Lords Amendment, but it is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
To put our discussion in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I move that the debate be now adjourned, so that we may have a proper discussion?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I cannot accept such a Motion.

§ Mr. Fraser
Then may I refer to the point that I put before? We are asked to make an Amendment which does not make sense. I sought to move a Motion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so that we might discuss the difficulties in which hon. Members have been placed. If you will not allow a dilatory Motion—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The House is already discussing the question whether or not the Amendment makes sense.

§ Mr. Fraser
With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I thought that the Question before the House was, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
One of the reasons for agreeing or not agreeing obviously rests on the question whether or not it makes sense.

§ Mr. Fraser
We sometimes disagree with a proposal, even though it may make sense.
Many arguments and proposals, some of them put forward by hon. Members on this side, make sense and it is a matter of judgment whether or not they are accepted. But in this case it does not make sense to propose an Amendment to page 8, line 17, in Bill (29), which is the Bill before the House—an Amendment which includes a new subsection (2) which refers to paragraph (b) "of the foregoing subsection" when the foregoing subsection contains no paragraph (b).
understood the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary both to say that it is quite proper and in order to amend a Bill so to break up a subsection into 1362 paragraphs (a) and (b) without consulting the Legislature. Having made that observation, I appear to be getting no response from either of the Ministers, but if, in fact, we make this Amendment to the Bill we will be making nonsense of the Bill unless these Amendments are made by breaking up the subsection into paragraphs (a) and (b) without consulting the Legislature. In seeking to move "That the debate be now adjourned" my hon. Friends and I are merely wishing to give an opportunity to the Ministers not only to explain the position, but to enable them to defer further consideration of the Bill until they can put themselves right with the Legislature.
It would surely be wrong for the Secretary of State to ask hon. Members to amend a Bill that was printed on 2nd February, since when there have been further editions of the Bill printed. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to break up subsection (1) of Clause 12 into paragraphs (a) and (b) without consulting the Legislature, it is surely reasonable to ask him to have this exercise performed before the Bill comes before us to make this Amendment now.
If the Minister could not do it before he came before the House on this occasion to make this Amendment, I venture to suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Minister is incapable of doing it between now and the Bill becoming an Act. Thus the Secretary of State has a responsibility to defer further consideration of this Amendment until he has made some amendment to subsection (1)—either by consulting the Legislature, as I would have thought he would have been obliged to do, or, if he can do this without consulting the Legislature but by using the facilities of the printer, to have the adjustment made and then to come to the Legislature and invite us to make an Amendment which would then make sense.
I would have thought that that was the only way to make our proceedings sensible on this ocasion and I hope that although you would not accept from me the Motion, "That the debate be now adjourned", you will, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, accept a similar Motion if it is moved by the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
Tama little puzzled by the attitude of the Government. I 1363 do not want to twist their tail unduly, but at some time during the passage of the Bill through the Lords the Bill beame amended, and on Report it was considered by the Lords in the form in which it has come to us as Bill No. (45). We technically have no knowledge of that Bill as it was considered by the Lords on Third Reading. That is, of course, not the Bill which left the House of Commons, and we must consider the Bill as it left this House. The Amendment which we are considering is to the Bill as it left the House of Commons and, as I think you rightly said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the House of Commons is entitled to pass that Amendment. The Government have invited us to pass that Amendment.
I should like to know—and perhaps the Lord Advocate can help us—exactly what is the Act of Parliament which eventually will be put forward for the Queen's signature? Is it No. (29) as amended by the Lords Amendments which are before us this evening? If so, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friends, that makes nonsense. Is there some possibility that between now and the presentation of the Bill to Her Majesty the Executive can make all sorts of little alterations to tidy the Bill up between times? Would that be legal?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I understand that the printer is entitled to do that.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I have always understood when debating matters in Committee that even commas can be very important. A comma transposed from one part of a sentence to another could alter the sense completely. Is it permissible for the Government or for the printers to make any alteration in a Bill which changes the sense of the Bill? Somebody ought to explain the legal position. I have no recollection myself of having been able to alter Bills between different stages or after it has left this House. When I think of the arguments which have taken place in Standing Committee on whether the word should be "may" or "shall" and little incidentals of that kind, it seems inconceivable that permission can be given to the printer to alter a Bill in such a way as to make it different from the Bill as it has passed from this House.

§ Mr. McInnes
May I put a simple point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? According to the Order Paper, the House is invited to consider the Lords Amendments to the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill. I find myself in possession of two Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bills. Would you guide or direct the House as to which is the proper Bill? Which of the two Bills is the House considering at the moment?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
We are now considering the Lords Amendments.

§ Mr. McInnes
The Lords Amendments to which Bill?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill.

§ Mr. McInnes
But there are two.

§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are very concerned about this and we should like a direct answer. We are told on the Amendment Paper that we are considering Bill No. (29). Are we or are we not considering Bill No. (29)? We want no dodging around that question. Will you give us a direct answer? Surely we are considering Bill (29); we can be considering nothing else. I do not like this practice of getting around the position because errors have been made. Why not agree that errors have been made and withdraw the Bill? Let us get on with the business in front of us.

