HC Deb 13 February 1989 vol 147 cc69-121

7 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)

I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second of those days.

(2) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

Report of Business Committee

2.—(1) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions—

  1. (a) as to the proceedings in Committee on the Bill not later than 14th February 1989; and
  2. (b) as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the proceedings in Committee on the Bill are concluded.

(2) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (1) above and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

Proceedings on going into Committee

3. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

4. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of proceedings

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock on either of those days under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideraton) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
  2. (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
  3. (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
  4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and
  2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

  1. (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
  2. (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that clay.

Recommittal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day; the Bill" means the Official Secrets Bill; Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

The first thing to say is that no-one can doubt that the Official Secrets Bill is an important measure that goes to the heart of the Government's responsibilities. The Bill is a radical narrowing of the scope of the criminal law. It will repeal section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, replacing it with much narrower provisions aimed at protecting, and protecting effectively, official information whose unauthorised disclosure would cause a serious degree of harm to the public interest.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Does the Leader of the House accept that "effectively" means that most people will have to obey the law willingly? By shoving the Bill through the House in this way, does he accept that he is destroying much of the impact which the legislation might have? Many people outside this place will be completely disillusioned by the way in which the Bill has been pushed through. Does he accept that he should not be moving a guillotine motion like this on a constitutional matter?

Mr. Wakeham

I will make those points in my speech. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

If I misheard the Leader of the House, I hope that he will correct me. I believe that he used the phrase "a serious degree of harm". That is what he just read from his brief. Where does that appear in the Bill?

Mr. Wakeham

I had better make my speech in my own way. The hon. Gentleman can argue his point in his own way later.

Our proposals outline six specific categories of official information that will continue to be protected by the criminal law. That is fewer than any previous Government have proposed. Within those categories we will introduce a number of tests of harm which the prosecution will have to prove. Our proposals add up to a coherent and ambitious reform which is bolder than anything attempted by any Government in this area since the war.

The House will recall that we published a White Paper in June of last year which was debated in July. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promised then to listen carefully to the points that were made and to take account of them as the Government prepared the Bill. He has done that. The Bill is a significant further narrowing of the scope of the criminal law from the White Paper proposals. It has proved difficult to please everyone, but I believe that we have got our proposals right and that the time has come to settle on the successor to section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, as that section is generally recognised as being too wide and too weak.

Mr. Dalyell

Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Wakeham

No. I will give way later.

The House has already devoted a considerable amount of time to debating our proposals. We had a debate on the White Paper last summer. Just before Christmas, the Bill had a full day's consideration on Second Reading when the House approved it by 298 votes to 221. We have now had two sittings in a Committee of the whole House which have lasted for a total of 13½ hours. However, we have not yet finished considering the first clause and in that time have debated only three groups of amendments.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

rose—

Mr. Wakeham

I will give way in a minute.

There are another 17 or so debates in prospect on amendments already tabled. That is simply not adequate progress for a Bill which has only 16 clauses.

Mr. Winnick

Will the Leader of the House confirm that there was no element of filibustering in those debates and that there were no unduly long speeches or unnecessary interruptions? Will he confirm that, because, on all previous occasions when the right hon. Gentleman has moved a timetable motion, there has always been an accusation that the Bill's opponents have tried to drag out the proceedings? Will he confirm that that has not happened in this case?

Mr. Wakeham

In any of the guillotine motions that I have proposed—I have something of a record for this, as no doubt some hon. Member will tell me in a few moments—I do not believe that I have ever accused anyone of filibustering, not least because the other person will respond, "Oh well, what about Mr. Speaker? Why didn't he rule me out of order?" I do not accuse anyone of filibustering. There were some good speeches, but some of the actual and hypothetical examples of giving information were perhaps a little repetitive and a little wide of the mark. That was my reading of it, but I am not accusing anyone of filibustering.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Does my right hon. Friend believe that in every respect the information given by Ministers to the House was accurate? Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends fear that a junior Minister wasted the time of the House for about an hour because he misunderstood the nature of judicial review. I make no criticism of that, as we all make mistakes. However, is that not an inevitable consequence of the proper discussion of a complicated Bill?

Mr. Wakeham

Who is complaining about proper discussion of a complicated Bill?

Mr. Budgen

The Leader of the House is.

Mr. Wakeham

No, I certainly am not. I am trying to propose a timetable motion so that all parts of the Bill can be discussed properly. That is the purpose of the exercise.

I understand the concern felt by some hon. Members about the Bill, but that concern is certainly not shared in other quarters. At one stage during the second day's debate in Committee there were a mere 11 hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Winnick

So?

Mr. Wakeham

I am just going to make the point, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, that for three hours there were fewer than 20 Opposition Members present. It is difficult to reconcile the desires of some hon. Members for extended debate on this Bill with my duty as the Leader of the House to ensure that sufficient time is available for all the other measures that attract right hon. and hon. Members' concern to be properly considered by the House.

I believe that we now need to take steps to structure the rest of the discussion on the Bill in a sensible manner. We still have several important issues to debate, including the principles underlying the tests of harm, the category of information obtained in confidenece from other states or international organisations, the prior publication defence and allowing disclosure to hon. Members. By introducing a timetable motion at this stage, adequate time can be given to discussion of those and other measures.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I have no intention of involving myself in this debate. However, on every occasion when it is possible I listen to the debate. The fact that there are fewer hon. Members present is no indication of interest or involvement in the Bill. Hon. Members who come in to listen to the debate are exceptional because hon. Members have a great many other things to do at the same time.

Mr. Wakeham

Absolutely. That accounts for the fact that there are only about 20 hon. Members on the Opposition Benches at the moment. I understand that hon. Members are busy and that many other matters must come to the Floor of the House. That is why I must sometimes resort to a timetable motion to provide the proper allocation of time.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the basic problems of any guillotine from either side of the House is that sometimes issues are not discussed? Will he assure us that some time will be available to debate the amendment dealing with European papers? Will he endeavour to ensure that there will be time to discuss the important issues?

Mr. Wakeham

I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend and I shall address that point in a few moments.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wakeham

No, I want to make some progress.

Mr. Skinner

It is only a small point.

Mr. Wakeham

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, another important matter of principle must be considered. That is whether some Bills are of such significance that they should not be timetabled. Governments of all persuasions have guillotined Bills of great political and even constitutional importance. On the same day in November 1977, the last Labour Government guillotined the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, both of which would have fundamentally altered the nature of the Union. The Labour Government before that guillotined the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill—a controversial constitutional measure if ever there was one.

I do not claim that we have never in turn imposed a timetable on important measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) guillotined the European Communities Bill in 1972, and that was followed by a guillotine on the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill., which was also discussed by a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Skinner

Earlier, the Leader of the House mentioned that only 20 right hon. and hon. Members are on the Opposition Benches. He failed to say that most right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches can be added to those on the Opposition Benches who oppose the guillotine. While the Leader of the House is giving a rundown of previous guillotines, can he say whether he has introduced a guillotine on any Bill, constitutional or otherwise, when as many as 18 Conservative Members were agin it?

Mr. Wakeham

I do not know which right hon. and hon. Members are against the guillotine and which are not. We shall wait for the Division, to see whether the Government win the vote.

So that the Liberal party is not left out of the pantheon, I recall the guillotine in 1911 of the Parliament Bill, which fundamentally altered the constitutional powers of another place. That is the best example I can find, because it is a long time since the Liberals had responsibility for such matters.

Last Thursday, I said that in matters of timetable motions, I bow to the knowledge of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who said, when guillotining the Scotland Bill: it is constitutional Bills for which guillotines arc most required…The House should not give the impression to anybody…that there is something extraordinary, improper or contrary to our traditions in the application of timetable motions to constitutional Bills. On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman also observed: to read my speeches on guillotine motions is almost a liberal education in itself."—[Official Report, 16 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 585–87.]

The right hon. Gentleman supplied an impressive list of constitutional Bills that had been guillotined. Among the more interesting were the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill 1888, which the right hon. Gentleman thought might have been a constitutional Bill, and the Military Training Bill in 1938–39, which he was sure involved "important questions". I recommend the right hon. Gentleman's speech to hon. and right hon. Members interested in such matters.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, during the passage of any of the Bills to which he refers, the Government of the day had an overall majority in this House of more than 100?

Mr. Wakeham

What does that have to do with it?

Mr. Rooker

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is simple. So far, the Government have rot moved a closure on a single debate. They can carry any closure they want. The Government could impose a guillotine as the Bill proceeds, but they choose not to do so, because they do not want the Bill debated.

Mr. Wakeham

That would not necessarily be the best way to proceed. The best way to proceed is by agreement, if we can. If we cannot get agreement, we must introduce a timetable.

Mr. Rooker

The Government do not want to reach any agreement.

Mr. Wakeham

That is absolutely untrue.

I accept that the Official Secrets Bill deals with the interests of the state, as do many bills. It goes to the heart of the Government's responsibilities, and that is why it is being considered by a Committee of the whole House. However, it appears from the precedents that I have cited that there is no Bill, however profoundly it affects the constitution or even the sovereignty of this country, that may not be timetabled. Having established that, it is a matter of whether the proposed timetable is reasonable. I believe that it is.

The motion before the House will allow about another 17 hours for Committee stage on the Floor of the House, making about 30 hours in all. For a Bill of 16 clauses, that is a generous amount of time. There will be a further full day for Report and Third Reading. By the time that the Bill goes to another place, it will have been considered in this Chamber for about 42 hours.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

Can my right hon. Friend say, from his knowledge of precedents, whether any Bill has been guillotined after 13½ hours of debate, and when the majority of time has been taken up by the speeches of Privy Councillors—as opposed to the contributions of ordinary Back Benchers such as myself?

Mr. Wakeham

If any right hon. or hon. Member struggles hard enough, he or she can probably find a precedent. There are certainly precedents for guillotining Bills even earlier. I cite as an example the 1972 anti-inflation Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Sidcup and Bexley, which was guillotined immediately after Second Reading. Two of the Bills of the right hon. Member for Blaenau, Gwent were also guillotined immediately after Second Reading.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wakeham

No, I shall not.

While the Bill is important, it is not lengthy, and the amount of time allowed for it in Committee is more than adequate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and I are the first two Leaders of the House to defend the use of timetable motions against criticisms from two directions. The more recent of those criticisms is that mounted by the Select Committee on Procedure, whose recommendations in the last Parliament, if put into effect, would mean that almost every Bill of significance or controversy would have a timetable motion for its Committee and further stages.

The second, more traditional line of attack will no doubt come in the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), criticising the number of timetable motions that I have introduced to date. But to make that criticism is to miss an important point. On several previous occasions—particularly during the debate on procedure last November—I made it clear to the House that it is now my practice to move towards the introduction of timetable motions where necessary; and, if possible, at a time that allows for properly apportioned consideration of a Bill. That is in the spirit of the Select Committee's recommendations, although it does not go quite as far as it would like—and inevitably means that timetable motions will become slightly more routine than they once were.

Mr. Aitken

Will my right hon. Friend give way now?

Mr. Wakeham

No, I must continue a little further.

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not oppose the principle of timetabling in the procedure debate, although he drew attention to the number of Bills that were guillotined last Session. I note that he added: However, the number was still only six, so we are not reduced to guillotining Bills too frequently."—[Official Report, 30 November 1988; Vol 142, c. 801.]

I agree, and I would like to keep it that way. I strongly believe that the best way to proceed is through discussions and agreement on the issues as they arise. I have spent a great deal of time, both as Patronage Secretary and as Leader of the House, taking matters forward in that way—as I believe is essential to preserve the flexibility that our present procedures provide.

This is an important Bill, and one that needs careful consideration, in whole rather than in part, by the House. Timetables have been imposed on politically important Bills before, and no new precedent is being set today. The motion before the House allows generous time for discussing the remaining part of the Bill.

Mr. Aitken

My right hon. Friend says that no new precedent is being set. Is he aware of the important correspondence between the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), in which the Home Secretary repudiates an important series of assurances given on the Floor of the House of Commons by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office? Surely it is right that those repudiations should be properly debated, and that room be made in the timetable for that discussion?

Mr. Wakeham

There is plenty of time to debate everything that is relevant, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will deal with the points to which my hon. Friend refers when he winds up the debate. The time allowed by the motion for discussion of the Bill is adequate, and I commend it to the House.

7.17 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

This is the third guillotine motion moved by the Leader of the House in four weeks. The first two were objectionable, but this is much worse. This latest motion is particularly objectionable because it seeks to curtail debate on proposals that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizens of this country and the state, the servants of the state, and those who, for the time being, control the apparatus of the state—usually referred to as the Government.

Tonight's debate also goes to the heart of the relationship between Government and this elected House. The Government accept that the Official Secrets Bill is sufficiently important for its Committee stage to be debated on the Floor of the House. But now they want to curtail that debate, and one must ask why. So far, the Committee stage has taken just 13½ hours, spread over two days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) pointed out, on both days the Government themselves adjourned the debate. On neither day was there any question of repetition or of unnecessarily extended debate.

Even the Home Secretary has commented favourably on what he called the long debate which has gone to the heart of necessary"— I emphasise "necessary"— discussion of the BiII."—[Official Report, 2 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 527.] I must admit that that was generous of the right hon. Gentleman, because those speaking against the Bill have not only outnumbered its supporters but worsted them at every stage—so much so that some Conservative Members who wandered into the Chamber out of curiosity to listen to the debate stayed to speak against the Bill. No doubt some of them were as appalled as I was to hear some modern Tories abandon Winston Churchill's motto "Trust the people" and replace it with what has been the motto of the lackey since time immemorial, "Trust the people in charge". I hope that that idea is offensive even to some modern Tories.

