SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE

HC Deb 15 February 1989 vol 147 cc338-58

Mr. Richard Shepherd

On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I wish to seek your guidance on amendment No. 14, which was discussed in a previous debate. It deals with the absolute nature of the lifelong duty of confidentiality. Is this the stage at which it is in order to call a Division on that amendment?

The Chairman

If the hon. Gentleman were to press for a Division, it would be difficult for me to refuse. However, I hope that he will have regard to the limitations imposed by the guillotine and the anxiety of the Committee to make progress. I hope that we can move to amendment No. 3.

Mr. Shepherd

I think that I should press the amendment to a Division, because it concerns a fundamental element of the Bill.

Amendment proposed; No. 14 in page 1, line 9, leave out 'discloses' and insert

'makes a damaging disclosure of'—[Mr. Richard Shepherd.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 175, Noes 275.

Division No. 94]	[4.52 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Coleman, Donald
Aitken, Jonathan	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Allason, Rupert	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Allen, Graham	Corbett, Robin
Alton, David	Cousins, Jim
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Crowther, Stan
Anderson, Donald	Cummings, John
Armstrong, Hilary	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Cunningham, Dr John
Ashton, Joe	Dalyell, Tarn
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Darling, Alistair
Barron, Kevin	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Battle, John	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge HI)
Beckett, Margaret	Dewar, Donald
Beith, A. J.	Dixon, Don
Bell, Stuart	Dobson, Frank
Bermingham, Gerald	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Blair, Tony	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Blunkett, David	Eadie, Alexander
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Eastham, Ken
Buchan, Norman	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Buckley, George J.	Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Budgen, Nicholas	Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Caborn, Richard	Fearn, Ronald
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Fisher, Mark
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Flannery, Martin
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Flynn, Paul
Clay, Bob	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Foster, Derek
Cohen, Harry	Foulkes, George

Fraser, John	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Fyfe, Maria	Morgan, Rhodri
Galbraith, Sam	Mullin, Chris
Galloway, George	Nellist, Dave
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Godman, Dr Norman A.	O'Neill, Martin
Golding, Mrs Llin	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Gordon, Mildred	Parry, Robert
Gorst, John	Patchett, Terry
Gould, Bryan	Pendry, Tom
Graham, Thomas	Pike, Peter L.
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Prescott, John
Haynes, Frank	Radice, Giles
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Randall, Stuart
Heffer, Eric S.	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Hinchliffe, David	Reid, Dr John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Richardson, Jo
Hood, Jimmy	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Howells, Geraint	Robinson, Geoffrey
Hoyle, Doug	Rooker, Jeff
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)	Ruddock, Joan
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Salmond, Alex
Ingram, Adam	Sheerman, Barry
Janner, Greville	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Kennedy, Charles	Short, Clare
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil	Skinner, Dennis
Lamond, James	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Leadbitter, Ted	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Leighton, Ron	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Snape, Peter
Lewis, Terry	Soley, Clive
Litherland, Robert	Spearing, Nigel
Livsey, Richard	Steel, Rt Hon David
Loyden, Eddie	Strang, Gavin
McAllion, John	Straw, Jack
McAvoy, Thomas	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McCartney, Ian	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Macdonald, Calum A.	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
McFall, John	Turner, Dennis
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Vaz, Keith
McKelvey, William	Wall, Pat
McLeish, Henry	Wareing, Robert N.
Maclennan, Robert	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
McNamara, Kevin	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
McTaggart, Bob	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
McWilliam, John	Wilson, Brian
Madden, Max	Winnick, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Worthington, Tony
Martlew, Eric	Wray, Jimmy
Maxton, John
Meacher, Michael	Tellers for the Ayes:
Meale, Alan	Mrs. Alice Mahon and
Michael, Alun	Mr. Harry Barnes.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Blackburn, Dr John G.
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Amos, Alan	Body, Sir Richard
Arbuthnot, James	Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Boscawen, Hon Robert
Aspinwall, Jack	Boswell, Tim
Atkins, Robert	Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Atkinson, David	Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Bowis, John
Baldry, Tony	Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Batiste, Spencer	Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Brazier, Julian
Beggs, Roy	Bright, Graham
Bellingham, Henry	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Bendall, Vivian	Browne, John (Winchester)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Benyon, W.	Buck, Sir Antony
Bevan, David Gilroy	Burns, Simon
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Burt, Alistair