§ Mr. Maclay
On a point of order—

§ Mr. McInnes
I am on a point of order. May I put this to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? There are two Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bills—

§ Mr. Lawson
Only one Bill is in front of us.

§ Mr. McInnes
There are two Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bills. I have them in my hand at the moment. Which of these two Bills is the House expected to consider in relation to the Lords Amendments?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
No. (94), I understand.

§ Mr. Charles A. Howell
Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I know you have in your possession Bill No. (45), because I took 1365 the liberty of handing a copy to you. Will you look, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at page A of Bill No. (45) which I handed to you, and at page A2 of Bill No. (29)? You will see that the wording is exactly the same. It could easily have been a reprint of Bill No. (29) but for the fact that it says at the top, "As amended on Report". When a Bill goes to the House of Commons, as it is amended in Committee or on Report, the previous print becomes out of date.
I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there has been a mistake here in the presentation of these Amendments to the House. If Bill No. (29) has been amended and has now become Bill No. (45) and there are words in Bill No. (45) which are not in Bill No. (29), it ought to have been Bill No. (45) which the House was debating.
The Ruling we seek from you is very simple. Is it possible to amend something which does not exist? We are asked to consider an Amendment. One of my hon. Friends asked what subsection it referred to, and we were told that it is in a different print. I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that whatever may be in Erskine May or anywhere else, it should be logic. If it is not logic, the House will be held to ridicule because it has tried to amend something which does not exist. Nobody would have much confidence in the House of Commons if it attempted to amend something the original substance of which had not been put before it.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), you said that the Bill we are seeking to amend is Bill (94). May I call your attention to the fact that the Notice Paper which we have before us says that we are considering Bill No. (29)? There has been some reference to Bill No. (45). Until you mentioned it, we had had no reference to Bill No. (94). May we have Bill No. (94)?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If the hon. Member will look at the Notice of the Lords Amendments to the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Bill, he will see that it is Bill No. (94).

§ Mr. Fraser
There is no Bill No. (94), so far as I am aware. I notice that at 1366 the top of the front page of that Notice Paper it is said: The page and line refer to Bill (29) as first printed by the Lords. That is the Bill which we are to amend. I do not think we are amending Bill No. (45). I do not think that there is a Bill No. (94). If there is, it is not available on the Table.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Perhaps I can help. This document, the Notice of the Lords Amendments, is technically the Bill, Bill No. (94).

§ Mr. Fraser
The Notice of Lords Amendments is itself technically a Bill, and it is No. (94), but the Bill which we are amending, I submit, is Bill No. (29).

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is right, yes.

§ Mr. Fraser
That is why I wish to move a dilatory Motion so that we may consider this matter at a future date because Bill No. (29) contains no paragraph (b) in subsection (1) of Clause 12. That is why we cannot amend it.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It has been subjected to some printing alterations. That is all.

§ Mr. Fraser
If the Secretary of State can arrange for printing alterations to be made after the House of Commons has finished its consideration of the Bill, why was not he able to make some printing alterations between the Bill leaving another place and its returning here, or, indeed, when the Bill was in another place, before we were asked to adopt Amendments made by another place?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The Secretary of State does not arrange for these printing alterations. They are made by the officers of the House of Lords.

§ Mr. Willis
With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I submit that this is more than an alteration in printing. Certainly, this is an alteration to the punctuation and division of a sentence, and a very long and complicated sentence. We do not know how that division has been made, and everyone who has any knowledge or has studied the matter at all knows that we can divide a sentence in ways that give completely different meanings. We have no knowledge officially of how 1367 this sentence has been divided. All we know is that it is to be divided.
I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that as we do not know whether or no the meaning of subsection (1) has been changed as a result of this alteration, it becomes rather more than a printing error and constitutes what I should have thought was a drafting Amendment to the Bill, but this is a drafting Amendment that has neither been approved or passed by this House or another place.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That may or may not be a reason for voting against this Lords Amendment.

§ Mr. Lawson
On a point of order. We do not know what we are voting on. We are concerned with this particular Amendment. We are asked to agree to an Amendment, and when we vote on that Amendment it will not be related to the Bill because the Amendment has no relation to it. We are now in a muddle because people have been acting in a muddled fashion, but the Secretary of State for Scotland is not prepared to admit that and adopt the simple expedient of admitting that it is muddled, and to say that he will take it back, put it right and bring it back again.
This House is being insulted, and this is another example of how it is being treated by hon. Gentlemen opposite—as if it did not matter at all. We cannot possibly make this Amendment here because it does not make sense and relates to something that does not exist. I suggest that the only thing that can be done in the interests of the House with this Bill is to pull it out and let us get on with the rest of the business. If I can, I will move in that direction.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am sorry, but the Secretary of State cannot withdraw the Lords Amendments.