One problem has been the inability, or unwillingness, of Ministers to answer questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House or to provide anything approaching a lucid or convincing explanation of their own Bill. Ministers have been reduced at times to trying to reassure Conservative Members with soothing words from Home Office press releases. Unfortunately, the soothing words do not appear on the face of the Bill, and it is the Bill that we are being asked to enact, not Home Office press releases.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite continual comments and requests, no Law Officer has been present to assist the Home Secretary to answer the important legal questions which, if we are to have confidence in the legislation, the Government should be only too willing to provide?

Mr. Dobson

That is certainly the case, but perhaps my hon. Friend has more faith in the lucidity of Law Officers than I have.

The Government can scarcely complain about time being taken in debate when ministerial speeches have often raised more questions than they have answered. The Minister of State might reasonably be expected to thank the dozen hon. Members who spoke briefly between 10.30 pm and 11.30 pm on Thursday 25 January and so gave him time to find out that one aspect of the Bill would be subject to judicial review. He had thrice previously asserted that it would not. If the Home Secretary wants to save time, I suggest that he ensure that his Ministers give the right answers from the start.

All in all, the Government's response to Committee stage questioning has been contradictory and unconvincing. When pressed to explain the drafting of the Bill, they fall back on the oldest cop-out of all. They say, in effect, "Something must be done about the Official Secrets Act. This is something; therefore this must be done." That is not a good enough response on a Bill of this significance.

Even if the debates had been more protracted, that would be no reason to curtail them. We are not discussing trivial matters. If passed in its present form, the Bill will be, in part, contrary to the principles of natural justice and to the fundamentals of the rule of law.

Mr. Cryer

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there was any extension to the debate it was by the Government, who sent the Whips scurrying around to get hold of some Tory hack to speak for the Bill? The views expressed on both sides of the House were 99 per cent. against the tenets of the Bill.

Mr. Dobson

I understand that a process somewhat similar to that described by my hon. Friend took place during the debate on Thursday 2 February.

We are talking about a Bill that affects the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. Hon. Members must ask the question: if the House of Commons cannot find time to debate such matters, what do the Government suggest we should debate instead? For what business should we find more time?

Mr. Budgen

Motions congratulatory of the Government.

Mr. Dobson

They do naught else at the Cabinet table.

Since time immemorial, the laws of this land have made murder unlawful. In one way or another, they have obliged every one of us, without exception, to report murder and to ensure that it is investigated and punished. If passed, the Bill will not only relieve members of the security services of that timeless obligation but oblige them not to report murder or to see it investigated or punished. We cannot tolerate the use of an Act to breach the most fundamental rule of law, which is that all are equal before the law, be they individual citizens or public servants.

The Bill seeks to introduce a noxious innovation into the law of the land. It springs from the recently invented, proposterous notion that members of the security services have a lifelong duty of absolute silence about anything they learn in the course of their work. No one has ever suggested, even in more oppressive earlier times, that such a duty was absolute. To make that duty absolute, the House is being asked to approve a Bill that does not merely countenance the possibility of a cover-up of murder by the security services but enforces it by law. That cannot be right.

I shall give an example of what might happen. The House will recall that members of the French security service, in an unforgivable act of state terrorism, blew up the British-registered Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in harbour in Auckland, New Zealand, and killed one of the crew. Let us suppose that that or similar actions were carried out by members of the British Security Service, not necessarily with authority from the top but perhaps as an act of private enterprise on the part of some Security Service oddball such as Peter Wright or his friends.

Under the Bill, a member of the Security Service could not report such a murder except to someone within, or closely associated with, the security services. Such people in the higher echelons—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary says, "What about the police?" The matter has been raised time and time again in Committee, and he and his colleagues have failed to come up with any convincing argument included in the Bill to show that what I am saying is wrong, and that a member of the Security Service could report such a matter to the police.

I remind the Home Secretary that, in the words of the Prime Minister, there is "a lifelong absolute duty" of silence, not one that can be varied so that someone can report matters to the police if he does not like what his bosses are doing.

If anyone among the higher echelons were informed of such a matter, they might prefer to keep it quiet, for what they would call "reasons of state". Such reasons would be not upsetting the Government and people of New Zealand, or the people of this country, by revealing the existence of some uncontrolled far-Right freaks roaming round in the Security Service. Is that the sort of country in which Conservative Members want to live?

Let us examine another crucial aspect of the Bill. Few can deny that it can be in the public interest to release official secrets without authority. A good example of this, which has been mentioned in the debates, was the information provided about the state of London's air defences before the second world war to Duncan Sandys. His use of that information was profoundly embarrassing to the then Government. As a result of his revelations, work to correct what was wrong was undertaken sooner than might otherwise have been the case. Who would now deny that that was in the public interest? Yet the Government at the time argued that it was not.

Up to now, civil servants or service personnel who disclosed a secret have been able to claim that the disclosure was in the public interest. That argument has not been used very often in the courts but, in a sense, it is not the use of the public interest defence but the existence of that defence which is so crucial. It existence both restrains Governments from mounting prosecutions and colours their attitude to secrecy. In Winston Churchill's words—and he should know, because he voted for it in 1911—the Official Secrets Act was intended for spies, crooks, traitors and traffickers in official information. The Official Secrets Act was not intended to protect the Government from scandal being revealed or to prevent them from being found out when they lie, deceive or disinform, as all Governments do. Surely we as a Parliament have not sunk so low that we want to introduce new laws to protect official wrongdoing. That is what we could do tonight.

Under the Bill, if civil servants know that a wrong has been done, they must send their complaint up the hierarchy, so that ultimately if the top dogs decide to do nothing, wrongdoing will be left unpunished and unheard of. If by the Bill we remove the threat of exposure backed up by the plea of public interest, those in the higher echelons of the Civil Service will no longer feel under any pressure to do the right thing for fear of exposure, because all disclosure will become an absolute offence. All the Government's arguments against the public interest defence depend on the existence of whistleblowers at the top of the Civil Service. Is that realistic? As Shakespeare said, A dog's obeyed in office.

Perhaps we should call to mind the gyrations, over the Westland and "Spycatcher" affairs of Sir Robert Armstrong, at that time supreme guardian of the professional ethics of the Civil Service or, in colloquial terms, the whistleblower-in-chief. Few can doubt that sadly, by the end of his career, he had reached the stage where "his little wooden whistle wouldn't whistle."

Let us take another example. Supposing, today, a Government press officer knows that she is being asked to peddle deceptive information, or to mislead the press about something said by an apponent of the Government from the Tory or the Labour party. To whom should she turn to complain about being forced into an act contrary to the ethics of her profession? The answer is she should complain to the head of profession for Government information officers. Who is that peerless pearl of ethical rectitude, and where can he or she be found? Since last Thursday, the answer is a Mr. Bernard Ingham, and her complaint should be addressed to 10 Downing street.

Let us suppose that the press officer does not fancy complaining about her enforced deception of the public to Mr. Ingham. Who could blame her? As she is being honest and truthful, she may decide to ring up a journalist and say, "What I told you yesterday was a lot of cock and bull. The eggs have salmonella, the hospital waiting lists have been doctored, nuclear electricity costs more than that from conventional power stations." If the information that she then discloses is classified, that honest act will be an offence under the Bill, rendering press officer, journalist or broadcaster, newspaper or television or radio station liable to prosecution without being able to mount the defence that the revised information is the truth and that it was in the public interest for the truth to come out.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

Will the shadow Leader of the House tell us under what clause of the Bill persons could be prosecuted for that offence?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Dobson

There seems to be some hesitation among Conservative Members [Interruption.] If that press officer had been designated as one of the people connected with such material, and that material was classified—(HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) pointed out, the NHS review was classified as secret, and it would have been wrong to disclose it.

Mr. Hurd

Will the hon. Gentleman say in which clause of the Bill a test of classification of documents exists? The shadow Leader of the House simply has not bothered to master the Bill which he is discussing.

Mr. Dobson

If she had been notified as such a person—I am sorry if I got the phraseology wrong—she would be committing an offence. It is no good the Secretary of State pretending that it is not the case. [Interruption.] A Conservative Member is suggesting that no one in the Government press service would be notified in that way. Is he really suggesting that the chief Government press officer is not likely to be notified that he deals in matters involving the Security Service? I simply do not believe that.

Unless I am utterly off the beam, it is clear that plenty of people at the Department of Energy who deal with nuclear power stations and such matters will be notified. In the dim and distant past, because of my involvement in the nuclear side of the electricity industry, I was involved in classification of material, clearances and so on. I do not think that there is any evidence that the nuclear side of the electricity industry or matters involving the energy industry have changed in any respect.

Mr. Dalyell

Perhaps the Home Secretary could help us by telling us what would happen to Colette Bowe if by some chance someone opened her bank vault? She put her account of events in a bank vault and under clause 5(2) of the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. We are not discussing that subsection or any other subsection. We are discussing the motion on the Order Paper. I do not see any reference to that subsection on the Order Paper [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Dobson

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is on the ball again. Would the bank clerk who opened the vault be guilty under that arrangement, if the Government could find out who that person was and select him as covered by the Bill?

Everyone agrees that the existing Official Secrets Act is bad, but in many respects the new Bill is worse. It infringes our civil liberties, breaches the principle of natural justice, sets some public officials above the law and makes Ministers the sole unchallengeable judges of the public interest. We are used to seeing our country slip down the economic league table.

Mr. Gorst

The hon. Gentleman has produced a catalogue of the offences that the Bill commits to society, but he has left out one important offence. Article 10 of the European convention on human rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to … receive and impart information … without interference by public authorities and regardless of frontiers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address himself to that supreme violation which the Bill will commit.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will address themselves to the motion before the House.

Mr. Gorst

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. is it not germane to our discussions to consider what has to be discussed under the guillotine?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman can draw to my attention the relevant part of the motion before the House, I might have some consideration for what he says.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)

Clause 5(2).

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am talking about the motion before the House, which I hope right hon. and hon. Members will address.

Mr. Gorst

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling in any way, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House itemised the matters for which he was allowing sufficient time. I was pointing out that there might not be sufficient time for us to consider the question of human rights.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Can we get on? Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Budgen

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the discussion of the European convention on human rights absolutely essential to the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that it is essential to the discussion of the Bill. We are not discussing the Bill; we are discussing the allocation of time motion. Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Dobson

In earlier debates in Committee and on Second Reading, there have been references to conflicts between the European convention on human rights and the provisions of the Bill. That is one reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends and some Conservative Members want more time to debate the Bill—to have the opportunity to expose the problems which arise on the European convention on human rights. I must tell the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that the convention is more qualified than he suggested.

Everybody agrees that the Bill infringes our civil liberties. Some of the changes infringe our civil liberties more than they have been infringed already. The hon. Member—

Mr. Skinner

Muttering, "Tony Berry, Tony Berry, Blue Arrow, Blue Arrow, what have I done?"

Mr. Dobson

I think that I had better not respond to any interventions.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science recently appointed a national curriculum working group for history. He told it: The study of history in schools should help pupils come to understand how a free and democratic society has developed over the centuries". As a schoolboy and as a student, I, like many others, studied just that—how our freedoms and democracy developed. Anybody who studies their development must conclude that it took a lot of effort. It was an uphill struggle. People at the bottom had to push democratic rights against all manner of obstruction from people at the top. When we study the development of our democracy, certain events, movements and individuals stand out, but they are not all on the same side. There are two lists. There are those who worked to extend democracy and those who worked against it.

Whatever the period being studied, one thing is fairly predictable—Home Secretaries seldom feature in the roll of honour. Home Secretaries are the ones against whom writs of habeas corpus are issued, who wrongfully arrest people, who issue general warrants, who suspend the law of habeas corpus, who nobble juries or even contrive, with their Dorset relatives, to get the Tolpuddle martyrs transported to Australia.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the same rules of order as apply to Back Benchers apply to Front Benchers, and that this is not a Second Reading debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Dobson

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) will be able to follow what I am saying. With the Bill, the Home Secretary is trying to inscribe his name on the list of his rather more authoritarian predecessors. How they would have loved some aspects of the Bill—its absolute duty of silence, absolute rights for Ministers to decide what is in the public interest and absolute authority to keep their secrets above the law. Until now, the people, the press and Parliament have held out against the introduction of such absolutes. I like to hope that the House will hold out again tonight.

7.42 pm
Mr. Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I asked the Leader of the House at business questions on Thursday whether he would change his mind about tonight's motion. As he has not done so, I must again express my regret that he should introduce this motion and the guillotine on this Bill. I do not say, "on the Bill at this stage", but, "on this Bill".

The Home Secretary has himself emphasised the Bill's immense importance. At the conclusion of the debate on Thursday, he paid me the compliment of saying that some of my remarks had gone to the heart of the Bill, which is the relationship between the freedom of the individual and the overriding power of all-powerful Governments. Of course I still think that—it is the basis of the Bill and the important point in it.

There is much to be discussed in the Bill and there is much to be discussed on the amendments, which requires time. I am saddened by the fact that neither in his answer on the business statement on Thursday nor in his speech tonight has the Leader of the House set out a single reason why the guillotine should be introduced on this Bill. There has been absolutely no attempt to protract the time taken on it—when I have listened, and I have listened a great deal—by either side of the House.

At business questions, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House attacked the Opposition for having only 11 Members here for the debate. I would not deny that, nor would I detract from the fact, if it were true, that they were paying very little attention to it, but what concerns me is the fact that the Conservative Benches were filled for most of the time, and it was only towards the end of the debate that one or two of my hon. Friends were prepared to support the Government.