Butler, Chris	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Butterfill, John	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Carrington, Matthew	Irvine, Michael
Carttiss, Michael	Irving, Charles
Cash, William	Jack, Michael
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Jackson, Robert
Chapman, Sydney	Janman, Tim
Churchill, Mr	Jessel, Toby
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Key, Robert
Colvin, Michael	Kilfedder, James
Conway, Derek	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Kirkhope, Timothy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Knapman, Roger
Cope, Rt Hon John	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Couchman, James	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Cran, James	Knox, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Curry, David	Latham, Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	Lawrence, Ivan
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Day, Stephen	Lee, John (Pendle)
Devlin, Tim	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Dickens, Geoffrey	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Dicks, Terry	Lightbown, David
Dunn, Bob	Li 1 ley, Peter
Durant, Tony	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Eggar, Tim	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Evennett, David	Lord, Michael
Fallon, Michael	Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Favell, Tony	McCrindle, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey	Maclean, David
Fishburn, John Dudley	McLoughlin, Patrick
Fookes, Dame Janet	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Forman, Nigel	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Madel, David
Forth, Eric	Major, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Malins, Humfrey
Fox, Sir Marcus	Maples, John
Franks, Cecil	Marland, Paul
Freeman, Roger	Marlow, Tony
French, Douglas	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Fry, Peter	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gale, Roger	Mates, Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Maude, Hon Francis
Goodlad, Alastair	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Gow, Ian	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Miller, Sir Hal
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Mitchell, Sir David
Gregory, Conal	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Monro, Sir Hector
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Moss, Malcolm
Grylls, Michael	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Mudd, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Nicholls, Patrick
Hanley, Jeremy	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hannam, John	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Norris, Steve
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hayes, Jerry	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hayward, Robert	Page, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Paice, James
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Patnick, Irvine
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Patten, John (Oxford W)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Pawsey, James
Holt, Richard	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hordern, Sir Peter	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Howard, Michael	Porter, David (Waveney)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Portillo, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Powell, William (Corby)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Price, Sir David
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Raffan, Keith
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Rathbone, Tim

Redwood, John	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Renton, Tim	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Rhodes James, Robert	Temple-Morris, Peter
Riddick, Graham	Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Thorne, Neil
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Thornton, Malcolm
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Thurnham, Peter
Rost, Peter	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rowe, Andrew	Tredinnick, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Trippier, David
Ryder, Richard	Trotter, Neville
Sackville, Hon Tom	Twinn, Dr Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Sayeed, Jonathan	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Shaw, David (Dover)	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Walden, George
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb)	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Shelton, Sir William	Waller, Gary
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Shersby, Michael	Warren, Kenneth
Sims, Roger	Watts, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Wells, Bowen
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wheeler, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)	Whitney, Ray
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Widdecombe, Ann
Speller, Tony	Wiggin, Jerry
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)	Wilkinson, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wilshire, David
Squire, Robin	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Stanbrook, Ivor	Winterton, Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Wolfson, Mark
Stern, Michael	Wood, Timothy
Stevens, Lewis	Woodcock, Mike
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Yeo, Tim
Stokes, Sir John	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Sumberg, David	Tellers for the Noes:
Summerson, Hugo	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (2).

Not content with silencing members of the security and intelligence services, any person the Minister chooses to identify and Government contractors, the Government now want to find ways to send the jokers and jesters to prison. That, in part, is what the subsection means. We have come close to the heart of never-never land if the Government can seriously propose that a lowly notified person should be prosecuted, and perhaps gaoled, for a disclosure that is not merely unsubstantiated or untrue but a total fabrication. It is no good the Minister saying, as I suspect that he might, that the Government would never be so daft as to go ahead on that basis—it would certainly be a rum Attorney-General who so advised—because, if that is so, why is this silly and dangerous provision in the Bill?

This great reforming Bill, as the Home Office press release describes it, contains a subsection which achieves something that even section 2 of the Official Secrets Act did not—it invents an offence. Under the present Act, the offence is committed only if an unauthorised disclosure of real information takes place. The Bill widens that to include any information. Under the Government's proposals, an officer could be prosecuted and imprisoned, for example, for falsely alleging that some hon. Members' telephones were being tapped for party political reasons. We know that that has never happened in the past—certainly not in relation to the lawful activities of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—but it could happen. Pc Plod would arrive, arrest the officer and a man wearing a wig could send him to prison. The Government could say that there was not a word of truth in the allegation. The allegation might not even be mentioned in open court because the hearing could be held in camera. We are talking about the absolute offence.

I imagine that other hon. Members have met people, usually men, who claim in a roundabout way to have been members of the SAS. I do not doubt for a moment that anyone casually mentioning that to a stranger in a pub would be unlikely to be telling the truth. Let us envisage the scene in the Swan public house in Erdington high street shortly after 11 o'clock on Friday night. It is likely that I shall be in there enjoying a pint after a busy advice bureau—[HON. MEMBERS: "After hours?"] We have 20 minutes Turner time. When I am in the pub people come up and speak to me, as no doubt happens to other hon. Members in similar circumstances. Some people—this may be an unusual experience for Conservative Members—have been known to offer to buy me drinks.

Let us suppose that one man asks for a quiet word with me and makes an allegation concerning the security and intelligence services. He tries to give me the impression that he is, or has been, an officer or a notified person. He is full of sad pride that the Home Secretary thought him important enough to be notified. The man tells me that all special branch officers in Birmingham and the west midlands have been called by MI5 to a meeting in London next week because there is a panic on about terrorism. I listen, as I must, and he tells me that he expects me to take some unspecified action. It turns out that the man is indeed a notified person. We shall not know whether it would be safe for me to tell someone what he told me until the Leader of the House has spoken tomorrow.