§ Mr. Woodburn
On a point of order. I raised a point a little time ago, and I accepted your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that our duty was to vote for or against this Amendment. The Government are asking us to vote for it, and if it goes to a vote, it will be carried. It is recognised by everybody that, textually, the Amendment relates to Bill No. (29), but it does not make sense. I ask for your guidance. Can you say whether 1368 there is any authority or precedent for a Bill being changed after it leaves this House and before it goes to the Queen for signature? I am not quite clear about it, but it seems that somewhere between here and the Queen, further alterations are to be made to the Bill in order to make it make sense, although it does not make sense here. Alterations will be made. Who is to make the alterations, who has authority to do that and what is the precedent for legislation being changed after the House has passed it?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The Officers of the House of Lords made the corrections, but it is not unusual for changes and corrections to be made in the printing of a Bill after it has passed this House. When we have a new Clause in a Finance Bill, we leave it to the Officers to write the number in.

§ Mr. Manuel
May I press the point as to what we are now discussing? I understand your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I appreciate what you have said, but my great difficulty is in finding out how this Amendment could be put down to Bill No. (29) and to a subparagraph of a "foregoing subsection" which is not in the Bill. If I had tried to do that, I could never have got it accepted by the Table Office. If I could not get it done, if I had wanted to do this sort of thing, what other forces are at work in order to get it into a nonexistent subsection?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
This Amendment has been made by the House of Lords; it is not for me to rule it out of order.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. You suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this Amendment was made in another place, but that is the cause of our trouble, because it was not made in the House of Lords on any Motion. Indeed, it has not been made at all, either in this House or in another place, and that is the difficulty we are in. We as the House of Commons can only deal with the merits of the Lords Amendment in relation to the Bill that left this House, because we are being asked to agree to an Amendment which another place made to a Bill that we have passed.
1369 We can only deal with the Bill that we passed and assess the merits of the Amendments suggested by another place, because these Amendments do not become law until both Houses have agreed about them, and until that has been done properly it cannot become law and have the Royal Assent.
The only Bill with which we can possibly deal is the Bill which left us. In the Bill which left us this subsection was not divided. If the printers are to make corrections and changes in the reprinting of the Bill, it must be done at a point where there can be no confusion for either branch of the Legislature. It is quite wrong for the Government to ask us to agree to an Amendment made by another place when it does not make sense in relation to the Bill which left this House. As I say, the only Bill with which we can deal is the Bill which left us. We can only examine the Amendments which are suggested to that Bill. May I have your guidance on the point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? That is the only Bill that is in order.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Each House must allow the Officers of the House to make printing corrections. That has always occurred here. The hon. Member may disagree with it, and he is entitled to vote accordingly.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
Surely when the Lords made the Amendment which is before this House now, namely, to insert a new subsection in Clause 12, the Bill then before the Lords had subsection (1) divided into paragraphs (a) and (b). That is the only way in which the new subsection (2) would make sense. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are not suggesting that the printers would change the Bill without consulting the Minister in charge of the Bill. The Minister has invited us to agree with the Lords in an Amendment which assumes that the printers in the House of Commons will make an alteration in the text of the Bill such as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have suggested was made by the printers in another place.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It was not made by the printers. It was made by the order of the Officers of the House.

§ Mr. Fraser
The Officers of the House in another place ordered certain textual alterations to be made.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
They were printing alterations.

§ Mr. Fraser
Very well, printing alterations to be made. The Officers of the House in another place presumably have ordered that subsection (1) of Clause 12 should be divided into paragraphs (a) and (b). I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that Her Majesty's Ministers were aware that the Officers of the House in another place had made this printing alteration and had divided the subsection into paragraphs (a) and (b). If they had not been aware of that and if the other place had not seen a Bill which had subsection (1) divided into paragraphs (a) and (b), it could not have put in the new subsection (2) with which we are asked to agree.
The Minister has moved a Motion, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, an Amendment which the Lords presumably made after the House authorities had ordered a printing alteration in subsection (1), because only then did it make sense. In any event, all this happened many months ago. The last Bill to emerge from the House of Lords was printed on 14th March. This is now 4th July. I would have thought that the House authorities in the House of Commons might have had equal power with the House authorities in the House of Lords to make a printing alteration. Had they had such authority and exercised it, it might well have been that we would have had before us today a Bill in which the making of the Amendment now before this House would have made sense.
Those things have not happened, however, and this Amendment makes nonsense, because it refers to paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection when there is no paragraph (b) in the foregoing subsection. We are assuming that the authorities of the House will generously observe how stupid the House of Commons was—and the House of Lords—and will make the necessary alterations to make subsection (1) into paragraphs (a) and (b).
The obvious thing to do is to delay the further consideration of the Bill. We have a good many other Scottish Bills before us. We want to get on with them and to get them through. The Leader 1371 of the House is not about, but the Chief Patronage Secretary is here. He would not wish to bully the House into accepting an Amendment which makes nonsense—at least, that is one's hope. Can he not authorise the Secretary of State to get up and move to adjourn the debate so that we can have this thing put right and give the House authorities in the House of Commons the opportunity, if they have the power, to make these printing alterations in like manner as they have, apparently, been made by the authorities of the House in another place?

§ Mr. Manuel
Does my hon. Friend suggest that the Chief Patronage Secretary can order the Secretary of State to do anything?