It has been apparent in debate and in remarks afterwards that the Home Secretary has not succeeded in convincing Conservative Members that he has met their points about the relationship between the individual and the Government. We have paid compliments to the Home Secretary and the Government on what they have done since the White Paper, but I must tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that debate on the White Paper is not the same as debate on the Bill and cannot be taken into account when considering the amount of time spent on the Bill. We have had 13½ hours of debate so far, and we are promised a total of 30.

What other arguments did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House use? He said that he must make time for remaining legislation. With the greatest respect, that is not a justification for a guillotine. Our party has been returned to power three times in succession on the basis of our introducing less legislation, because we do not believe in it and because it does not give Parliament proper time to consider what there is. Instead, we have had more and more legislation. It has been ill prepared, half digested and not given proper consideration in the House of Commons. We are coming to rely increasingly on the upper Chamber to deal with legislation instituted by the Government, which comes from this Chamber.

I am old fashioned enough to think that that is not a good thing. I have never been in favour of abolishing the other place, but nor am I in favour of its having more power, which is what is happening automatically now. It has more time to consider legislation, and it votes boldly according to what it believes to be right. I cannot accept that we have to abbreviate consideration of this Bill to make way for more legislation.

Mr. Budgen

My right hon. Friend has often been attacked by many of our hon. Friends, who reflect that there is a certain irony here. His time as Prime Minister is now described as authoritarian, yet many of our hon. Friends use guillotines such as my right hon. Friend introduced as a precedent for being equally authoritarian. If they wish to attack my right hon. Friend, should they not learn from the mistakes of 1970–74 rather than emulate them?

Mr. Heath

I am delighted that my hon. Friend and I find ourselves together on the same side. I agree with him. I did not wish to introduce a personal element, but I intended to comment briefly on that point, because I see that some of my hon. Friends have been commenting outside the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who I think is not here this evening—he has to come from rather a long way away—referred to my "rack and thumbscrew days". I was Chief Whip of this party from 1955 to 1959. I can remember those dictatorial and authoritarian days. At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton was aged six and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who also, unfortunately is not here tonight, was aged 10. Obviously they too were deeply affected by the rack and the thumbscrew so extensively used on those occasions. What is more, I have had the benefit of advice from people in parliamentary offices, and I see that so extensive was our use of those powers as a whole that between 1955 and 1959, during which period I was Chief Whip, the guillotine was used, altogether, twice. I hope that we stand corrected.

Then we had the period of my premiership—1970 to 1974. Of course, in those days we still had Cabinet government, and the business was arranged by the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, not by me. I see that the Home Secretary is frowning. In those terrible days—they had got much worse by that time—in those four years, the guillotine was used three times. That shows how monstrous my behaviour has been over the years.

Of course, there were those who criticised the action of the then Government over the European Communities Bill 1972—the accession legislation. I was delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in the Lobby with me last Thursday night. I think it is worth reminding ourselves what happened in 1972. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will remember that, before the actual Bill was dealt with, we had seven days' discussion, during which we reached the final decision that led to the Bill—seven days' discussion. When the Bill was introduced we had three full days' discussion. We then had 88 hours in Committee before the guillotine was introduced, and after its introduction we had some 90 hours' further discussion. The European Communities Bill was shorter than this one—it had only 11 clauses—yet that is the amount of time we spent on it. And that was after the Opposition had announced officially, as the right hon. Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Foot) the former leader of the Labour party will remember, that they were determined to break the Bill in any way they possibly could and to use every manoeuvre to do so.

Mr. Skinner

The Government's majority was down to eight.

Mr. Heath

Well, we got the Bill. [Interruption.] Yes, we hear the question about the Prices and Incomes Bill. That too was legislation that had to be dealt with at once because it was a matter of national emergency. [Interruption.] It was indeed, and the amount of time spent on it was vast. Nobody can say that this Bill, which reforms an Act that was put on the statute book in 1911, is of such desperate urgency that we cannot treat it properly in debate on the Floor of the Chamber.

I still believe that this guillotine is a great mistake. Let me say two things. First, the Leader of the House announced in his statement tonight that he does not accept in full the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure that every Bill should be timetabled, although he tends to adopt the attitude that most of them will be. In fact, there is no change in attitude here, because under this Government, since 1979, 47 Bills have been guillotined. That is what has been happening.

Of course, consideration of a permanent guillotine for all Bills is nothing new. It was considered in 1959, when Rab Butler was Leader of the House. At that time I was Chief Whip, and I was inclined to favour a permanent arrangement. Since then, I have thought about the matter constantly, and I have been thinking about it in the context of this Bill, and it seems to me that there are very great problems. One is the problem of getting agreement about the initial timetable and about what would happen if one did not get agreement.

Secondly, if there were a timetable in respect of every piece of legislation, a large part of the pressure on a Government to consider the views expressed in the House would he removed. Therefore, I would no longer argue that we should have a timetable for every Bill, or even for most Bills.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is also absent tonight, spoke at the end of the debate on Thursday evening. He said that the Bill was absolutely right, that if it were changed to take public interest into account, offences would be committed, and it would be wrong to have offences committed. Now, this seems to me to be an unusual view from a member of the legal profession. However, I quite understand the consequences of it: there will no longer be any requirement for counsel for the defence; one just has counsel for the prosecution, and they are therefore sure of getting their fees. They do their job: they prosecute, they go away, and everything is settled.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

That is a cheap gibe.

Mr. Heath

I have an even cheaper one coming for my hon. Friend.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

rose—

Mr. Heath

Allow me to make my double gibe, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton finished by saying, "Let us have a timetable on everything and get away to bed." That is what interested him—not the freedom of the individual, not the position of the state or the Government, not the responsibilities of this House, in legislation, to our constituents and to the country. No, let us get it away and let us get to bed. The only thing that concerns him is how early he can get to bed.

That is my double gibe. I now give way to my hon. Friend.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

I was observing that it was a quite uncalled for gibe against a very good member of the legal profession. The right hon. Gentleman is very rarely here, so he gets to bed very often.

Mr. Heath

I am sorry that my hon. Friend is so annoyed because I am here.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to think again very carefully before working on the basis that all legislation is going to be guillotined in this way.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heath

I have taken up far too much time already.

Mr. Dykes

My right hon. Friend has just referred to the danger of the Government's getting into the habit, as would happen under these arrangements, of paying less attention to what the House says and feeling that less effort is required to get a very heavy programme of legislation through—not only this Bill, but other matters. Is he aware of, and is he disturbed by, the growing reality that the Government are really rather reluctant to accept any amendments suggested in Committee on any Bill whatsoever, other than very marginal amendments involving minuscule technical matters?

Mr. Heath

My hon. Friend has made what is, of course, a very important point. The only thing I could detect from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House this evening that justified him was that the Government have had enough of this Bill and they want to be rid of it. Indeed, he said so quite frankly. He said, "We have had enough time on it; let us get on with something else"—presumably food, since we really must find something we can eat and drink, and that now requires legislation.

Let me follow up my hon. Friend's point. I have said before that I find it unparliamentary that the Government not only take no notice of amendments or proposals but often fail to answer any questions that are put to them in debate. However, I do not want to go into that. All I want to say is that I read with astonishment the leader in The Times today opposing this guillotine. It is not customary for The Times to be out of the hands of the press office at Number 10, but with its leader today that is what happened. The significance of that leader was that it pointed out the danger to this Government of the suspicion outside of Parliament and outside this country that—to use the customary phrase—they are being economical with the truth, that the rest of the world is not being told the whole story.

Twice I have asked whether, under the new system, Irangate would become known in this country. No Minister has been prepared to give an answer to that question, because the answer is that it would not become known in this country. All that would have gone on under a Government who could hide and carry through policies of that kind, knowing that they were absolutely safe. That must be sorted out. We may not yet have done it; I do not believe that we have. However, just because we have not done it does not justify a guillotine.

It is fruitless, I know, to ask the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion; however, I hope that he realises the opposition to it and how basic is that opposition. I hope that he also realises that this procedure should not be followed lightly, certainly not with constitutional Bills, in the future conduct of the business of the House.

7.59 pm
Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has made, as he did on Thursday, such a speech that he has carried all before him. I cannot imagine how the Government can provide an adequate reply to such a speech as he has delivered. I have to say in parenthesis that I did not quite recognise the beneficent regime that he operated when he was Prime Minister and Chief Whip, although he was right to quote the figures about guillotines. I happened to be in the House at that time and I opposed some of his measures. The speech that the right hon. Gentleman has made today will carry great weight in the country, even if it does not carry the vote in the House—as it should.

I suppose that I ought to be slightly flattered by what the Leader of the House said at the beginning of his speech. He sought to take shelter behind what he said were my actions in order to justify what he is doing. In a roundabout way, I suppose that I could take that as a compliment—not that I think that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pay me such a compliment. However, there are startling and sharp differences between what happened in my time and what is happening now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was right to say that it makes a very big difference if the Government have a majority of 130 or 140. That is the kind of majority that this Government enjoy. We had a majority of only two or three. If we had not introduced guillotine motions, there would not have been the slightest chance of passing any legislation. The Government apparatus would have been utterly destroyed. That is very different from the present position. If the Leader of the House had allowed the Bill to go forward according to the normal procedure for debates, the Government's ability to pass this measure and a range of other measures would not have been destroyed.

Another factor, which is interwoven with the point that I have just made, concerns timing. There have been important occasions when guillotine motions have been introduced early in the Session. However, the five excellent measures to which the guillotine was applied in one day, for which I was criticised, were introduced towards the end of a Session. There is a big difference between the introduction of guillotines towards the end of a Session and those that are introduced right at the beginning of a Session. If a guillotine is not introduced for a measure that is being debated towards the end of a Session, the measure will be lost and the legislative programme will collapse. The Leader of the House has no right to compare what was done by the Government at that time with what he is doing now.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested that one of the major reasons for the introduction of the guillotine motion today is because of the huge Government majority. The Government do not care much about the House of Commons. The Prime Minister spends very little time in the House of Commons. She does not worry very much about what happens here. She just says to her Ministers, "Get the business through the House of Commons. It does not matter what kind of measure it is. You have a good majority. You know when to introduce the guillotine at the best time." There has been an appalling deterioration in the way in which legislation is dealt with.

I would bet that the pressure on parliamentary draftsmen during the last two or three years has been growing greater and greater. The drafting of Bills is a very skilled affair. People need time to do it. If parliamentary draftsmen are given only a short time in which to draft Bills, what comes to the House of Commons—or what, which is even more important, spills into the House of Lords—is in an appalling mess. More and more of the measures that the Government have introduced during the last few years have been so shoddy and illiterate and have been presented to the House in such a miserable form that the Leader of the House on a series of occasions, because of the log jam at the end of the Session, has had to introduce guillotine motions to get them through. That is another way in which the House of Commons has not been properly treated.

The prophecy was made by those who were subsequently removed from the Cabinet that the Government's huge majority would have an effect on the way that the country is governed. It has certainly had a huge effect on the way in which Parliament has been mangled and misused. That is happening at an increasing rate. When the Leader of the House introduces a guillotine on this measure, the offence is even greater—though not because it is a constitutional measure. The right hon. Gentleman was right to refer to what happened in 1911, the last time that the Liberal party had the chance to introduce a guillotine.

It is quite true that on constitutional matters—because of the clashes on great issues, both in the country and in this House—guillotine motions have to be introduced in order to ensure that the measures are passed. I am glad that the Leader of the House's education has been improved by reading all my past speeches, but I have never said that there can never be a guillotine on a constitutional measure just because it is a constitutional measure. That would be quite wrong. However, when a Government with a huge majority have nearly a whole Session ahead of them within which to get important measures through, it is wrong of them to choose this measure for a guillotine and to force it through in that way. It is a disgrace both to the House of Commons and to the Leader of the House.

I do not believe that even the Leader of the House would have done it, had he come here to listen to the debates. It was quite often my custom to come and listen to debates in which I did not even participate. It is the duty of the Leader of the House to do that. Before he introduced this motion, knowing what fury it would arouse on both sides of the House, he ought to have listened to the debate. Had he listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup last Thursday and to previous general debates, I do not believe that he would have moved this motion, because he would have heard the demand that the Law Officers should attend the debates.

When we ask for the presence of the Government's legal representatives so that they may expound these matters, we do so not because we think that they are the only people who can help us to understand what is provided for in the Bill but because we believe that it is an important issue, particularly when there happen to be such grave differences about the way in which the Bill has been presented. We are discussing legislation that will affect the country for the next 10 or 20 years. It is a disgrace that, after all our demands, not a single Law Officer has come to listen to the debate. The Prime Minister could send her civil servants and Law Officers all over the world to defend her Government, but she did not ask them to come here to listen to what was said in the House of Commons and to give authoritative answers on these matters.

If the Leader of the House was even thinking of introducing a guillotine motion on the Bill, he ought to have taken the trouble to come here and listen to the debate. Anybody who had listened to last Thursday's debate could not honestly have come here today and said that the debate ought to be truncated. Leaders of the House whom I can recall used to listen to the debates and would not have come forward with such a proposition in the circumstances. However, we are in a new situation, thanks largely to the Government's majority, and that is why legislation that is an infringement of civil liberties goes through Parliament.

The Leader of the House or the Home Secretary may be opposed to such legislation, although I am not sure which of those two contenders is most opposed to it. The Football Spectators Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords and it is so appalling that it may be to the Government's credit that they do not have the nerve to introduce it in the House of Commons. They know how shocking that Bill is. When the Bill comes to this House, we shall have to deal with it. It is another example of the way in which the Government act. The Leader of the House must take the chief responsibility because he is the person who should tell the Prime Minister that such legislation should stop and that the House does not want any more of it. He should pluck up his courage to do that.