Under the clause, that man could be charged and gaoled when, all the while, he was having me on and there was not an ounce of truth in what he told me about the meeting of special branch officers. He was doing it simply to try to impress me. He was just a bar room poseur.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North West)

There are a few of those around here.

Mr. Corbett

What about the real risk of entrapment?

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

Will my hon. Friend take the matter further and consider a serious point which I raised recently? If my hon. Friend returned to Parliament because he thought it his duty to raise the matter on the Floor of the House, he would, as I understand Mr. Speaker's recent ruling, be privileged. Would we then have the farcical situation where the bar room poseur would be prosecutable in respect of a non-offence over a non-event? The matter could not be mentioned in court because it might be contrary to the Official Secrets Act, so the case would be held in camera, but it could be mentioned in this place and, no doubt, reported in the United States, Ireland, Europe and everywhere else.

Mr. Corbett

My hon. Friend is right to remind the Committee of the ruling on privilege which was given on Monday evening. The circumstances which my hon. Friend set out are correct, and what he describes could follow from the Bill.

Mr. Gorst

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is not right in leaving it as far as he has taken it. After all, poetic licence might be taken. A notified person might, for example, be called Graham Greene, Alexander Pope or George Orwell and he might communicate within the terms of the Bill, making a disclosure of…information…intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure. He might use the sort of coded communication often inherent in the works of the people whom I mentioned —for example, "Animal Farm" and "Gulliver's Travels". Surely he will have to go to prison as a result of that sort of communication.

Mr. Corbett

I shall be coming to that point because it concerns an issue to which the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) referred, but first I wish to complete the point about entrapment.

Let us suppose that a notified person was suspected by the security services of making the odd disclosure and this was of concern to the security services. What would be the position if a security officer, unknown to the notified person, struck up casual conversation with him in a pub for the deliberate purpose of encouraging him to make a disclosure? If it happened, it doubtless would be defended on the grounds of the needs of security, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that it would constitute entrapment nonetheless.

As some of us know, drink tends to loosen some tongues, and with the encouragement of an experienced and friendly stranger it is not far-fetched to imagine that sort of entrapment being attempted or actually occurring. The notified person who has been entrapped then goes home and says to his wife, "I met a nice man in the pub—who was ever so interested in what I did for a living—you must meet him," but before that can happen, the law will arrive and a prosecution may be put in train.

Can the Minister assure the House that in circumstances where entrapment is used in the manner that I have described, no prosecution could follow? I do not think that he can safely give that undertaking in view of the way in which the provision is drafted.

Mr. Bermingham

As entrapment is not a defence known to English law, we shall be laying ourselves wide open to the possibility of people being enticed into criminal offences on bogus and spurious points without a defence being available to them. This makes the position far worse than currently exists.

Mr. Corbett

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—perhaps I should refer to him as my hon. and learned Friend—for his legal advice, the more so because he is not charging for it at the moment. I should have been more careful in my choice of words. The Minister will appreciate the point that I was making.

What would be the position of a person such as I who, before being allowed to do national service, was required to sign the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)

The hon. Gentleman does not look old enough to have done national service.

5.15 pm

Mr. Corbett

Sadly, I am.

I understand that once signed, the piece of paper cannot be unsigned—one cannot pull the signature back. From the earlier part of the Bill, we know that a signature of that sort will follow me into and beyond the grave. Let us suppose—following the example of the hon. Member for Torbay—I wrote a fictional book in which I purported to make a disclosure…intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure. There would be no point in writing it in any other way if one was writing that sort of book. Suppose that I unwittingly and accidentally disclosed something which was true, and to that extent caused some perceived harm or potential harm to the security interests of the United Kingdom, although I could not have known it. Could I, or any other person in those circumstances, be prosecuted? Never mind what possible defence there might be, will the Minister say whether such an unwitting accident could lead to prosecution? It would seem from the way in which the clause is drafted that that could be the case.

I suspect that the Minister will say that in the three circumstances that I have outlined there would be no prosecution. Doubtless he will say that I have overlooked the test of harm, but there is no test of harm in the clause, even though the Minister's interview with The Times, and perhaps on other occasions when he listed the famous nine hurdles, he gave the impression, no doubt accidentally, that in every case there would be a harm test.

Mr. John Patten

There is a distinction.

Mr. Corbett

If the Minister wishes to make a fine distinction between journalists and writers, I suppose that he is entitled to do so, but for these purposes it is a difference without any meaning.

Mr. Patten

The distinction that I was making, albeit from a sedentary position, was between members of the service or notified persons on the one hand and journalists and writers on the other.

Mr. Corbett

I do not know what has got the Minister so excited about journalists. I was speaking basically about notified persons and just threw in the example of writers. Let us suppose that the author of the fictional book which makes the unwitting disclosure is a notified person. What would be the position in those circumstances?