§ Mr. Fraser
I think that the Chief Patronage Secretary can order the Secretary of State to do it. The Chief Patronage Secretary has a lot of power in arranging the business of the House. He has responsibility with the Leader of the House to ensure that when this House legislates it legislates sense. That is clearly what we are being invited not to do. We are being invited to make an Amendment which makes nonsense. The justification of our being so invited, I understand, is that the House authorities the authorities of the House, presumably—have the power to order a printing, alteration to be made to subsection (1). There is, however, nobody with any authority to advise us that it is the intention of the authorities of the House to do anything of the kind. Nobody has assured us that the Bill that is sent from this House to Her Majesty in due course will have subsection (1) of Clause 12 divided into paragraphs (a) and (b). We have been told that the Bill that we sent up to another place had this alteration made by order of the authorities of the House along the corridor.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister responsible for the Bill, seems to have been completely unaware of this—or is he unaware of it? He invites us to agree with their Lordships in an Amendment which refers to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 12. Therefore the Secretary of State recognises that the authorities here along the passageway may alter his Bill by sub- 1372 dividing a subsection into paragraphs (a) and (b) without his giving us an assurance that Clause 12 (1) will be similarly altered at this end of the building into paragraphs (a) and (b).
9.15 p.m.
We have had a good deal of difficulty, Mr. Speaker, over an Amendment that is before the House. It is the Amendment in page 8, line 17, at the end to insert a new subsection (2). This Amendment has been commended to us by the Secretary of State for Scotland who has asked to agree with their Lordships in it. It refers in line 4 to paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection, which is Clause 12 (1), but subsection (1) has no paragraph (b) at all. In the circumstances we have been asking if we might move that the debate stand adjourned to enable the Secretary of State to have all this put right.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker has declined to accept such a Motion and I have been in process of asking the Chair if we can be obliged—because that is what is happening—to make an amendment of the Bill which makes nonsense of the Bill without even an assurance that subsection (1) will be altered, if it can be altered between now and the Bill going to Her Majesty, so that the Bill will have a subsection (1) which is subdivided into paragraphs (a) and (b).
I wonder whether, Mr. Speaker, you can give us any protection and whether you can say if we are obliged or not to vote on the Amendment tonight. Some of us would wish not to vote on it. We would prefer that subsection (1) were so altered that this new subsection would make sense. Can we be protected, therefore, by not being obliged to vote for or against the subsection tonight? I imagine that the only way that that could be done would be for the Government to agree to adjourn the debate. Would you accept such a Motion from me or ask that the Secretary of State should move such a Motion?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is being more than kind and courteous to me, because he has seen that I have only just resumed the Chair. I am most grateful to him. Clearly there would be great difficulties about the propriety of the Chair assuming to accept the kind of Motion which the 1373 hon. Member has in mind, not because it would deny him and his hon. Friends a proper line of attack against the Government, but because it is commonly known that printing errors as such are inevitably corrected before some Lords Amendment is incorporated in the Bill. That is the difficulty about that kind of point.
If it has substance, as opposed to being a printing error, then obviously the Chair is confronted with a different problem in accepting that kind of Motion. For that reason, I am not at all critical of either the Ruling of my immediate predecessor in the Chair or of the hon. Member for seeking to deal with the matter in the way he does. The question, of course, is whether the House, subject to the known understanding that purely printing errors are corrected on their way, desires to agree with the Lords Amendment or not. I cannot give the hon. Member further guidance than that.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a printing error and that the Bill now before us and which we are being invited to amend is exactly that Bill which we sent from the House some months ago? It has been printed accurately. It is the fact, however, that when the Bill emerged from another place the authorities of the House had been instructed that subsection (1) of Clause 12 would be divided into two parts, paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Subsection (1) having been so divided, another place added a new subsection, subsection (2), which refers to paragraph (b) of the "foregoing subsection". For some reason or other, the Bill before us is exactly as it was when it was sent to another place and the authorities of the House have been unable to make the alteration which it was possible to make in another place. We are asked to have a new subsection which refers to paragraph (b) of a foregoing subsection when that foregoing subsection does not have a paragraph (b). I am seeking to make it clear that there is no question of there being a printer's error to put right.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am inviting the hon. Member's, assistance because this is new to me and he has been looking at it. However, on the face of it, it looks like a printer's failure to correct something necessitated by an Amendment in another place. If I have it wrong, I 1374 invite correction, but that is what it looks like.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)
I have carefully consulted anybody I could consult and I am told that the procedure followed and the explanations given are completely in accord with the procedure in cases of this kind, and that the action taken in another place and by the officials of the House is normal. That is all I can say. One cannot say any more.

§ Mr. Manuel
On a point of order. We are here dealing with Lords Amendments to Bill (29), the only Bill before the House. Bill (45) does not exist as far as we are concerned. We are asked to insert words which refer to other words which are non-existent. How can it be in order to discuss this Amendment when a paragraph to which it refers is not there?