People used to say—even Conservatives at election times—that a Conservative Government would not have a great legislative programme like previous Labour Governments. Yet more ill-digested, shoddy legislation has been forced through in the past two years than at any time that I can recall. That is due to the fact that the legislative decisions on major matters are made not by the Select Committee on Procedure, where the Leader of the House is supposed to preside, but by the Prime Minister, perhaps on the corrupt advice of Mr. Bernard Ingham, who has now been promoted.

Certainly, the Government would never proceed without that corrupt advice being offered, either first or last. I use that word advisedly because I would not have dared to use it if it had not been so appositely employed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

The Government, however, have made one change. I recall that in years gone by, the Government used to talk about the legislative machine of Parliament being transformed into a sausage machine. The Leader of the House has at least modernised matters. This is now a factory-farm Parliament: one privatisation measure after another has been brought in which has to eat the entrails of its predecessors, so there will be an outbreak of parliamentary salmonella. No one knows where the next outbreak of the disease will be, although it seems that on this Bill, the outbreak is among Conservative Members.

It seems that we may have an intervention in the debate by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). He has not attended the previous debates on the Bill, so I hope that the House will give him a proper reception if he tries to give his advice on a debate that he has not heard and does not understand. He comes here merely to serve the Government's interests. I am not sure who else's interests he is serving. There are plenty of those in his subsequent moonlighting career as well.

I hope that the Leader of the House will listen to the debate, and that the Government can learn from it and take back to the Prime Minister the instructions of the House of Commons that we are not going to have any more of it.

8.13 pm
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

No one who has attended the debate and followed, as I do, the two previous speakers, could comment that there is not some interest in the debate. Seldom have I heard my right hon. Friend :he Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) more humorous, even though I did not always agree with what he was saying.

The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to the parliamentary draftsmen. I should like him to point out any time when the parliamentary draftsmen were not under pressure. Every Government have kept them under pressure. I was the first—perhaps the only—Minister to venture into their office, just below the Scottish Office, when I had to have some amendments dealt with quickly. It is a place that Ministers are not normally meant to visit. I found then that the permanent view was that parliamentary draftsmen were always under pressure, so that is nothing new in this Parliament or any other.

Equally, that is true of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said. Every Government that I have known since I came to the House in 1959 have said that they wanted less legislation and that they would make legislation simpler and easier for everyone to comprehend. That never comes about and every Government, of whatever politics or party, fall down completely on that.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) suggested that the guillotine was not necessary because the Government could have used their majority to introduce motions to shorten the debate. But there would have been immense criticism from Labour Members that the power of a majority was being rolled in time and time again to introduce motions to shorten or to close the debate.

Over the past four years, the Select Committee on Procedure has been trying to work for orderly debate. It is wrong for my right hon. Friend to suggest that the Select Committee on Procedure has been working for every piece of legislation to be guillotined. The view of the Committee is that we should do two things. First, we should not waste large amounts of time on the first few clauses of a Bill, so ensuring that later clauses are not debated. Secondly, we should try to ensure that every clause is debated before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. If those two conditions could be brought about, the Committee suggests that we should have achieved something.

Mr. Buchan

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is, honourably, in error. It is not correct, as the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House have said, that we have been concentrating on clause 1. Clause 1 is connected to almost all the other clauses and we have been discussing the rest of the Bill in relation to clause 1. Some of the amendments seek to amend later clauses. Those on the Government Front Bench are misleading the House.

Sir Peter Emery

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am saying—not only of this Bill but of all Bills—that we are concerned that time is not wasted on the earlier clauses, thus ensuring that there is not a full debate on the later clauses. It seems that if the debates on the remaining amendments to clause 1 had run as long as they had for the first three amendments in the 15 hours of debate, a guillotine would have been introduced much later and we should then not have been able to debate the later clauses.

One of the problems about the use of the timetable procedure is that every time a timetable motion is introduced, we do not debate the motion itself, but have a Second Reading debate. The speech made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was 92 per cent. criticism of the Bill and was more like a Second Reading contribution. It has nothing to do with the timetable.

It would have been better if, on the six occasions last year when we had a half-day's debate on a timetable motion, we could have worked out, from the suggestions of the Select Committee on Procedure, three days of parliamentary time—a considerable amount of time in the overall year—which could have been used for many other purposes, such as to debate European legislation. The Select Committee on European Legislation would be delighted with that. Alternatively, if extra time could be given to private Members' Bills, Private Members would be delighted. That would be much better than the arid debate tonight and on other occasions when the guillotine is introduced.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the need for proper consideration of legislation that arises from the European Economic Community. However, does he agree that one of the fundamental objections to the line that he is pursuing is that, although we would all wish every clause to be given reasonable consideration, if a date has to be set as a result of that desire, the degree of certainty for any Government increases and the degree of uncertainty diminishes. That is an important factor in keeping control of any Government. It should be kept in some uncertainty until the House decides what to do.

Sir Peter Emery

Normally, I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that he is talking as though he were in "Alice in Wonderland". When the Chief Whip decides what legislation is to go through the House, he provisionally marks the dates on which it will come out of Committee, be considered on Report, and go to the House of Lords. If at any time the Government do not succeed with that timetable, a guillotine motion is introduced. It is wrong to think that, since 1945, the Opposition have stopped a Bill getting on to the statute book because of the time that has been used in Committee. Never has that happened. Every Government ensure that that does not happen, by introducing guillotine motions.

Mr. Gorst (Hendon)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery

Several hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Gorst

It is a quick point.

Sir Peter Emery

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gorst

The fallacy of my hon. Friend's argument is that, on this occasion, much of the opposition to the motion comes from Conservative Members, not the Opposition.

Sir Peter Emery

When the Labour party was in power, there was certain opposition from hon. Members who are no longer below the Gangway. Guillotines were introduced to deal with any opposition. Governments do not care where opposition comes from. They will go forward with the legislation that they want. Anybody who believes the opposite does not understand what Governments are about.

The opposition to this timetable motion is a lot of nonsense. If it were serious and sincere opposition, why do I not see an amendment to it? The motion is to allow two days for debate. Why is there no amendment to allow three or four days for debate? I should have thought that that is the most obvious step to take if hon. Members were serious. If it is thought that the Government will not provide any extra time in a day, why do I not see an amendment to allow the proceedings to continue until any hour after 10 o'clock?

If the Opposition were serious—two ex-Prime Ministers have spoken about the matter—and if there had been amendments in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, it would have been difficult for the Chair not to select such amendments for debate. Hon. Members could have attracted enough support to ensure an unlimited debate all night for two nights if that would help.

Mr. Rooker

Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of what happens when amendments have been selected by the Chair, bearing in mind the Standing Orders under which we operate when the Government bring forward a guillotine motion? Hon. Members know that that is a waste of time. The amendments would never be put to a Division simply because of the guillotine and the Standing Orders under which we operate.

Sir Peter Emery

There is nothing to stop the Chair selecting any amendment to a guillotine motion. That has happened in the past. If tonight's opposition to the motion were as serious as it might be, it would not be like the froth on the top of a good pint of beer—nothing in substance and easy to blow away.

Mr. Heath

I have been listening with great interest to what my hon. Friend has been saying about the general attitude towards the motion. He says that hon. Members are not being serious. It is because the matter is so serious that we believe that a guillotine should not be applied. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that, because of the seriousness of the matter, we are not suggesting an hour here or an extra half-hour there. The Home Secretary moved the adjournment on Thursday night—nobody else. We could have stayed here all night discussing the matter and going over further amendments, but the Government chose to move the adjournment, and that was that.

I object to being called froth on the top of the beer.

Sir Peter Emery

I understand that my right hon. Friend does not like being called froth on the top of the beer, but he will understand that, if there is agreement between the Opposition Front Bench and the Chief Whip about the time hon. Members want to adjourn, that is what happens. He knows better than most how such arrangements are made.

If there had been a desire to get the Bill through in reasonable time, the ex-Chief Whip would also know that there are methods by which that can be arranged through the usual channels. When that procedure falls down, Governments must resort to a timetable motion, and that is exactly what is happening today.

Before I vote tonight, I want an assurance from the Home Secretary. If the Procedure Committee approach is correct, and I believe that to be the case, I want an assurance from the Home Secretary that in the 16 hours that are available, every clause will be debated—I do not say every amendment—and that every major point will be pen to debate. That does not mean a prolonged debate. During the last two days of debate on the Bill, if hon. Members had restricted themselves to 10-minute speeches we would not be in this position today.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

How long has the hon. Gentleman been speaking?

Sir Peter Emery

I have been dealing with many interruptions.

May I have an assurance from the Home Secretary that every clause of the Bill will be debated? If, within the schedule that is laid down, it becomes evident that that is not possible—

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)

What does the hon. Gentleman mean? They will make sure it is not possible.

Sir Peter Emery

Will the hon. Gentleman listen?

If that is not possible, the House would then use the procedure in paragraph 7(2) of the motion, which would allow extra consideration of specific points. Therefore, there is the possibility of a let-out for the Government. If they are not able to deal with every clause, some extra time could be found. The House has a right to be assured that every clause will be debated before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. If I have that assurance, I have the right to ask all hon. Members who are interested in reasonable procedures in the House to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

8.27 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

The speech by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) does no more than reflect that he has not been present during our debates. If he had been present, he would have understood what he plainly did not understand—that we cannot apply to a Bill of this kind, which touches upon the freedom of our citizens and the relationship between state and citizens, the kind of mechanistic framework for debate that he seeks to impose. If that is the thinking of his Procedure Committee, it does not commend itself to the House. Indeed, it casts a somewhat sinister light upon the thinking of the Leader of the House in opening the debate and suggesting that that kind of thinking lies behind the move to guillotine the Bill.

Hon. Members have sometimes thought that there is some protection in the fact that we do not have a written constitution and that, in consequence, it is possible gradually to adapt our constitutional procedures to take account of changing political realities and perceptions. I found the Leader of the House's gradual adaptation of our parliamentary constitution extremely disturbing, as I did the idea that he, as spokesman for the Government's business management, could come to the House and say, "We are going to make guillotine motions the norm. They will become regular practice. This will be the way in which we shall proceed in the future—not the way that we proceeded in the past." That appeared to be the only real justification for this motion. The Leader of the House did not say anything about dilatoriness in our consideration of the Bill. He did not try to say that it is a simple Bill that we can understand and allow through on the nod. The motion is all about the convenience of the Executive organising legislation according to a preconceived timetable.

Perhaps when he replies to the debate, the Home Secretary will give us his view about whether that is an appropriate way for the Government to proceed because that is even more sinister than the imposition of a guillotine on the Bill. It is true that this Government have been more ready to introduce guillotines than their predecessors. They have done so 47 times during this Conservative Administration.

Like the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I do not take the view that because it is a constitutional Bill and one that the Government have thought fit to debate on the Floor of the House, it is inappropriate ipso facto not to have a guillotine. There are circumstances in which it is right that when a constitutional measure is before the House, the majority in the House should be allowed to decide and the efforts of the minority to frustrate the majority should not be allowed to prevail, but that is not the case that we are considering. In all our debates on this issue, the Government have shown that they are in a position to command votes and to ensure that they have a substantial majority. It is true that a sizeable minority of Conservative Members are deeply disturbed by several important principles enshrined in the Bill and by the creation of an absolute offence in clause 1.

If the hon. Member for Honiton is surprised that we took so long to debate clause 1, he should read and understand what we said because the clause is at the heart of the issue. It is the clause that makes it impossible for what has been described as a whistleblower to stop criminality in a public service. It is the clause that provides no defence on which that exposure of wrongdoing can be invoked in the courts. It is a critical proposal and it is right that it should have taken 13½ hours to consider. Incidentally, as the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said, that clause is closely linked to several other matters and to other clauses, especially to clause 5, which were also debated, and not in a dilatory fashion.

The reality is that the Government have introduced the Bill and have said, in terms, "We are not prepared to accept amendments. We are not prepared to listen to arguments. We will tell you something in answer to one debate and contradict ourselves half an hour later if we get it wrong." That is what the Minister of State said on the issue of judicial review.

In this Bill the Government are treating the legislative procedure with contempt. They are not interested in the arguments. They have made up their minds. Indeed, they are not even interested in the arguments of their hon. Friends. They are interested only in concealing their hon. Friends' arguments from the public. They do not wish the public to know the extent of the dismay on their Benches. That is why they are not allowing the debate and why they are curtailing it to three days.

Many serious issues remain to be decided. There is, for example, the question of prior publication, an issue that caused Lord Armstrong to trail off to Australia and to go through the courts there rubbing the noses of our lawyers in the mud to protect the Prime Minister, who had determined to squash the Spycatcher affair. That issue has not yet been debated in Committee. We must consider it properly, not because it is a matter of partisan dispute between the two sides, but because the issue whether, if a piece of official information has been published, that fact should not constitute a defence against a charge of criminal behaviour, possibly leading to two years imprisonment, is a matter of considerable importance. The idea that that should be squeezed into a debate in just one hour when probably 20 Conservative Members—never mind Opposition Members—want to contribute and have a right to be heard is preposterous.

That is not the only serious matter that has still to be considered. There is also the whole question whether information coming from the European Economic Community should be treated with a net of criminal sanctions. The fact is—no one knows this better than the Home Secretary—that there is little in our public life today that does not pass through one of the channels to or from the European Community. The Bill represents a blanket exception. It is something that we have every right to debate for more than one hour. Goodness me—we debated joining the European Community for 80 or 90 hours, as the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent knows.