What is so obnoxious about the Government wheeling in this new offence—an offence which is not in the original Act—is that they seem unwilling on the face of the Bill to distinguish between the idle barroom boast and the release of information which causes or could cause serious injury to the public interest. The Minister need not tell me that that is not so, because, on my reading, that is what is in the Bill. It is the Bill with which we are concerned, not with remarks from the Minister which will find their way into Hansard.

In reality, the catch-all provisions of the Act that the Bill seeks to replace are being extended. I hope that on reflection the Government will admit that this is potentially stupid, time-wasting and money-wasting, and that they will agree to remove the provision and return to the offence involving disclosure of information which would cause serious injury.

Mr. Baldry

I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) does not mean this, but, if his amendment were passed, we would introduce a liar's charter into the legislation. It would mean that a defence counsel in the Crown court might say, "Your honour, my client accepts that he is a security and intelligence officer as defined by section 1 of the Act. He accepts that he is a notified person. He accepts that he has written a book upon his experiences as a security and intelligence officer. But everything in that book is a lie. Therefore, he does not come within the provisions of the Act."

Let us relate that defence to the experiences which we have had with Peter Wright and others. When we had the debate a couple of weeks ago on the Right of Reply Bill, I think the whole House agreed that often the media and the press are not capable of distinguishing between fact and fiction, fantasy and reality. A security officer who purports to write about his experiences, whether they are fact or fiction, can do just as much damage.

If one makes a judgment that a limited number of people-security and intelligence officers—should have a ring fence, and if they are allowed to publish information about their work and then say in court, "I have a defence against prosecution because what I have written is not true; it is a lie," it makes the position worse for the Crown. The Crown then has to prove to the jury, so that the jury is sure, that the allegations which the man is making are true. It further underlines the damage that that man might be doing by his revelations.

The hon. Member for Erdington seems to think that there is some jest in the prosecution having to justify to the jury beyond peradventure that what the intelligence officer disclosed was true. That underlines the harm that may be done to the community by the revelations. If one takes a decision, as the Committee has done, that security and intelligence officers should not disclose information coming from their work, one has to see that through. Therefore, the amendment, if passed, would make the clause a liar's charter. I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not mean it to he so, but that would be its effect.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

If there was any doubt about the sense of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), it was removed by the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). The idea that people should be sent to prison for two years for lying does not normally commend itself to the House of Commons, which is concerned about the rule of law.

Mr. Baldry

I did not say that. What I said was that people should not be given a defence that they should not be sent to prison simply because they were lying throughout.

Mr. Maclennan

The hon. Gentleman is even more confused than I thought he was.

The subsection does not provide a defence; it creates an offence. It is a bizarre suggestion that it should be possible to impose a lifelong duty of confidentiality on people which makes it impossible for them to say something which is not true. It is a farcical proposal and the hon. Gentleman has not made it any less farcical by his intervention. I hope the Minister can clarify what the Government think they have in mind.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

rose—

The Chairman

I think the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had concluded his speech. Mr. Gorst.

Mr. Gorst

I want my hon. Friend, when he replies, to give me an assurance that no work of fiction, no work of allegory, no poem and no satire, however much based on truth, will be caught by the provisions of the paragraph under discussion.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)

I am very concerned. First, I have to declare an interest as an author. Until this year I have always written non-fiction. I propose to write some fiction this year. This is not a commercial; I want to ask the Minister a serious question.

I shall give him three examples of respected intelligence officers who had long careers, two of them in the secret intelligence service and one in MI5. John Le Carré, or David Cornwell, and Kenneth Benton were in the secret intelligence service for a number of years. They retired from that occupation and neither of them has ever written any non-fiction. But it is surely the case that part of their attraction is that they are perceived to be speaking from the inside. Is it not the case that the subsection would directly affect them, particularly as their publishers are adept at pushing that kind of literature by saying that although it is fiction, it is also "faction"—fact dressed up as fiction?

Perhaps I may give the Minister another example from the security service. John Bingham, who had a long and distinguished career in the security service and who died last year, might well have been caught, I suspect, by this provision. It is ludicrous to legislate for people writing fiction.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I had intended to play no part in the details of the Bill. It was not until the matter was guillotined that I felt that my hon. Friends who were taking a proper interest in it needed a little help.

I cannot understand the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). If we take the Home Secretary's proper view that this is a matter for a jury, one of the things that juries are required to do is to decide whether people are telling lies. If, on the other hand, the Government's position is that it would be embarrassing for the prosecution to have to prove its case, let them say that, and not pretend that the proper discipline of persuading a jury is the one thing that informs them. I fear that when my hon. Friends encouraged my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury to make that intervention, they harmed themselves greatly.

Mr. Bermingham

I do not intend to say much. I raised a point in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I am extremely concerned that we run the risk of encouraging entrapment, because, as I said earlier, that is unknown as a defence in criminal law. Therefore, a man will be denied a defence simply because he has been induced into committing an offence, even though he may not have known at the time that he was committing an offence because he was becoming the recipient of something which he should not know. He in turn may pass the information on. Let us face it; very few people wander the land with a copy of Archbold and a full index to the criminal law under their arm. This is an intensely sensitive point.