§ Mr. Woodburn
Further to that point of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
First, I wish to receive advice. In due course I will listen to the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not think that this is difficult. It may be for the Chair, but it is not in fact if we look at the substance and not at the form. That is what we have to do. The Officers of this House and another place habitually make printing corrections which are not, in fact, presented as something to which either House has to assent. They effect a marriage, as it were, in a printing sense, between the two forms of Amendment that either House may make. That normally happens as an ordinary process, provided that either House has agreed to the principle, and we, for instance, have accepted the principle to which another House has invited our agreement. The requisite printing marriage is then effected by our Officers without specific reference to subparagraph (a) or (b), or whatever it may be, or whether something is numbered 1, 2, or whatever it may be, or the particular print of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) evoked the most unhappy but sympathetic memories in my mind because, as a Law Officer, I could never get hold of the particular Bill, from one place or the other, to which I had to 1375 apply this or that. There is nothing abnormal about this issue if we look at the substance and what we have to legislate about.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I quite appreciate the point you have made, Mr. Speaker, but there is this difficulty. While everyone would agree that printing errors should be put right, drafting alterations are usually the subject of Amendments in Committee and sometimes there is a long discussion on them. When this Bill (29) leaves here, as amended by this House, it will eventually go to the Queen. It will not go to the Queen in the form in which we pass it here this evening, but, as you suggest, Mr. Speaker, it will be blended with what has been passed in another place of which we have no cognisance officially.
A very great power seems to lie between here and the Bill's presentation to the Queen. I should like your guidance as to who is responsible for seeing that when the Bill is eventually presented to the Queen these drafting Amendments do not in any way alter the sense or effect of the Bill. The alteration of a comma, as we are all aware, can make a tremendous difference in the sense of a Bill legally. Who is responsible for seeing that the changes are in accordance with what has been passed by both Houses?

§ Mr. Speaker
There are a number of points. First, I hope that I shall not as a one-time lawyer be taken to agree with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) that the position of a comma may make a difference in a Statute. Statutory punctuation is something aside. What we submit for the Royal Assent is the ultimate legislative agreement of the two Houses through a process known to us all.
The assistance that I want from the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, if I need any, is to discover whether, apart from any printing correction or printing assimilation, someone is urging on some basis that the Amendment to which the House is at the moment invited by the Government to agree is in some way distorted in a matter of texture. If I have no understanding of what the substance is, this is no doubt because I have been out of the Chair. I should be grateful to have an 1376 explanation from someone of why it is said that the substance, as contrasted with some printing marriage to be effected, or Amendment for amalgamation, is distorted by what is now presented to the House. That is a matter on which I should like assistance.

§ Mr. Lawson
Is it not the case that when we are dealing with the Amendments to the Bill, we are concerned with the words of these Amendments? Words may be interpreted differently. We are regularly enjoined to concentrate our attention on words and the arrangement of words. Here it would seem to be argued that it is the conjunction of the words only. Surely that is an impossible position for us to be put in. We might at any time on any Bill argue that it is the interpretation that matters. If my interpretation differs from another interpretation, it is my interpretation that matters and not the words. It seems to me that here we are invited to do what is an absurd thing. On the basis of the Amendments and the Bill before us we are asked to make a nonsensical Amendment.
I am asking you Mr. Speaker, if the interests of this House are to be maintained and we are not to be regarded as behaving in an absurd fashion, whether we should not fairly ask that the Bill be withdrawn so that the matter may be put right, and we can decide what is to go into the Bill.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sorry. I thought that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was rising to assist me. I do not derive assistance from the proposition that the Bill should be withdrawn in consequence of what has happened. As I understand it, the Lords have put in a paragraph (b)—

§ Mr. Manuel
We do not know of that.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Member would wait a moment. I prefer to explain what I am saying without interruption.
As I understand it the Lords have put in a paragraph (b). Should this House assent to the Lords Amendment, it will be necessary to effect some marriage between the two texts. The fact that the Lords Amendment, in form, anticipates that marriage does not vitiate the 1377 fact that this House has to consider. I hope that I have got it right. If I have not got it right I should welcome assistance because I have returned to the Chair in the middle of the debate. But I should not be assisted by the kind of proposition that because the words "paragraph (b)" appeared in this Amendment therefore I should require the Government to withdraw the Bill in its entirety. That sort of thing does not help me. But I should welcome assistance from any hon. Gentleman who feels troubled about a point of substance.

§ Mr. Lawson
I was not inviting the Government to withdraw the Bill in its entirety, but merely for this evening, on this occasion. It could be brought back next week or at some other time when the matter is in proper order. We want to get on now with the matters before us and have this Bill brought up at the earliest opportunity next week, if that could be done, so that we may deal with it sensibly.

§ Mr. Ross
I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, can help u—

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not I who can help the hon. Gentleman. For the moment I am inviting help from the hon. Gentleman, if he is feeling troubled. If not, I do not want it.