This is a matter of grave seriousness, but the Home Secretary is scuttling it through in a way that is offensive to the parliamentary process. He is trying to treat the House as though it exists just to nod through what the Executive deem shall be.

Another issue of great importance still to be considered is the departure of the Bill from the clear recommendation of the Franks committee that the criminal law should be invoked only in cases where there is serious injury to the interests of the nation. However, that phrase does not appear in the Bill. There are various tests of harm, and fine distinctions can be drawn from different sides of the argument about the six different categories of information. We want to hear the Home Secretary justify those different categories. We want to hear why he has dispensed with the recommendation of the Franks report. We want to hear more on that subject than he told us on Second Reading or in the debate on the White Paper.

Mr. Dalyell

Did the hon. Gentleman hear the Leader of the House use the phrase "serious test of harm" in his opening brief? When I asked why that phrase does not appear in the Bill, I was peremptorily told that he would make his own speech. However, in a formal letter the Minister of State wrote: The object of the Bill is to ensure that in future the criminal law will penalise only those unauthorised disclosures of official information which cause a serious degree of harm". Yet that does not appear in the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan

In his opening remarks the Leader of the House gave every indication of not having read the Bill either. His complete inability to answer any intervention of substance and his reliance on the argument about the Government's convenience suggest that he is prepared to leave these little problems to his colleague to deal with later.

The Home Secretary has most responsibility for what is happening. He seeks to portray himself—I no longer understand why—as the reasonable man, l'homme moyen sensuel. His behaviour with legislation this Session suggests that he is far from being the reasonable man. He is the creature of a Prime Minister who has effectively dispensed with collective Cabinet decision-making. The only possible justification for his attitude and approach, not only to the content of the Bill but to the way in which it is being handled, must be the self-justification, "If I were not here, there would be somebody worse doing the job." I am not sure whether I would not almost prefer someone else, the colour of whose eyes one could see and whose prejudices were less masked by his behaviour. I am rather tired of seeking to defend the Home Secretary from his colleagues, of trying to draw distinctions between him and his colleagues and of making excuses for the behaviour that so ill becomes him.

The Bill merits consideration for as long as the House thinks that it merits consideration. It seems to be in violation of our international treaty obligations under the European convention on human rights. It seems probable that we shall be back before the European Court of Human Rights for infringing article 10's guarantee of freedom of information. It is extremely probable that the Bill will not do what the Government hope that it will do, which is to silence the whistleblowers. Those whistle-blowers are usually men and women who are concerned about the public interest and will not be silenced by threats of this sort.

The Bill has had a rapid passage to the present position. It has had 13½ hours of debate on a serious group of amendments. I do not believe that it would take long to debate it because what has been discussed is undoubtedly the most important part. The important matters still to come would take only time which the Government could and should afford.

The Government have become contemptuous of free speech. That is implicit and almost explicit in the Bill. They are contemptuous of parliamentary and public opinion, and they are governing ever more as though Parliament does not matter. That is what is wrong with the guillotine motion.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Madame Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Order. Several hon. Members wish to take part in this debate. I appeal to hon. Members to impose a personal timetable on their speeches so that I may call all those seeking to speak.

8.43 pm
Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)

I shall come down from the eloquent diatribe we have just heard to submit two practical reasons why the guillotine is premature. The first is that the Bill may not prove to be the same Bill as the one that we passed on Second Reading. The second is that I am not sure that the House is yet aware of some of the Bill's implications for the rights and freedoms of hon. Members. Let me substantiate those points.

On Second Reading I ventured to ask about the conditions on which members or former members of the secret services could be authorised to publish their memoirs. I do not want to discuss the merits: that would be out of place in this debate. I suggested several criteria which I thought the Government might apply and which were rather more liberal than the obligation of lifelong confidentiality which they had originally suggested. When the debate came to a close and my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied, he gave me in great detail the assurances which I sought.

It was an exhilarating experience. In nearly 40 years in the House of Commons, I had never had the satisfaction of hearing a Minister accept almost everything that I had advanced earlier in the debate. I had a feeling of self-satisfaction at my persuasive powers and a genuine appreciation of the understanding which the Minister had shown. I went cheerfully into the Lobby and voted in support of Second Reading. There I was greeted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister who said, "If any points remain unanswered, please write to us." There were one or two, so afterwards I wrote to them and I received in reply a letter from my right hon. Friend which, as I understand it, repudiates almost wholly the assurances that I had received.

If the House will allow me, I should like to read out the relevant passages. The Minister in his reply said: the sole criterion for authorising publication is whether publication of a particular piece of information will jeopardise national security directly or indirectly. It is a judgment about considerations which are relevant today, not about past history or former embarrassments. If a point of difficulty were to be identified it might still be possible through discussion to agree with the author a change in the text to overcome the problem. A little later he added: If the problem is larger than just a few minor textual changes or if agreement cannot be reached, sometimes authorisation will not be given."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144 c. 538.] A few days later, the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated: I must emphasise that authorisation to members or former members in respect of disclosures of information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances. There is no easy way of reconciling those two statements. I refuse to believe that my hon. Friend the Minister said what he did to lure me into the Division Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I reject that wholeheartedly. Nor do I believe that he spoke beyond his brief, as sometimes happens with a junior Minister. I am satisfied that he and the Secretary of State were in agreement about what he said to me in his reply. Perhaps in the cold light of dawn they reflected that they had gone too far. Or perhaps they consulted a higher authority—though for the senior Secretary of State, there are not many higher authorities.

I can only conclude that, on reflection and after consultation, they decided that they would like to go back on what they had said. At the minimum, that shows some confusion in Government thinking about the Bill, and that alone would justify giving a little more time for them to think it out and perhaps to take into consideration the views of the House of Commons.

But I would go a little further than that. I still hope that the Secretary of State, on further reflection, will allow the assurances given by the Minister of State to stand. After all, they are engraved in the tablets of Hansard for all to see. That is the Government's position. That is the basis of the Bill. But if my right hon. Friend is determined, as his letter suggests, to go back on what the Minister of State said, he will have to explain himself to the House, and it will not be easy. I am sure that, if he decides to repudiate my hon. Friend, he will have to admit that he, however involuntarily, had misled the House. If he does that, we shall surely be entitled to a full day's debate on the issue, on which some of us were persuaded to support the Second Reading, and to have the matter clarified. We must be given a second chance to persuade the Government to do what I believe is the right thing.

Mr. Budgen

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the way in which the courts have been extending their power, through the mechanism of judicial review, and the way in which they are increasingly examining the way in which the legislation was passed? If there is a plain error on the record in Hansard, and it is not cleared up, is there not a serious risk that the legislation will be subject to frequent judicial reviews? Would it not be much better if we spent a little more time and clarified the muddles into which Ministers, for all their grandeur—they are human and fallible—may enter? It would be much better if we spent more time on the Bill now and stopped any future litigation.

Mr. Amery

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of my views and for his further arguments in support of them.

I do not wish to over-stress the importance of the point, because I doubt whether 60 people out of nearly 60 million of Her Majesty's subjects would wish to write their memoirs on such matters. But this is what set the Peter Wright case and its subsequent folly on its way, and made a laughing stock of the Government at home and abroad.

Mr. Aitken

The House can see that the Minister of State is in his place. Would it not be appropriate for some comment to be made about this extraordinary repudiation or discrepancy? We cannot leave the matter in this embarrassing state of limbo.

Mr. Amery

I take my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps in the reply to the debate we shall have some clarification. would not wish to embarrass either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister of State by asking for an immediate comment on the rather awkward corner in which they find themselves.

My second point relates to the defence of public interest, on which we had an extremely interesting debate. Again, I do not wish to go into the merits of the matter, which would be inappropriate in this debate, but there was an error which was frequently repeated. Some hon. Members drew attention to the information that had been given to Sir Winston Churchill between the wars. They were in error because that information was authorised, in the case of Wigram and of Desmond Morton. But there has been a convention that officials or others who speak to Privy Councillors should not be considered guilty of indiscretion.

It occurred to me to try to form a bridge between my right hon. Friend and his opponents on the defence of public interest by suggesting that it would be within the scope of the Bill if someone who wanted to make a protest, instead of speaking to the newspapers, asked his Member of Parliament to put him in touch with a Privy Councillor so that he could make his point. I do not wish to go into the merits of that line of approach, but my inquiries suggested that there was some doubt as to whether communication of such matters to Members of Parliament would be privileged, or even whether the disclosure by Members of Parliament of that information would be privileged.

My anxieties on that score were deepened when I investigated Hansard and found an exchange between the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The right hon. Gentleman said: If a member of the security services tells me that my telephone is being tapped without warrant and therefore illegally or that my house has been burgled without warrant and therefore illegally, is it or is it not a criminal offence for me to make that information public? My hon. Friend replied. It would be a criminal offence for the right hon. Gentleman to make that public, and quite rightly so because he has an avenue of redress. He can go to the tribunal set up under the Security Service Bill."—[Official Report, 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 1051]

The waters surrounding privilege are very deep, but the Minister of State's comments seem to fly in the face of the decision taken in the Duncan Sandys case and the much more recent opinion offered by the Committee of Privileges in the Zircon case. The Strauss case may put forward arguments the other way. We wish to know how the Government interpret the Bill. Will our correspondence be privileged? Will anything that we may say in the House be privileged? It would help if we could be told that today. If we cannot be given that assurance, would it be appropriate to move a motion asking that the Committee stage and further proceedings be postponed until we have secured the opinion of the Committee of Privileges?

I want to make my position clear. I am no crusader for open government. I do not wish to have the arrangements that pertain in the United States. Executive secrets must be kept. I do not want publication without authorisation, provided that authorisation is not unreasonably withheld. I am not very strong on the defence of public interest, subject to the right of an individual to raise his grievance through his Member of Parliament.

All I have been begging my right hon. and hon. Friend is not to screw the lid down too tight. They should not make an ass of the very law that they are trying to put forward. The Wright case should have taught us all a lesson. All I ask is that the Government should give the House and themselves a bit more time to consider the legislation before us.

It is, I fear, untrue that Doctor Guillotin ended his life on the machine which he had invented, but I would not like to see my right hon. and hon. Friends guillotining themselves in the course of these proceedings.

8.59 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

I shall follow a chain of thought which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), when he asked about the position of the Leader of the House. I would like—I hope, politely—to ask the Leader of the House what he considers is his job in these situations. My right hon. Friend, as Leader of the House, was present almost throughout the controversial legislation—in which he may not have taken a leading part—during the Labour Government. It was the same with Dick Crossman and lain Macleod, my first Leader of the House.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I say that, had lain Macleod been the Leader of the House, the junior Minister at the Home Office would have been up at the Dispatch Box within 48 hours explaining what he did mean, because the Leader of the House would have required him to do so. I should have thought that—whereas one must not be absurd and say that the Leader of the House should be a universal expert on the most minor legislation—on major Bills such as as this, one really could expect the Leader of the House to be familiar with the Government's legislation, because, presumably, he is the Chairman of the Legislation Committee.

Mr. Winnick

Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), was dismissed because he showed some independence? Although, of course, he was always loyal in arguing the Government's case as a Cabinet Minister, he had a loyalty to the House. I suppose it was for that very reason that he was dismissed from office.

Mr. Dalyell

I certainly accept that. I also happen to believe that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) might well have required a statement on judicial review and exactly what was involved, which was the point that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) sharply raised. I believe that there would have been some explanation forthcoming. Hitherto we have had none.

Time is limited and I would just like to draw attention to yet another fundamental muddle over the concept of harm tests which juries will be asked to consider under the Official Secrets act when it becomes law. The Minister of State at the Home Office told me in a letter: Your fourteenth Question"— posed during the Second Reading debate— is based on the assumption that the object of the Bill is to stop leaks. The object of the Bill is to ensure that in future the criminal law will penalise only those unauthorised disclosures of official information which cause a serious degree of harm to the public interest, and that such disclosure will only be an offence if the discloser has good reason to know that his disclosure was likely to cause specified harm. As a result of the Bill the unauthorised disclosure of the great majority of official information will no longer be a criminal offence.

That was written in a long and serious letter. However, Ministers have consistently turned down requests from any side of the House—mostly their side—for the "serious injury" test, which was proposed by Lord Franks, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and their colleagues back in 1972.

Now, in its draft form, the Bill says that leaks of information relating to security and intelligence matters have to be "damaging" for a prosecution to succeed. The harm test for international relations leaks is that they are required to "jeopardise" United Kingdom interests abroad. The prosecution will have to prove that defence leaks "prejudice" the capability of the armed forces. Admittedly, the Home Secretary has in the past few weeks proposed that the harm test for defence leaks should be raised to "damage". However, even so, the test falls a long way short of "serious" harm or injury, or "serious degree of harm to the public interest", which were the words used by the Minister of State in his letter to me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said that is surely the situation.

It is all very well for Home Office Ministers to use the phrase "serious degree of harm to the public interest" in letters, but the courts will look at what is in the Bill. On Friday night, 10 February, in a very interesting programme on Channel 4, Lord Griffiths of Gouilon, chairman of the Security Commission and an Appeal Court judge, said that the judges do not, and should not, read Hansard to find out what Parliament meant and that Lord Taylor and Sir Gordon Slynn and the other judges accepted that. In fact we all know that to be true. The fact is that no serious harm test appears anywhere in the Bill. Either the Minister of State's letter must be amended by parliamentary statement or the Bill must be changed. If Ministers were to act quickly, it might be less acceptable for the guillotine procedure to be introduced. Given their record, however, there is no feeling that Ministers will quickly accept error.