I am further concerned—I raised the point on Monday night in an intervention, and I raised it earlier today, and if the hon. Member for Banbury would listen he might receive a little bit of education—[Interruption.] I say that with great care because it is so easy to be glib about the subject. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Solihull wish to intervene as a Whip?

Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)

No.

5.30 pm

Mr. Bermingham

If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene, would he kindly desist from making sedentary comments?

As I was saying—I used this as an example, when I intervened in my hon. Friend's speech, on the question of privilege—we are really getting ourselves into a terrible tangle simply because the Government will not understand that there is a possible defence, which gets us out of every conceivable problem, where disclosure becomes almost the duty of somebody, and then the courts can decide on the question of public duty. That takes us out of all these problems of entrapment, because, of course, such a defence could be raised where somebody had been entrapped. It could be argued very simply—and the jury could be left to decide at the end of the day—that the person had been led unwittingly into an offence.

Then, of course, privilege appears. I worry greatly about the situation that will exist when this Bill passes into law, because the Government have shown, by their attitude towards it, that they intend to have their way—as they did with the Security Service Bill, when they did not intend to allow any amendments.

Mr. Hurd

indicated dissent.

Mr. Bermingham

The Home Secretary shakes his head. That is perhaps the first piece of good news we have had during the Committee stage of this Bill. If the Home Secretary is prepared to listen to reasoned arguments and to accept amendments, perhaps we will make speedy progress. Perhaps he could indicate in what areas he is prepared to accept amendments.

What worries me is the situation in which someone is told something as a Member of Parliament, and repeats it on the Floor of the House—where, I have been assured, we have absolute privilege. I have to wait until tomorrow night to hear whether the Government seek to interfere with that privilege. I trust not. Information given on the Floor of the House can be broadcast by the media. Of course, it can be broadcast abroad, and even if something had been broadcast all over Europe and the United States it could be an offence to repeat it here.

On the question of entrapment, if only we had the defence that was discussed at great length—I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that have already been used during the Committee Stage—then we would not have any of these problems. It is a simple issue but a very, very important one.

Mr. John Patten

It might be of help to the Committee if I were to outline briefly the Government's attitude to these amendments and then try to answer specific questions that my hon. Friends, and most of all, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) asked. We all know now where to go for a bit of advice at closing time on a Friday night in Erdington high street.

I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, of the whole Committee, what I think is the key word in subsection (2)—"intended". That is of critical importance in the arguments about this group of amendments.

First of all, let me deal with the Government's attitude overall. The amendments would provide a loophole—it is a conscious decision to block that loophole, as the White Paper said—through which members of the security services and those working with the security services could damage the work of the services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said, it would mean that the most damaging of disclosures might escape prosecution altogether, since it might not be in the public interest to compound the damage they had caused by confirming in court that the information disclosed was actually true.

Under this offence a member of the security or intelligence services—

Mr. Budgen

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten

If I may just expand the argument, then of course I will give way.

Under this offence, a member of the security or intelligence services or a notified person is not liable unless the prosecution can show that he has held out the information he has revealed as being true, or that he has intended that it should be taken as true. We see absolutely no reason why he should then be able to escape the consequences of his damaging action by telling the court that the information is in fact false, and actually challenging the prosecution to prove that it is true. In those circumstances the prosecution would not be able to do so without perhaps making further harmful disclosures about security or intelligence, and, as a result, it would not be possible to pursue the issue.

I now give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Budgen

It is an inevitable consequence of a prosecution that the jury will have to know the facts. Once the Government have decided to have this sort of legislation, they will not be able to go on saying "Well, it is too damaging to prove it." Surely they would be adequately safeguarded by having the proceedings in camera and perhaps by means of some surveillance—that may not be the right word—of the jury. But it is not good enough to say, "Well, we really do not think that we can possibly parade these arguments before a jury."

Mr. Patten

I rest my case on what I have just said to the Committee, despite what my hon. Friend has said.

In any case, the disclosure of false information by a member of the security and intelligence services, or a person notified because of the nature of his or her work with the services, can actually be as damaging as the disclosure of true information under certain circumstances, particularly since the Government cannot—

Mr. Richard Shepherd

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Allason

rose—

Mr. Patten

May I finish the sentence?

—confirm or deny the truth of stories about the work of the services without risking the effectiveness of their operations and the lives of those who rely on them. The removal of this provision in clause 1(2) would actually allow the services to be traduced without challenge or any effective restraint by those whose words on those matters must carry particular weight because of the trust that they actually hold.

Mr. Richard Shepherd

I should like to make an inquiry about the way in which this clause is drafted. Does this mean that Mr. John Le Carré is liable to prosecution? He purports to write about things in a fictional way. He is clearly game for prosecution.