§ Mr. Ross
From a House of Commons point of view I understood that tonight we were looking at the Lords Amendments to a Bill which we passed. The Bill which we passed was the Bill as printed, No. (29), on 2nd February, after we had dealt with it on Report and on Third Reading. The point is that that was the third printing of the Bill as far as we were concerned. We had the Bill printed and presented to us. There were the First and Second Readings and we amended it during the Committee stage. It was printed again and we amended it on Report stage and that was the Bill as it left us. At no time in the reprinting or the amendment of that Bill did we have any subdivision of this subsection into paragraphs (a) and (b). I consider, and I ask for your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker, that the page and line refers to Bill No. (29) as first printed by the Lords. That Bill, as first printed by the Lords, which we sent to them, contained no division into paragraphs (a) and (b). 1378 There was no Motion made in the Lords so to subdivide it.
The suggestion is made that this is just purely punctuation. I am delighted to hear it, particularly in view of a telephone conversation on exactly the same point in relation to another Bill which I had with the Solicitor-General. I do not wish to anticipate legislation which may be introduced later this year, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to take the view that it is punctuation—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think that in fairness between one side of the House and the other, and having invited the hon. Gentleman to help me, I should not allow him to enter into matters of that kind. I think I have it. It may be—I am not suggesting that it is because I have not studied the matter —that the note at the top of the Lords Amendment in italics, for which this House or another place may be responsible—I do not know—may be wrong. But it still does not make any difference with regard to the substance. The hon. Gentleman and I know from legislative experience that we send Bills from this House to another place and there, if that House thinks fit, their Lordships amend it and they may add a paragraph (b) or a sub-paragraph (d), or a preface to "x" or "y". That occurs in the printing of the Bill which they finally part with and pass back and that results in the fact that a line Amendment to the Bill which they finally passed back to us may key in with the numeration or alphabetical classification, and so on, in the form of the Bill which the Lords send back to us. If the hon. Member has been unable to find out, with his duties here, exactly what is the paragraph (b) referred to, then I would have to have time presonally to do research, because I do not at this moment know exactly to what it does refer. It is not actually my duty to know, but I could find out. If the hon. Gentleman is in real difficulty about that, I am ready to assist him. If it is an artificial difficulty, I am not ready to assist him. That is the point which I wish to put.

§ Mr. Manuel
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for the explanations you have given. 1379 My difficulty is that these Lords Amendments are coming before this House to amend Bill No. (29), which is all that we have before us. We have some knowledge of a Bill No. (45) which contains, in Clause 12, two paragraphs. This Amendment is to insert certain words at the end of line 17. It is trying to do something to a "foregoing subsection" that is not in the Clause as we have it before us.
If I, as a Member of this House, tried to put down an Amendment like that it would be ruled out of order. Do I take it that the House of Lords has certain rights over and above those of Members of this House in amending legislation?

§ Mr. Speaker
No, none at all. I think that I did the other place a moderate discourtesy in suggesting that the note at the top of the Notice Paper might be wrong. I am told that it is the ordinary form. I have no reason to doubt that. The Lords Amendment refers to the number of the Bill as first printed by the Lords. That is not exactly the reference form in which it comes back to us.
I do not find any abnormality of substance at all. If somebody would show me one of substance, I am responsible in my duties to protect minorities. But it must be one not of nonsense but one of substance.

§ Mr. McInnes
We are considering Lords Amendments, but I find myself with two Bills—Bill No. (29) and Bill No. (45).

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that that is right. The hon. Member can lay aside Bill No. (45). That is only another place's Bill. Ours is Bill No. (29).

§ Mr. Ross
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have said that the House of Lords dealt with the Bill as first printed for that House. I suggest that the Bill as printed for the House of Lords was Bill No. (29) on 2nd March and brought from the House of Commons on 2nd February.
On page 8 of that Bill, line 17 refers to a previous subsection as printed for the House of Lords and which it amended on 12th March. It does not contain any reference to paragraphs (a) or (b). There is subsection (1) which is one very long 1380 sentence. No Amendment was made, but an Amendment was passed referring to a paragraph (a) which was not there.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think—I do not know —subject to my opportunities of looking at this, that the (b) arises from a printing correction inserted in the ordinary way by the Officers of another place within their discretion. It is part of the process of legislative tidying up, as it were. If it alters the sense, distorts anything, or in some other way abuses the manner in which the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Gentleman wishes to apply his legislative mind, then I am always his humble servant. But if this is mere (a) and (b) in printing trickery, he does not have my sympathy or help. It is that that I want to know. If there is some matter of substance, I should like to be told about it.

§ Mr. Ross
Surely it is unfair to call this "trickery", Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] With all due respect, I heard the word "trickery". What we are presented with are Lords Amendments. When we, as humble Members of Parliament, ask at the Vote Office for the Bill, we read an Amendment to which we are asked to agree, and we read a reference to paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection. We take the Bill as presented to us by the Vote Office, and we discover that there is no paragraph (b). Surely if we raise the matter and ask questions about it, it does not merit a reference to Parliamentary trickery. If there is trickery here, it is certainly not on this side.

§ Mr. Speaker
I was not aware that I had said "trickery". However, one can say the most extraordinary things. I shall confirm this by reference to HANSARD. I should be astonished to find out that I had used that word.
The point is that if it is some printing technique or formulation which is in question I do not feel obliged to protect the hon. Gentleman or others who raise protests about it, because I do not think that there is substance in it. If there is some point of substance, if it destroys in some way the legislative effect or something of that kind, I should like honestly to be told in what respect it does so. That is the point that I have not got.