There is no serious definition of "international organisation." That term is extremely wide. What about all the EEC examples? Is the EEC's research into salmonella to come within all this? Surely we are entitled to know about EEC documents, regulations and research. With such little time available to us, I leave the point there.

Then there is the power to designate. We could have a great deal of argument with any Secretary of State about that. On what grounds should there be no appeal? As you have appealed for short speeches, Madame Deputy Speaker, I shall move on.

It is being widely said in Whitehall that the Government will try to carry out their wishes by bypassing the House and operating through the Civil Service discipline regulations. I am told that the Government need not come to the House to do that. It is said that the Government, through the regulations, will say that those who have leaked documents will lose their pension rights. Is there any talk in the Home Office, or in any other Department, about punishing Civil Service leakers by the withdrawal of pension rights? As you have appealed for short speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall resume my place.

9.8 pm

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)

It is some time since I have spoken from the Back Benches on a guillotine motion. The debates do not change, do they? They are always the same. They are always ritualistic. The House almost always shows itself at its worst on these occasions, with some extremely pompous speeches being made on the issue.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

Ritualistic?

Mr. Tebbit

I have been in the House a little longer than my hon. Friend.

Mr. Shepherd

Not to debate this subject.

Mr. Tebbit

I am referring to debates on timetable motions, not to general debates on the Bills. If my hon. Friend would listen, he would understand that.

These debates are ritualistic, and this one is as ritualistic as any of them. The Opposition and others who are opposed to the particular measure that is passing through the House always claim that there has been insufficient time to discuss the Bill, however much time there has been to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) would know that if he could remember the passage through the House of Bills such as the Housing Finance Bill, as it then was, in 1972.

It is interesting that once we have a timetable motion— this is so on almost every occasion—those who are opposed to the Bill in question tend to speak less and less and to appear on fewer and fewer occasions. I can recollect many instances when once the timetable motion has been agreed to, following all the ritualistic objections, it has been difficult for Opposition to keep debates going. Dinner breaks in Committee have become longer and longer and the rising hour has become earlier and earlier.

What I say is particularly true of Bills that are considered in Standing Committee. I know that things are different when Bills are considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. The Opposition and others who want to seek concessions feel that they have even more ability on the Floor of the House to delay the Government's legislative programme by procrastination, if nothing more. The Government dissidents see the prospect of better leverage and better prospects of obtaining concessions to meet their point of view. There is nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with the Government taking the view that they will not make concessions unless they think that it is right to do so, and that they want to get the business through the House. I say to some of my hon. Friends, as well as to Opposition Members, that it is conceivable that they could be mistaken and that Ministers could be right. I beg them to take that into account.

There is only a limited amount that can be said on any Bill and the major difference—

Mr. Dykes

Democracy is irritating, is it not?

Mr. Tebbit

My hon. Friend says that democracy is irritating. He knows that that is an extremely stupid and offensive remark. He does not like me saying something with which he disagrees. I fancy that that is the remark of someone who is slightly intolerant.

The great difference between Bills taken in Committee on the Floor of the House and those considered upstairs is that Privy Councillors can speak here, but not upstairs. Privy Councillors tend to take up a lot of time. They cannot speak upstairs because they are not Members of Standing Committees.

It is a great privilege, but my goodness, I sometimes wish that Privy Councillors would not be quite so keen to speak in Committees of the whole House. We are not in Committee on a Bill now. This is a timetable motion and that is what I am speaking about.

In speaking to the timetable motion, my remarks differ from many that we have heard today. At times it would have been possible to imagine that this was a Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a Second Reading speech, and a third-rate one at that.

I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about some aspects of the Bill. As he is aware, I believe that clause 2 is lamentably weak and should be strengthened. I shall press that view on him at some stage, but I shall do so briefly and concisely. I suspect that he will advance his reasons to the contrary.

There has been some discussion this evening about precedents for timetable motions. Everyone who brings forward a timetable motion has a perfect reason for it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made a speech which would have stuck in his throat if he had made it between 1955 and 1959 or between 1970 and 1974. He obviously takes some pride in the fact that he did not use a timetable motion on his Industrial Relations Bill in 1971 whereas I had to ask for a timetable motion on my Employment Bill in 1982. Of course there was another difference between the two, but it would be slightly impolite to my right hon. Friend, and perhaps a little boastful on my part, to mention it.

Every debate on every Bill could be extended almost interminably. However, every debate on every Bill comes to an end sooner or later. The only question is, should it be sooner or later? The question that we have to ask ourselves tonight on this motion is whether this is the time to take the decision and whether another 16 or 17 hours of debate is sufficient. I am prepared to take that decision tonight. I am perfectly prepared to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying that another 17 hours of discussion should be ample for this Bill.

9.13 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)

I am not sure whether I am happy to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I have always thought that he was one of the most unpleasant and objectionable Members of this House.

Mr. Winnick

And odious and poisonous.

Mr. Buchan

Indeed, odious and poisonous; like a polecat, he never changes his spots.

The right hon. Member for Chingford wants clause 2 to be strengthened. I do not know what he wants to happen, whether he wants people to be shot, but from his tone I am glad that he is no longer a Minister. This Government are bad enough without him.

We know why the motion is before us tonight. It is not because time has been wasted. If the right hon. Member—what a description—for Chingford had been present, he would have known that no time has been wasted and that we were dealing seriously with combinations of amendments. We were not restricting ourselves to clause 1 alone. We were extending debate on important issue after important issue in the Bill.

The right hon. Member for Chingford does not even seem to understand the Bill's importance, especially when he speaks so casually about clause 2. The Official Secrets Bill follows the Security Service Bill, when the Government also ensured that not a single amendment could be taken, so that matters could not be further discussed on Report. And after only 13 hours of debate on the Official Secrets Bill, the Government are introducing a guillotine.

The truth is that the Bill before the House is obnoxious. It is being guillotined because the country, and the press especially, are growing increasingly aware of how bad it is. That is the same reason why the Government ensured that there will be no Report stage for the Security Service Bill. They got away with it on that occasion, but it caused so much annoyance that the Government were less sure that they could do so again in respect of the Official Secrets Bill. Consequently, they have truncated debate. Now that people are beginning to understand the Bill's implications for our freedom and liberty, the Government are introducing the guillotine.

There is another, allied, reason for the Government's action. The people who are most worried about the Official Secrets Bill, and who honourably and openly express their concern, are the Government's own right hon. and hon. Members. Every time that more Tories listen to the debate, the more they oppose the Bill. Conservative Members listening to the debate on the Bill for the first time were later to be found in the Lobby, voting against it. In only a short period, the Government would have found themselves with neither a majority of the House, nor of Conservative Members in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Rooker

As further proof of my hon. Friend's point, and leaving aside the extra two days that the Government are making available, the fact that, this week, on consecutive days, the Government are not allowing time for mature consideration of the Bill adds further weight to the argument that they never intended to allow debate on the Bill. That illustrates, as my hon. Friend points out, the bad faith with which Members on the Government Front Bench have approached the passage of the Bill, right from its Second Reading.

Mr. Buchan

What has been an extraordinary experience has been the sheer lack of understanding by Members of the Government Front Bench of their own Bill. We require time to debate the Bill because on every single point, Ministers were getting it wrong. The more they spoke about the Bill, the more contradictions we heard. We have heard another terrifying contradiction tonight. I refer to the correspondence between the Home Office and right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). No answer has yet been given. The Home Secretary says that something is white, but then the right hon. Gentleman receives a letter from the Home Office saying that it is black. The Government say, "We will resolve that difficulty when we wind up the debate."

It is an appalling Bill, and for the right hon. Member for Chingford to enter the Chamber for the first time and try to defend it, and to say that it should be made stronger, is also appalling. On both Committee days, the Government moved the adjournment, which is also extraordinary. After only two days of single debates, the Government moved the adjournment. I should like to know the last occasion on which adjournment in respect of a guillotined Bill was moved by the Government. Those of us who were prepared to debate the Bill all night were unable to do so, because on at least two occasions the Government prevented discussion. They then introduced the guillotine, on the ground that there had been sufficient discussion. It was the Government who destroyed earlier opportunities for debate.

There is no excuse for the Bill, and I do not believe that the Government themselves understand it. The Government have shown their ignorance of several issues already raised this evening. Another is the question of harm. There is nothing in the Bill to say that harm must be shown, and neither has it been defined in relation to different clauses of the Bill. I shall give another example that requires investigation. I did not put down an amendment on this point, because, until last week, I did not expect the current state of affairs to be thrown upon us. Not only is the subject of harm not mentioned, but the Government do not define examples.

Clause 2 relates to defence and raises an issue that I mentioned mildly last week. There has been no answer, no comment and no public statement on the issue, which related to what the word "harm" referred to. If there is a radiation leak from a nuclear base on the Clyde which is not disclosed by the authorities, but is disclosed by an honest whistleblower who is concerned that health precautions should be taken, the Government will claim that, in the clause, "harm" is the harm done to our defence establishments by the knowledge of its inadequacies and the truth of its function. However, we would be concerned about the harm to the health of the people in that district which would not he a defence. The whistleblower would automatically he guilty, although the harm would have been done to the health of the people nearby.

It is not right for that sort of problem to be left in the air without proper time for discussion—or even time to let the poor Minister of State, who has been thrown into the debate on this Bill, receive some answers from the Box.

I do not want to speak for too long, because many Conservative Members, as well as Opposition Members, wish to speak, but I am horrified by the decision. I have been a Member of the House for more than 20 years, and I know that not all guillotines are the same. I have never known a guillotine to be introduced with such speed after adjournments have been moved time after time by the Government; the Government have shown their own inadequacies and failed to answer questions; and the more hon. Members have listened, the more opposition has built up against the Bill. The present guillotine is unique.

The Bill is concerned with the freedoms and liberties of the people of this country. It involves their most precious freedom, that of the word and the honesty of speech—along with other Bills that truncate the same freedoms of speech in the media. The Home Secretary is a dab hand at cutting and savaging the BBC. People whose task it should be to expose the iniquities of executives and Governments, have been silenced. The Bill is in the interests of the Executive, not of Parliament or the people of this country. It preserves the secrecies of a Government who not only have too large a majority for anybody's sake, but have been in government too long for any good that they have done. They have substituted for the sovereignty of Parliament the sovereignty of the Executive.

We still need to know who will have the authority if the Home Secretary gets it wrong and backs up the Minister of State when he gets it wrong. Whose decision will be superimposed? Surely only that of No. 10, and perhaps Bernard Ingham's now that he has been relatively ennobled. That is frightening. The motion should be thrown out with contempt.

9.23 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

I have lost count of how many guillotine motions I have voted against when in opposition and how many I have voted for when in government. I have never previously had the opportunity or occasion to speak in such a debate, although I was recently reminded that I was a member of a Government who introduced a guillotine motion before the Committee had even begun to consider the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

The crucial point about that measure was that it dealt with a matter of extreme urgency. I greatly regretted the situation that gave rise to it and I am glad that the policies of the present Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, have not resulted in any such urgent action on economic matters. However, that was an urgent matter, and the measure was only temporary in that it carried out a proposal that was to last for 90 days. That was in marked contrast with the Bill that we are considering this evening.

It is difficult to envisage a Bill less urgent than this Bill. We have been waiting and waiting for such a measure to come forward, and we have been told that the Home Secretary has spent many weeks, months and even years considering what should be in it. Yet, when the House of Commons is to consider what ought to be in the Bill, arid its detailed proposals, we are told that it must be rushed through on a guillotine. The measure to which I referred a moment ago lasted merely 90 days, but in this Bill we are probably legislating for a generation or more. Therefore, not to give the House adequate time to consider the measure at this stage seems a serious mistake.

As right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, in no sense has there been a filibuster in our debates so far. Thre has been no tendency for proceedings to be prolonged unduly by either side of the House. On the contrary, we have had a major debate on major issues and on the whole everyone has made thoughtful, cogent and reasonably short speeches. So the usual argument for a guillotine, which is that a measure is being obstructed unreasonably, most certainly does not apply.

The importance of the measure is illustrated by the fact that is being debated on the Floor of the House. We have a duty to examine the detailed proposals in the Bill. I do not accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that we have already had a day to discuss the White Paper and a day on Second Reading. This is our chance to examine the Bill in detail. Our progress so far has made it absolutely clear that there is considerable uncertainty about the detail of the Bill.

Today, we have all referred constantly to the problem of judicial review. It was very clear that the Government and Ministers were not clear about the true position. Therefore, the House has a duty to examine in detail what is proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) pointed out the real confusion which arose between Second Reading and the letter which he received. That problem should he debated on amendment or on a clause stand part debate. However, we all know that the real trouble with the guillotine is that it is likely that some amendments will not be debated because the chopper will fall. The same applies to clause stand part debates. We shall probably not have adequate time to discuss many points that require debate.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very kindly has written to me on a couple of points about which I expressed concern to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. That is all very well, but a letter from the Minister spelling something out is not the same as the scrutiny which takes place in the House and the way in which aspects of the Bill may be revealed to Ministers. I recall that, however much time my officials and I had devoted to trying to get the drafting right on a Finance Bill, if the Opposition of which ever party were doing their job, suddenly one would see a horrible flaw in the legislation which one had not observed previously—because the House of Commons was doing its duty and looking in detail at specific proposals.