Mr. Patten

I was just about to try to deal with points of that sort—and that one was raised specifically by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). [Interruption.] May I please address myself to the questions that were raised earlier? The hon. Member for Erdington mentioned the man in the Swan. The point that has escaped the hon. Gentleman is that, if this person is a notified person, as he said, they, he or she is in a position of trust. If that trust were abused by making allegations, that person would indeed be committing an offence.

On the issue of entrapment, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was right in his interpretation of the English law, but, of course, under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—I believe that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South served on the Standing Committee—the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely if it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it, and it is a question for the court in the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Bermingham

Does the Minister not agree that, under clause 78, where the court has discretion to allow or permit evidence, the only evidence that the court would be asked to allow or deny is the evidence of the complainant; the court could not be told whether the evidence of the complainant was true or false? Therefore, the court would have nothing to rely on in coming to its decision under clause 78. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is nonsense in law.

Mr. Patten

What I am saying is that it is at the discretion of the court.

The third question that was asked by the hon. Member for Erdington concerned the man who writes a novel and gives information unwittingly. That point was picked up by a number of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay was interested in the case of Mr. Le Carré—I regret to say that I have not read many of Mr. Le Carré's novels—as was my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Gorst) was interested in works of satire and poetry and whether they might be caught in this way. If the defendant does not have reasonable cause to believe that the information is true, and does not hold it out as true, or intend—that is such an important word—it to be taken as true, he of course commits no offence at all.

I accept that it would be absurd if a former member of the security services writing a genuine spy novel were in danger of prosecution simply because some people took his fiction as truth. That is why we require the prosecution to show that it was the defendant's intention that the information be taken as true.

The Bill does not inhibit the writing of a genuine spy novel such as you, Mr. Walker, or I might read on our holidays from this place, but it will prevent the use of fiction where the real purpose is to disclose fact.

Mr. Allason

This is an important point. My hon. Friend has in effect said that an author will be committing an offence only if he intends what he has written to be taken as fact. In the publishing world, the author produces a manuscript which goes to the publisher, who then produces a dust jacket on which is something called the blurb. That is written by the publisher, not the author. John Le Carr?'s next book—I hope that he will not he next in the dock—will unquestionably carry the publisher's blurb saying that the book comes from somebody with inside experience.

Mr. Patten

An author will be caught only if he uses the pretence of fiction to make disclosures relating to security intelligence. Only then would such a person be liable to prosecution.

Mr. Hattersley

With the passing of two Committee days, we have grown sceptical of the Minister's assurances when they do not relate to the Bill. When he gave his assurances a moment ago that authors of fiction would be covered, he misread the line of the Bill on which the assurance was based. I think that he was reading lines 16 and 17 when he said: purports to be a disclosure of such information and is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure.

Mr. John Patten

indicated assent.

Mr. Hattersley

The Minister agrees, but what I have just read is not what the Bill says. The Bill says: purports to be a disclosure of such information or is intended". Either of the two conditions is enough to prosecute and convict. That is quite different from what the Minister just told us.

Mr. Patten

The right hon. Gentleman will have to read the record tomorrow. What I have said is entirely consistent. It would be a member of the service, or, more likely, a former member of the service, who would be using the cover of fiction to reveal something that was true, or putting about through some blurb, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), something which purported to be true and was thus intended to damage the service.

Mr. Hattersley

rose—

Mr. Patten

I shall not give way. I have answered the right hon. Gentleman in terms. The right hon. Gentleman is fond of mistaking disagreement for misunderstanding. He has used that line throughout our discussions.

Mr. Maclennan

rose—

Mr. Patten

No, I shall not give way for a moment; I have given way a great deal. I shall give way later. In Committee, both upstairs and on the Floor of the House, it is normal to allow an hon. Member who has given way to respond to the questions that he has been asked.

That is why we require the prosecution to show throughout that it was the defendant's intention that the information should always be taken as true.

Sir Ian Gilmour

My hon. Friend has given way a great deal and has shown the Committee every consideration and courtesy. I am still slightly worried about his answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). At least twice earlier, he stressed the importance of the word "intended". That is obviously important for the last phrase of the subsection, but I cannot see how it has any relevance at all to the first part. If the word were "and", my hon. Friend's defence of the clause would be very able, but as it is "or", my hon. Friend seems to be rather wide of the mark.

Mr. Patten

The word "purports" is on the face of the Bill and that means what it says.

Mr. Hattersley

What does "purport" mean?

Mr. Patten

The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Erdington have got themselves into a terrible state of confusion about this. We recognise, and we made it clear in our White Paper, that this provision is not at present covered by section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. We believe that without clause 1(2) there would be a serious loophole in the Government's defences. Since the Government have produced the carefully focused and tightly confined provisions of the Bill, I urge the Committee not to allow a flaw in the very area that the Committee should be seeking most to protect. That is why I must ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

5.45 pm

Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)

Let me first pick up the Minister's last point. This becomes almost a matter of grammar, let alone anything else. With the word "or", the words purports to be a disclosure cannot mean the same as the following passage. That cannot mean "intended". The Minister must reconsider that. If he does not, we must be able to interpret it in the way that we are properly doing at present.