§ Mr. Woodburn
There is a point of substance that I wish to put to you, 1381 Mr. Speaker. If the House passes the Amendment, at some time after it has passed it there will be some redrafting of the Bill to make it harmonise with the Lords Amendments and to introduce (a) and (b) to make the Bill read sense. I agree that that is a necessary thing to do. The point that I am putting to you—I think it is a very important point—is: who is responsible for reporting to this House that the Bill has not been altered in its substance or in its sense by that redrafting, and how does the Bill come back to us to show that it is the Bill that we passed and that in the redrafting the substance or sense has not in some way been altered? I cannot myself say. Is it you, Sir, as Speaker, who is responsible for seeing that the drafting is done in such a way that it is in accordance with the will of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
There is a responsibility upon the Clerk of the Parliaments, who is the Officer, among others of us, to see that that technical operation is right. Supposing it were technically wrongly performed, or that he was in doubt about it, there would no doubt be a reference back to myself or to the Lord Chancellor or whoever would be the appropriate Officer in another place to see that the technics had not been muddled before we invited the Royal Assent to be ultimate legislation.
However, nothing here is involved, as far as I at present understand, but the mere technics of getting the Bill in order according to what the two Houses have decided in the sense at the moment of whether we are prepared to accept an Amendment which the Lords have offered to us.
If that is all that is involved I do not feel pressed by my duty to protect the Opposition or any minority about the matter, because it is merely a mechanical service rendered by the Officers of the House, by the Clerk of the Parliaments, to get the matter right. If there is some point of substance, if it alters the legislative effect of something, if there is something involved of that kind, I should like to know about it, because it would greatly affect my mind; but nobody has yet told me.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
I think you have assumed, Mr. Speaker, that someone has informed the House that if this Amendment is made, subsection (1) will be divided into paragraphs (a) and (b). But we have not had such an assurance from any quarter. No one has told us that if we now agree to the Amendment the Officers of the House will make such alterations as are necessary to produce a paragraph (b) to which the Amendment refers.
I think that you will agree that before we accept an Amendment which refers to paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection we should at least have an assurance that if we accept the Amendment the foregoing subsection will be altered to include a paragraph (a) and a paragraph (b). If the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot give such an assurance, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you could give an assurance that subsection (1) will be altered to provide for the necessary paragraphs.

§ Mr. Speaker
This does not seem to be frightfully difficult. I am sorry to have to treat this matter in such confusion, but, as hon. Members will have seen, I did not have notice of it and returned to the Chair in the midst. I have here a Bill, Flood Prevention (Scotland), which was ordered to be printed on 14th March, 1961. I find on page 8, in Clause 12 subsections (1, a) and (1, b). In those circumstances I do not for the moment understand why hon. Members object to the appropriate reference to paragraph (b).

§ Mr. Maclay
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the explanation that you gave of how the procedure works between the two Houses has put with absolute clarity what I tried to put before in general terms, but I have not your knowledge of the procedural side.
One point which may have confused you, Sir, was a remark that the Government had had this before them for several months and they could have tidied it up. The point which I ask should be made clear is that no matter when this matter had arisen, the procedure having been followed in the House of Lords which has been followed, and the decision of the appropriate authorities in the House to proceed in 1383 that manner having been taken, there could have been no possibility of doing anything but bringing it to the House in its present form.
The position is straightforward. If hon. Members object to the substance of the Amendment, all that they have to do is to vote against it. If that is not the case, I would have thought that it was clear that the procedure which you have clearly described will take care of all the points which have been raised, and in particular the point raised by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and that the subsection will be tidied up in the way he desires.

§ Mr. McInnes
Reverting to the point with which you dealt a short time ago, Mr. Speaker, you quoted from Bill (45). That was the Bill which you asked me to discard for the purpose of this debate. You will observe that the proposed Amendment will not fit into Bill No. 45. It seeks to insert certain words at the end of line 17, and that would mean inserting those words in the middle of the word "improvement". One cannot split a word to incorporate something and leave oneself with the other half of the word at the end of the paragraph, if you are following me, Sir—

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, I understand very well, but another place does not invite us to agree with merely a printed correction That would waste the time of a lot of hon. Gentlemen in either House of Parliament. Really, I would be grateful if someone would tell me whether he is urging that involved in this there is some point of legislative substance. Otherwise, I understand the whole matter, and I am not interested in a point that is not of legislative substance —it would be beyond my duty. If someone would point to something of legislative substance that affects the matter which he desires to urge on me, it would affect my mind greatly.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
For an hour and a half or more, Mr. Speaker, we have been asking for an assurance that when the Bill leaves us again to go to Her Majesty it will make sense—

§ Mr. Speaker
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance; that is done by the procedural process I have 1384 described. What we want to know is what the House, including the hon. Gentleman, decides about it. For the moment, the substantial matter is: aye or no, does the House wish to agree or disagree with this Lords Amendment? If the House chooses to assert its view about that, then the mechanics of the situation will be dealt with by highly competent people who will make sure that it makes sense, that there is no printing error about it, that it marries up, is paragraphed in the right way and is orderly in the ordinary way, as is always done.