Therefore I deeply regret the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has proposed this motion this evening. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I do not agree that it is all a ritual. I have a strong feeling that there is real and profound concern on both sides of the House that the measure is not being dealt with in the way in which the House of Commons should deal with it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows that I have profound respect for him and for the way in which he carries out his duties. I believe that the task of the Leader of the House is immensely difficult in defending the interests of Back Benchers while representing to the House the views of the Government, but I have to say that the guillotine on this particular Bill is premature, and it is wrong that the House should agree to it.

9.29 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

This is the first time during almost 25 years in the House that I have taken part in a timetable motion debate, but I have listened to a great many. Working on that experience, I do not propose to make any of the extravagant claims which often characterise these debates, but some of the facts are beyond dispute.

The first is that this guillotine has no friends except the Government and their acolytes. The Times condemned it. The Daily Telegraph condemned it. If even The Times and The Daily Telegraph in their present form cannot bring themselves to support the Government, who in heaven's name can? [HoN. MEMBERS: "The Sun."] I propose to deal later with sycophants who were wheeled in solely to support the Bill.

The second fact has been established on both sides of the House. The House accepts that nothing in the two days of Committee justifies a guillotine now. It would be wrong to say that absolutely no time was wasted. Time was wasted by the Minister of State, who could not, or would not, give answers to questions. Fearing that we should have a debate such as this, I took the precaution, two weeks ago, of writing to the Secretary of State saying that we would make speedier progress if his junior Minister was better briefed in future.

Time was also wasted by the Government when, late on each of the two sitting nights, they discovered that no hon. Member had supported the Government, so they persuaded sycophants to come in and make brief, supportive but ill-informed speeches from the Back Benches. Apart from those two examples, time has been used as sensibly as it is possible to use it in the House.

I want to say something about that to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is not here and is therefore unable to receive my apology directly. Until this evening, I believed that he was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. I realise now that I must have been wrong to make such an assumption, for he misunderstood entirely the nature of debates in Committee stages. He talked to the House as if the debate so far concluded were concerned exclusively with the early lines of clause 1.

The debate so far concluded has been concerned with fundamental principles which underlie clause after clause. That is why many of the amendments were debated but not voted on immediately after the debate was finished. The idea that the House has spent 13 hours on two lines is palpable nonsense. It has spent two days' debating time on two fundamental principles. If the hon. Member for Honiton had understood either the Bill or the principles which govern the behaviour of a Committee stage conducted on the Floor of the House, he would not have made the gross error that he made this evening.

The hon. Gentleman also said that there had always been conversations and discussions between the two sides. I confess freely that I had conversations with the Home Secretary and, insofar as it is possible to have a conversation with the Government Chief Whip, a conversation with him. The message I conveyed, which I have no doubt was the right message to convey, was that the Bill was not suitable for a carve-up between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government. It is a matter on which the House takes a view. It is a matter on which Tory Back Benchers take a view. It would have been an impertinence—indeed, it would have been an impossibility—for us to say that we would carry with us, on specific dates, Members on both sides of the House who have independent positions and rightly want to express their opinions as free and independent Members of the House of Commons.

When I had conversations with the Home Secretary and what passes for conversation with the Government Chief Whip, I came, as early as the first evening of our consideration, to a clear conclusion—that the Government were determined to guillotine the Bill from the moment it was published. There has never been any intention to have full and free debate on it. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the way in which the debate has proceeded.

The debate proceeded, on the first day, on the fundamental question of lifetime secrecy. It is perfectly true that I then said to the Home Secretary that it would be intolerable for us to start late at night on the crucial question of a public interest defence. But it would have been possible to have a procedural motion to allow us to do other things at that time.

On the second day, knowing that the Home Secretary is not always quite as arcadian and palladian and superior when he is debating as when he is speaking to groups of Conservatives outside, and knowing that he would take advantage of any suggestion that we were not prepared to go on, I went out of my way to put on record in Hansard our willingness to continue to debate, so that there should be no suggestion that the Opposition wanted to bring discussion to a speedy conclusion. But a fortnight ago the Home Secretary insisted that the debate should be concluded at what, for the House of Commons, was a comparatively early hour, confirming my view that from the beginning the Government have intended to guillotine this Bill.

I want to say to the hon. Member for Honiton that I understand—no one wants to be foolish about this—that Governments sometimes need to guillotine debates in order to get their business through. It is the Government's right—perhaps it is their duty—to get their business through. But there was no question of this Bill not passing into law. This guillotine is proposed not in order that the Bill shall proceed with good order and discipline, but in order that it shall proceed with the minimum of public debate.

If we had any doubts as to the need for public debate, and the consequences for the Government of public debate and their reasons for wanting to curtail public debate, we would need to do no more than look at the first two days. It was through debate in this House that we learned that, if a man's house is illegally burgled by the security services, or if a woman has her telephone illegally tapped by the security services, and if he or she is told about it by a member of the security services, it is a criminal offence to reveal that illegality—a criminal offence carrying a prison sentence.

It is clearly not in the interests of the Home Secretary, who poses as a reformer, that such facts should be prised out during the debate. It was only through the debate in this House that we discovered that the illegality I have just described could not be spoken of to the victim's laywer without the victim being subject to prosecution and possible prison sentence. Indeed, it was only through the debate that the Minister of State learned that that was the case, for initially he gave a categorically inaccurate answer, which we are still waiting for him to correct.

Again, it is not in the Government's interests, and not in the interests of a Home Secretary who, as recently as 72 hours ago, announced that he was the natural heir to Mr. R. A. Butler, that the nature of his proposals should see the light of day in the way that the debate makes possible.

Let me give another example of how the Home Secretary's behaviour shows why he and his colleagues want this debate to be curtailed. Speaking in Cambridge on Friday evening, he announced—if The Daily Telegraph is to be believed—that if the debate last week had resulted in a public interest defence being included in the Bill, that would have provided a defence for any member of the security services who had wanted to reveal the battle plan of the British Army of the Rhine. If the Home Secretary had said that in the House of Commons, he would have been laughed out of the Chamber, because that was given in the debate as exactly the sort of episode that could not be cited in a public interest defence. The Home Secretary finds it better to discuss these matters in front of the gullible Conservatives of Cambridge than in front of the House of Commons, where they should be debated. That is the basic reason and intention of this debate.

Yet the issues we ought to be discussing here are issues that go to the heart of the freedoms which this society should enjoy and which affect a crucial parliamentary issue—the balance of power between the courts, the Government and individuals. This Bill takes to the Government power that should reside in the courts and, as a result, it reduces the liberty—I put it not higher than this —of a substantial part of our population. The guillotine was intended to obscure the revelation of that sort of fact, and it is because of the desire to muddy the waters, not only that the guillotine is introduced at all, but that the concluding days of the Committee stage are to be rushed through on consecutive sitting days in the wholly inadequate circumstances of a Thursday and Wednesday afternoon.

There is a second reason for the introduction of the guillotine. In my view, its introduction is all the more deplorable when one considers the issues that are yet to be debated. During the next two days we are to discuss whether it is reasonable to suppress information that has already been published abroad. Many of us will want to argue that the suppression of information that is available in other countries has nothing to do with security but everything to do with Government management.

To say that the British people cannot know what is already known in the Kremlin is not something that concerns the safety of the realm. It concerns the Government's convenience. No wonder that the Government do not want the issue to be debated at length.

During the next two days we shall discuss whether information from abroad is to be suppressed simply because it comes from abroad and whether the tests of harm—about which the Home Secretary speaks so eloquently, and no doubt he will do so again—are adequate tests to protect the man or woman who feels entitled to reveal trivial or unconsequential matters or matters that the Home Secretary should not himself have the power to proscribe.

Because of the nature of the debate, it is all the more important that the House of Commons should be allowed to continue the debate, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, for as long as the House of Commons wishes and for as long as it continues to debate these matters in a responsible and sensible fashion. I fear, however, that the nature of the debate was only one of the reasons that prompted the Government to introduce the guillotine.

The second reason is more alarming than the first. It is the Government's impatience with the proper processes of democracy. The Prime Minister says openly—I think that she was talking about her Cabinet colleagues, but I have no doubt that she holds the House of Commons in equal contempt—that she has no time to waste on argument. Very often, democracy depends on argument continuing unchecked. To the Prime Minister, criticism is something to be suppressed. Opposition is something to be bullied or bought off.

It is the duty of a democratic Government and of a democratic Prime Minister to facilitate discussion. Were the Home Secretary to allow it, the Bill that emerged would be a great deal more satisfactory than the one we are now debating, and his reputation would be a great deal more secure than it will be if he pushes through an instrument that, time after time, will be demonstrated to be inadequate for the purposes that he claims it will serve—those purposes being an attempt to safeguard that information which it is necessary to hold secret and, on the other hand, to allow freely the exposition of facts which, if they are published, do no harm to the national interest.

The Home Secretary, however, who must know these things—or who knew them once and who once would have resented and resisted the Prime Minister's autocracy and her determination to have measures passed by Parliament without adequate discussion—is now prepared to act as her lapdog. I suspect that those who sit on the Benches behind the Home Secretary will provide sufficient votes for the guillotine motion to be passed. I suspect, too, that having done so they will provide sufficient votes on Wednesday and Thursday to ensure that the Bill, in more or less its present form, becomes law.

Many hon. Members—I see some of them in their places now—will be persuaded to speak at such length that the Minister of State will never be able to correct himself about the position and duties of lawyers as concern their clients, and he will never be able to get straight the issue with which he so confused the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). The Home Secretary will make little, darting speeches that assert his good intentions without demonstrating them with reference to the Bill.

There will be two days of debate during which the Home Secretary will play the worst trick of all. He will describe the Bill not by referring to its clauses but by referring to the Home Office handouts which, as we know, have constantly given a false impression of what the Bill contains. I suspect that the Bill will pass into law, thanks to the supine Members who sit on the Back Benches on the other side of the House, but when it is passed into law it wil be a bad day for democracy and a contemptible day for Parliament.

9.43 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd)

I agree with this much of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said—that the Bill deals basically with the relationship between the courts, Parliament, Government and the individual.

The debate has turned, as it should, on two basic points. The first is whether there should be a timetable motion for the Bill and, and if so, whether the timetable proposed is a reasonable one. The second is whether, as the Opposition argue, this motion fits into a pattern of Government unreasonableness and arbitrariness on the subject. I shall deal with both those points.

The ground on the first point was thoroughly covered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Bill is important and goes to the heart of the functioning of Government. With 16 clauses, it is a relatively short Bill. It severely reduces the present scope of the criminal law and within the information still to be protected by the criminal law, it ties down the prosecution, for the first time, with a number of specific tests of harm. That is a fair description of the Bill and we decided—and the whole House agreed—that the Committee stage should be held on the Floor of the House.

I listened carefully, as did the House, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). The right hon. Gentleman, like others, made a basically defensive speech about his own past and his ingenious attempt to distinguish between his passionate love affair with the guillotine, which I remember well, and my right hon. Friend's motion. He did not persuade any hon. Member—perhaps not even himself.

It is not my place to attack my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for authoritarian tendencies, and I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) were referring to in that respect. I would defend him on the episodes mentioned, but although I listened carefully to the case against timetabling every Bill and agree with it, I do not think that my right hon. Friend succeeded in making the case that this Bill should not be timetabled at all.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook touched on this point just now. We have had two days of debate, yet we are not within clear sight of the end of clause 1. I am not complaining about that or making accusations of filibustering, any more than my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did. However, after long and unrestricted debate, the Committee has come to a conclusion on two important matters. The first is whether there should be a special offence applying to members and former members of the intelligence and security services and others notified because of their close connection with that work. The second is whether, although there is no general right of prosecution on the ground of public interest, there should be such a right for the defence. Those were the matters discussed and dealt with in Committee.

The pace has been slow and, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook may confirm, there were no grounds for supposing that progress would have accelerated. On the first evening, we dealt with two groups of amendments only. The Government would have been ready, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to continue into the public interest defence debate, but he made strong representations—which after a short time of reflection, we decided were reasonable—that we should not do so. I wonder what he would have said if we had started switching the order of business, which he now suggests as an alternative. He would have been in a state of outrage.

Mr. Hattersley

I would have thanked the Home Secretary for accepting my suggestion.

Mr. Hurd

The right hon. Gentleman would not have said anything of the kind, and he knows it.

As a result of the agreement mentioned, on the second day we had the debate on the public interest defence and that came to and end after a long discussion at a similar hour—after 11 pm but before midnight. At my suggestion, the House did not proceed further that night. There is no reason to suppose that we would have made any further substantial progress that night and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has simply confirmed what I am about to say. There is no reason—rather the reverse—to suppose that the informal arrangements that we all know about would have had any validity in the continuing debate. The right hon. Gentleman is plainly wrong in supposing that we started to discuss the matter believing in our hearts that there would have to be a guillotine. I had no such conviction. A guillotine was obviously a possibility, but I hope that the House will accept that it was not an aim or a conviction.

The case for a timetable motion at this stage is overwhelming. Of course, the timetable must be reasonable. A press report misled some of my right and hon. Friends. It stated that we were proposing that the House should be asked to deal with the Bill completely this week. That was never our intention. I believe that two further days in Committee, sitting late—making four days in all—is reasonable. A provision, which will certainly be needed, for a third day on Report and Third reading is reasonable.

I now refer to some specific points that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made a particularly telling contribution. He asked me about a debate on every clause. As he knows, the Business Committee is entrusted with the task of organising the debate in accordance with the motion. Its aim should be to ensure that every clause is debated. I confirm that paragraph 7(2) of the motion, which is normally relied upon on occasions to cope with the possibility of Standing Order 20 applications, provides for extra time should that prove to be necessary.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) raised two important points. First, he dealt with his letter to me on the authorisation of memoirs of members of the Security Service. He did not refer—his account would have been more complete if he had—to the fact that, after my hon. Friend the Minister of State used the words on Second Reading, some of which he quoted, there was a debate on new clause 6, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied: It will not come as any surprise to those concerned to know that authorisation to members and former members to disclose information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report, 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 11031]— [Interruption.] That was at a later stage.