The Minister also appears to be misreading another aspect—that of the agent provocateur. He seems to be doing a disservice to some of his own people in the field who, as part of their work, use precisely the same tactics that are dealt with in the clause and which the Government are now saying are illegal.

Thirdly, there is the development of "faction"—the kind of writing that bases itself upon an accuracy in milieu—an accuracy in the atmosphere and in the tools and methods that are employed. John Le Carré is accurate in many ways. There are others. The Home Secretary himself is almost an agent provocateur in relation to the Scottish situation in his novel "Scotch on the Rocks". We may be too sensible to be taken in by some of his characters who purport to be creating the situation in that book, but there are many matters of astonishing accuracy.

One thinks of the cause celebre two or three years ago with the fictionalised version of the Etaples mutiny, when all hell broke loose because people insisted on treating every word as if it purported to be, or was intended to be, the truth. In fact it did purport to be, but was not intended to be, not an accurate version but a fictional version. Yet it was undoubtedly taken as a disclosure of fact by those people to whom it was addressed.

One thinks of those who have been close to the Secret Service. Graham Greene's novel "Our Man In Havana" has the extraordinary theme of the man in Havana who keeps his job by purporting to be providing drawings and sketches of a new secret weapon, which turns out to be a vacuum cleaner.

The fictionalised version of "Tumbledown" was also close to fact and was taken to be fact, in the sense that the feel of the thing was right, even though individual episodes and language were not true. This is a grey area that the Minister has ignored and it is a dangerous area to leave as it is in the Bill.

One thinks of the Prime Minister's favourite reading. When she was asked what she was reading, she said that she was re-reading Frederick Forsyth's novel "The Fourth Protocol". As my wife pointed out—if I may bring her into this—the Prime Minister must be the only person in Britain who has read a whodunnit, knows who done it and then has to read it again to make sure. We get such examples in Frederick Forsyth's novels.

This subsection is an offence to accuracy and grammar, and must be withdrawn. It seems to drive a horse and cart through some of the other subsections of clause 1.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Walker. It would be greatly to the advantage of the Committee for a Law Officer to be present.

The Chairman

It is open to the Law Officers, as to any hon. Member, to attend our proceedings.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster)

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly. I followed what my hon. Friend the Minister said with great interest and I have some sympathy with a great deal of it, but he is wrong in what he appeared to be saying about the technical effect of subsection (2) containing the word "or", which he appears to have represented as "and". I shall read out the subsection so that it is on the record: (2) The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information relating to security or intelligence includes a reference to making any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information". In effect, there is a full stop there, because it then says "or", and as an ex-practising barrister, I believe that what follows does not qualify what has been said up to that point.

Mr. Budgen

Does my hon. Friend agree that proper sympathy should be given to the Government Benches on this? In the Wright case, it was obvious that every judge before whom the case came had a different interpretation of the law, and it is possible for many people in good faith to have wholly different interpretations of these difficult subsections.

The scandal is that, rather than bothering to explain that carefully, the Government are trying to railroad the Committee. They are not trying to have their will accepted by argument.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

rose—

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

What is needed here is clarity. It is clear from the disagreement within the Committee among hon. Members with legal experience, that there is no such clarity in the clause at present. I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) about works of fiction. Many of them are partly based on fact, which the author must have obtained in the course of work as a secret agent. The mixture of fact and fiction is very much to the benefit of the works of such authors and it makes reading their books so much more exciting than reading works of pure fiction, in which there is not a word of accuracy.

Is my hon. Friend the Minister telling the House categorically that such works will still be permitted if the Bill is passed in its present form? On my reading, that would not be the case. People such as John Le Carr? will be liable to prosecution, although there will be some discretion, and it is possible that they will not be prosecuted. [HON. MEMBERS: "That will make it worse."] The clause will not make it worse, because I am sure that it is not the Government's intention to put authors of the highest calibre into a position where they would risk their own safety and security by going to prison.

Mr. Hind

Will my hon. Friend go back to the point he made earlier and look at clause 1? If subsection (2) were divided into two parts, after The reference in subsection (1) above to disclosing information relating to security or intelligence includes", there should be, to make it clear, a figure (i) preceding a reference to making any statement which purports to be a disclosure of such information or", and a figure (ii) preceding is intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure.". In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend agree that, if one takes the second category, any jury would have to be satisfied—in, for example, the case of John Le Carr?—that the author intended his work to be taken by those to whom it was addressed as such a disclosure? That would clearly not be satisfactory for a conviction.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, who is learned in law, he has added to the confusion. If there were such a subsection (2) as he proposes—which there is not it—would help to distinguish between the one and the other alternatives. That would at least be a move towards it. However, I do not agree that the fact that the disclosure had to be intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as being such a disclosure would necessarily form a defence, because it would be possible for a jury to read John Le Carré and to decide that he meant "M" to be taken to be the genuine nickname given to the chief of MI5. If a jury came to that conclusion, which would probably be correct, under the Bill, John Le Cant would be guilty and would have no defence. If my hon. Friend can answer that point, then it may be that I am mistaken, but that seems to be what the Bill says at present.