§ Mr. Fraser
May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is only now that we have been told that the Bill will make sense when it goes to Her Majesty?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman. So I am now in a position to put the Question. The Question is, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Ross.

§ Mr. Charles A. Howell
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I understood that you would come back to me.

§ Mr. Speaker
I did, and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Howell.

§ Mr. Howell
I do not think that the question of substance is so important to the House, but what is important is that your Ruling on Parliamentary procedure will go down in history, because it is to that Ruling that the House will have to conform in future. I am sure that before giving a Ruling, Mr. Speaker, you yourself would want to be sure that history would not regret your Ruling.
On the question of procedure from the Chair, if an Amendment was offered that did not affect something in a Bill, you would rule it out of order. Bill (94) is on the Order Paper, but anything not on the Order Paper you would rule out of order. If Bill (94) refers to something that does not exist, it is competent for Mr. Speaker to say that this Amendment is ultra vires because it seeks to amend something that is not before the House. You have indicated that Bill (29) is before the House and is on the Order Paper, and it was only when my hon. Friend asked the Under-Secretary where was the paragraph referred to in the 1385 Amendment that he himself indicated that there was a Bill (45). Mr. Deputy-Speaker had not a copy of Bill (45) until I obtained one for him.
Therefore, the Amendment at the bottom of Bill (94), which has been put before the House, applies to something that does not exist in the Bill we are discussing. Surely, it is quite within Mr. Speaker's jurisdiction to rule out of order an Amendment that applies to a Bill, or a Clause in a Bill that does not exist, and which is not before the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
No, I do not wish to create any astonishing proposition or precedent for the hon. Gentleman or anyone else. The fact is that when two legislative bodies look at one another's legislative enactments and suggest Amendments, and when, in our case by well-known procedural processes, they ultimately arrive at agreement as to what the substance of the text should be, there remains the need to marry up one particular text with another particular text in a form that is legislatively convenient, grammatically perfect and structurally straight. We have always so dealt with it, and I think that other Parliamentary legislatures do it in the same way—by allowing our Officers to organise texts, frame paragraphs and number and arrange documents in order to give effect to legislative decisions which have been arrived at.
There is, as far as I have yet discovered, no departure from that ordinary process, and I hope that the House will now get on to decide the matter of substance. I do not want to occlude or shut out any serious argument any hon. Member wishes to address to me, but hope that if there is a matter of substance we can get on to it.

§ Mr. Lawson
With respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not a matter of substance that we should come to this House and have presented to us documents that are quite misleading? I refer to documents which, on the basis of the evidence, could not be understood. Unless hon. Members could obtain Bill (45) we could not understand the matter before us. Is that not a matter of substance? Surely it should be of considerable concern to you, Mr. Speaker, to see that hon. Members are properly serviced in matters of this kind?

§ Mr. Speaker
Is the hon. Gentleman saying to me that he was unable to get a copy of Bill (45) at the Vote Office? If he is, then that is my immediate concern, but I have no information that such was the fact.

§ Mr. Lawson
It was not available to hon. Members here. It was only because of a slip of the tongue—

§ Mr. Speaker
Was it available at the Vote Office?

§ Mr. Lawson
It was, eventually.

§ Mr. Speaker
In so far as it was available—

§ Mr. Maclay
Several copies were brought in to me from the Vote Office, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I dare say that there may have been some lateness. If so—and I will inquire into it—I will try to find out why that occurred. As I have said, I accept personal responsibility for any—

§ Mr. Lawson
Inconvenience and bad service.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am sure hon. Members know that I am on my feet. I was saying that I accept personal responsibility for any failure in the service which the Vote Office should render. I am not saying that that occurred. I just do not at this moment know. Having said that, is the position now that some hon. Members feel themselves embarrassed in their legislative activities because they have been unable to get from the Vote Office a copy of the Bill they wanted at this stage? If that is not so, I hope—

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Vote Office is not entitled to service hon. Members with anything other than what hon. Members require for the understanding of the actual business—and that is Bill (29). Might I suggest that the reason why there was some lateness and why this difficulty arose was that the document was mentioned by the Under-Secretary and that there is an old rule that if a 1387 document is mentioned that document must be laid upon the Table.

§ Mr. Speaker
That may well be. I do not know anything about that. If it is said that the Vote Office should have had some document here but it was not here at the time, then I will inquire into it.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am still on my feet. I have said that I will inquire into the matter and that I accept responsibility for the Vote Office making documents available. I will inquire into what happened. But I cannot know that now. I want to be sure that no hon. Member is feeling thwarted in his legislative ability because of the lack of some document which he requires in order to reach a personal decision on the question, aye or no, should the House agree with this Amendment of the Lords. If that is the fact, then I should like to know.

§ Mr. Lawson
Further to that point or order. Since they are my words that you are interpreting, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I did not say there was a slip-up on the part of the Vote Office? I am here concerned—