I accept the importance of what my right hon. Friend has raised. There will certainly be further opportunities in our proceedings to deal with the point. It is necessary to complete—not to contradict—my hon. Friend's account of proceedings in the House.

My right hon. Friend raised a second point concerning the privileges of this House. He rightly said that that was deep water. I do not intend to enter it tonight, except to say two things. First, the privileges of the House are not and never have been in the hands of Government. They are in the hands of the House and then in the hands of the courts. That has always been the position. The Bill contains no trenching on or addition to the privileges either way. There are already on the Order Paper amendments that would enable the Committee to deal with these matters.

Mr. Amery

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend as he is short of time. Was the statement made in the Minister of State's reply to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) correct? Is that consistent with what my right hon. Friend has been saying?

Mr. Hurd

On privilege?

Mr. Amery

No. As I remember it, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked whether he would be in breach of the law if he revealed that he had been told by a secret agent that his telephone had been illegally tapped. The Minister said that he would be in breach of the law. That seems to throw doubt on whether our communications or our disclosures in the House are privileged.

Mr. Hurd

I do not believe that the House, which is the master of its privileges, has ever asserted that communications to an hon. Member are privileged.— [Interruption.] I do not think so. That is a point on which there are amendments and new clauses, and they will certainly fall to be discussed.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), took the lead in making the second charge, which is one of—

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (SE. Helens, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, privilege in this House's very much a matter for the Chair. Would you, Mr. Speaker, rule on whether a communication to a Member of Parliament is or is not privileged and whether the Government of the day have the right to interfere with the privilege of this House?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that I should get involved in this debate, but as the rules stand at present a communication from someone outside the House to an hon. Member is not privileged.

Mr. Bermingham

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not privilege for a Member of the House to repeat in this House information that he has known and is he not privileged in that respect?

Mr. Speaker

That is a different matter. Members of the House have freedom of speech.

Mr. Hurd

It is entirely a different matter, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

I take on now the second blade of the attack which, in a way, goes deeper. It is the accusation of authoritarianism in our handling of such matters. I strongly rebut that. If one looks at proceedings on this matter in the past 12 months, one realises that that attack cannot be sustained. If one considers the White Paper and remembers how, it contrasted vividly with the predictions made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—[Interruption.] Well, it departed totally from ministerial certificates and left the matter to a jury. That came as a great surprise.

Let us look now at the contrast between the Bill and the White Paper and the way in which we took on board several of the criticisms expressed in the debate on the White Paper. I had been going to say that I believe that there is now a wider understanding of what is in the Bill and what is not—that is, until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. He drew examples from the public interest that could not possibly come within the scope of the Bill.

When the hon. Gentleman realised that he was in difficulty, his hon. Friends tried to help him out of the pit by suggesting that the chief press officer concerned might have been notified because her work was connected with the security services. What nonsense. She would not have been notified and even if she had been, clause 1 makes it absolutely clear that to come within the Bill, disclosure must relate to security and intelligence. The hon. Gentleman had clearly not bothered to develop the slightest acquaintance with the Bill or the timetable motion.

Mr. Dobson

rose—

Mr. Hurd

No, I shall not give way—

Hon. Member's

Give way.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Hurd

No, I have put paid to that argument, and I hope that we have put paid also to the argument that matters released from the criminal law by the Bill are trivial. There has been some reference to the safety of food. Is the safety of food trivial? We do not seem to hear very much about anything else at present. I do not condone the purloining or publishing of papers on matters such as public safety if they are confidential.

What I am saying in the context of the Bill is that such activity, however reprehensible, will not be a criminal offence. We have dealt with that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) gave specific examples earlier, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not bother to acquaint himself with that. The Government—

Mr. Dobson

rose—

Mr. Hurd

No, I am answering a point made by the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was harsh on me. I respect his passion and conviction in such matters, but I have never asked him to defend or excuse me. He knows better than that. He was wrong to say that the Bill would make the Government the arbiter of what is and is not secret. There are no ministerial certificates. What we are doing in the Bill is removing—

Mr. Hattersley

rose—

Mr. Hurd

No, I am not giving way. What we are doing is removing from the prosecuting authorities the wide discretion that they now have. We are asking Parliament to lay down the detailed framework and then—

Mr. Hattersley

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Hurd

It will be for the jury to decide on each case.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, whose arguments I respect, spent his whole time talking about the possible misdoings of public servants, but the safety of the citizen must surely be our chief concern. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we sometimes have to strike the balance between protecting the safety of the community as a whole and sustaining the rights of the individual in particular. The Bill shifts that balance drastically in the direction and in the favour of the individual, but it does not abandon the need to protect the citizenry as a whole.

I ask the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland in particular—and the House—to look at the test of harm which deals with our armed forces and the safety of our citizens. There is nothing here about the authority to prosecute because of some embarrassment to Government or vague general interest.

Mr. Maclennan

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd

I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman made an attack on the general handling of the Bill, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

The secrets which we have to protect effectively are needed for the protection of the citizen. They are at one remove the secrets of the citizen, and the effective protection of those secrets is the protection of the citizen against the criminal and political—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills).

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 213.

Division No 91] [10.00pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard Dorrell, Stephen
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Amess, David Dunn, Bob
Amos, Alan Durant, Tony
Arbuthnot, James Eggar, Tim
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Emery, Sir Peter
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Aspinwall, Jack Evennett, David
Atkins, Robert Fallon, Michael
Atkinson, David Favell, Tony
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Fenner, Dame Peggy
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Baldry, Tony Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Fishburn, John Dudley
Batiste, Spencer Fookes, Dame Janet
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Forman, Nigel
Bellingham, Henry Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Bendall, Vivian Forth, Eric
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Bevan, David Gilroy Fox, Sir Marcus
Bitten, Rt Hon John Franks, Cecil
Blackburn, Dr John G. Freeman, Roger
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter French, Douglas
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Fry, Peter
Boscawen, Hon Robert Gale, Roger
Boswell, Tim Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bottomley, Peter Glyn, Dr Alan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) Goodlad, Alastair
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bowis, John Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Gow, Ian
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Gower, Sir Raymond
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Brazier, Julian Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bright, Graham Gregory, Conal
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Browne, John (Winchester) Grist, Ian
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Ground, Patrick
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick Grylls, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Burns, Simon Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Burt, Alistair Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Butcher, John Hanley, Jeremy
Butler, Chris Hannam, John
Butterfill, John Haselhurst, Alan
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Hayes, Jerry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hayward, Robert
Carrington, Matthew Heathcoat-Amory, David
Carttiss, Michael Heddle, John
Cash, William Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Chapman, Sydney Hind, Kenneth
Chope, Christopher Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Churchill, Mr Holt, Richard
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n) Hordern, Sir Peter
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Howard, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Colvin, Michael Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Conway, Derek Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Cope, Rt Hon John Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Couchman, James Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Cran, James Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Currie, Mrs Edwina Hunter, Andrew
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Davis, David (Boothferry) Irvine, Michael
Day, Stephen Irving, Charles
Devlin, Tim Jack, Michael
Dicks, Terry Jackson, Robert
Janman, Tim Raffan, Keith
Jessel, Toby Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey Rathbone, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W) Redwood, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Renton, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine Rhodes James, Robert
Key, Robert Riddick, Graham
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Kirkhope, Timothy Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Knapman, Roger Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Knight, Greg (Derby North) Rossi, Sir Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) Rost, Peter
Knox, David Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Sackville, Hon Tom
Lang, Ian Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Latham, Michael Sayeed, Jonathan
Lawrence, Ivan Scott, Nicholas
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Shaw, David (Dover)
Lee, John (Pendle) Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Shelton, Sir William
Lightbown, David Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Lilley, Peter Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) Shersby, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Sims, Roger
Lord, Michael Skeet, Sir Trevor
Luce, Rt Hon Richard Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil Soames, Hon Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Speller, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Stanbrook, Ivor
Madel, David Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Major, Rt Hon John Steen, Anthony
Malins, Humfrey Stern, Michael
Maples, John Stevens, Lewis
Marland, Paul Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Marlow, Tony Stokes, Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Sumberg, David
Mates, Michael Summerson, Hugo
Maude, Hon Francis Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Sir Hal Temple-Morris, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mitchell, Sir David Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Monro, Sir Hector Thorne, Neil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Thurnham, Peter
Moore, Rt Hon John Townend, John (Bridlington)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester) Tredinnick, David
Moss, Malcolm Trippier, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin Trotter, Neville
Mudd, David Twinn, Dr Ian
Neale, Gerrard Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Needham, Richard Viggers, Peter
Nelson, Anthony Waddington, Rt Hon David
Neubert, Michael Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Walden, George
Nicholls, Patrick Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Waller, Gary
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley Walters, Sir Dennis
Oppenheim, Phillip Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Page, Richard Warren, Kenneth
Paice, James Watts, John
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil Wells, Bowen
Patnick, Irvine Wheeler, John
Patten, Chris (Bath) Whitney, Ray
Patten, John (Oxford W) Widdecombe, Ann
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Wiggin, Jerry
Pawsey, James Wilkinson, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Wilshire, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Winterton, Mrs Ann
Porter, David (Waveney) Winterton, Nicholas
Portillo, Michael Wolfson, Mark
Powell, William (Corby) Wood, Timothy
Price, Sir David Woodcock, Mike
Yeo, Tim Tellers for the Ayes:
Young, Sir George (Acton) Mr. David Maclean and
Younger, Rt Hon George Mr. John Mark Taylor.
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Aitken, Jonathan Foster, Derek
Allen, Graham Fraser, John
Alton, David Fyfe, Maria
Armstrong, Hilary Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack George, Bruce
Ashton, Joe Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) Godman, Dr Norman A.
Barron, Kevin Gordon, Mildred
Battle, John Gorst, John
Beith, A. J. Gould, Bryan
Bell, Stuart Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Hardy, Peter
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Harman, Ms Harriet
Benyon, W. Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Bermingham, Gerald Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Blair, Tony Haynes, Frank
Boateng, Paul Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Bradley, Keith Heffer, Eric S.
Bray, Dr Jeremy Henderson, Doug
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) Hinchliffe, David
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Home Robertson, John
Buchan, Norman Hood, Jimmy
Buckley, George J. Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Budgen, Nicholas Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Caborn, Richard Howells, Geraint
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Hoyle, Doug
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Canavan, Dennis Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cartwright, John Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clay, Bob Illsley, Eric
Clelland, David Ingram, Adam
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Janner, Greville
Cohen, Harry Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Coleman, Donald Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Corbett, Robin Kirkwood, Archy
Corbyn, Jeremy Leadbitter, Ted
Cousins, Jim Leighton, Ron
Critchley, Julian Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Crowther, Stan Lewis, Terry
Cryer, Bob Litherland, Robert
Cummings, John Livingstone, Ken
Cunliffe, Lawrence Livsey, Richard
Cunningham, Dr John Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dalyell, Tam Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Darling, Alistair Loyden, Eddie
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) McAllion, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) McAvoy, Thomas
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) McCartney, Ian
Dixon, Don Macdonald, Calum A.
Dobson, Frank McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Doran, Frank McKelvey, William
Douglas, Dick McLeish, Henry
Dunnachie, Jimmy Maclennan, Robert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth McNamara, Kevin
Dykes, Hugh McTaggart, Bob
Eadie, Alexander McWilliam, John
Evans, John (St Helens N) Madden, Max
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) Marek, Dr John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Fatchett, Derek Martlew, Eric
Fearn, Ronald Maxton, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Meacher, Michael
Fields, Terry (L 'pool B G 'n) Meale, Alan
Fisher, Mark Meyer, Sir Anthony
Flannery, Martin Michael, Alun
Flynn, Paul Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) Short, Clare
Moonie, Dr Lewis Skinner, Dennis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Mowlam, Marjorie Snape, Peter
Mullin, Chris Soley, Clive
Murphy, Paul Spearing, Nigel
Nellist, Dave Squire, Robin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Steinberg, Gerry
O'Brien, William Stott, Roger
O'Neill, Martin Strang, Gavin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Straw, Jack
Parry, Robert Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Patchett, Terry Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Pendry, Tom Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Pike, Peter L. Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore) Turner, Dennis
Prescott, John Vaz, Keith
Primarolo, Dawn Wall, Pat
Quin, Ms Joyce Wallace, James
Radice, Giles Walley, Joan
Randall, Stuart Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Redmond, Martin Wareing, Robert N.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Reid, Dr John Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Richardson, Jo Wigley, Dafydd
Roberts, Allan (Bootle) Winnick, David
Robertson, George Wise, Mrs Audrey
Robinson, Geoffrey Worthington, Tony
Rooker, Jeff Wray, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan Young, David (Bolton SE)
Salmond, Alex
Sedgemore, Brian Tellers for the Noes:
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Mrs. Llin Golding and
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) Mr. Ken Eastham.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second of those days.

(2) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

Report of Business Committee

2.—(1) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions—

  1. (a) as to the proceedings in Committee on the Bill not later than 14th February 1989; and
  2. (b) as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the proceedings in Committee on the Bill are concluded.

(2) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (1) above and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

Proceedings on going into Committee

3.When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

4. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Order of proceedings

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock on either of those days under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideraton) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
  2. (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
  3. (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
  4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and
  2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

  1. (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
  2. (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order— allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day; the Bill" means the Official Secrets Bill; Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.