Mr. Gorst

Would my hon. Friend, with his legal background, care to give an opinion on whether, if the intention mentioned here is to reveal information but to do so in a fictionalised form, and supposing that such information was one third correct, two thirds correct or 90 per cent. correct, he would expect a prosecution to take place because the intention was there and the information, or at least the idea, was communicated? Or would my hon. Friend expect that the information would have to be 100 per cent. true? In that case, the law would be nonsense as a fictional setting can never be 100 per cent. accurate. From what my hon. Friend the Minister says, such works would be caught by the Bill.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

That is absolutely true. If any of the information disclosed in works of fiction is true, is intended to be taken as true or purports to be true, the author will be caught under subsection (2). If that is so, the subsection must be wrong.

Sir Ian Gilmour

With his legal background, can my hon. Friend say whether, if "or" actually means "and", it means "and" everywhere else in the Bill? That would make the Bill confusing.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

I take that question to be rhetorical. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with my point.

Mr. John Patten

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I reply to my hon. Friends the Members for. Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), and Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), to the latter of whom I failed to give a full answer on a matter that he raised earlier. I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, with his legal background. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) that the word is "or" not "and". The correct questions to be asked first are whether the author makes a statement that purports to make a disclosure or whether the author intends it to be taken as such. Genuine fictional matters cannot be caught by the Bill.

To answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), a publisher writing a blurb would not be caught by that offence. A statement purports to be a disclosure of information relating to the work of the services if it says it is. If it does that, it is not necessary to consider the author's intention. That is right. If it does not, the prosecution must prove the intention.

Mr. Allason

rose—

Mr. Patten

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North, to whom I omitted to reply properly earlier, that nothing written, whether it is fiction, allegory, satire or poetry, which is not intended to be taken by those to whom it is addressed as a disclosure about the work of the services, could be subject to the offence in subsection (2).

Mr. Allason

rose—

Mr. Corbett

That is as clear as mud. It is no good the Home Secretary saying that such an explanation is crystal clear. We are dealing not with Home Office press releases, but with the words in the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan

On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I am conscious of the time, but bearing in mind the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answers and the evidence that many hon. Members have received from Justice, the British branch of the International Commission of Jurists, which does not support what the Minister has said, is it possible to make representations that the matter can be considered on Report? Clearly, the Minister's reply is misleading and we simply cannot accept it.

Mr. Allason

rose—

Mr. Corbett

The Minister appears to be saying that all parts of the Committee are confused about this, apart from him. That cannot be so. It is not possible. The Minister has confirmed—this is obvious to a blind man—that the word we are arguing about is "or", but he then insisted that it is treated as if it were "and". The Minister completely avoided the point. He referred several times to an author seeking to use fiction as a cloak to reveal something that is true, but how in God's name can the Minister tell the Committee—

It being Six o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 296.

Division No. 95]	[6 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Fisher, Mark
Aitken, Jonathan	Flannery, Martin
Allason, Rupert	Flynn, Paul
Allen, Graham	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Alton, David	Foster, Derek
Anderson, Donald	Foulkes, George
Armstrong, Hilary	Fraser, John
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Fyfe, Maria
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Galbraith, Sam
Ashton, Joe	Galloway, George
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Barron, Kevin	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Battle, John	Godman, Dr Norman A
Beckett, Margaret	Golding, Mrs Llin
Beith, A. J.	Gordon, Mildred
Bell, Stuart	Gorst, John
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Gould, Bryan
Bermingham, Gerald	Graham, Thomas
Blair, Tony	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Blunkett, David	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Haynes, Frank
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Buchan, Norman	Heffer, Eric S
Buckley, George J.	Hinchliffe, David
Caborn, Richard	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hood, Jimmy
Campbell, Ron (Biyth Valley)	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Howells, Geraint
Canavan, Dennis	Hoyle, Doug
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Ingram, Adam
Clay, Bob	Janner, Greville
Clelland, David	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cohen, Harry	Kennedy, Charles
Coleman, Donald	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Lamond, James
Corbett, Robin	Leadbitter, Ted
Corbyn, Jeremy	Leighton, Ron
Cousins, Jim	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Crowther, Stan	Lewis, Terry
Cummings, John	Litherland, Robert
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Livsey, Richard
Cunningham, Dr John	Loyden, Eddie
Dalyell, Tarn	McAllion, John
Darling, Alistair	McAvoy, Thomas
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	McCartney, Ian
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)	Macdonald, Calum A
Dewar, Donald	McFall, John
Dixon, Don	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Dobson, Frank	McKelvey, William
Dunnachie, Jimmy	McLeish, Henry
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Maclennan, Robert
Eadie, Alexander	McNamara, Kevin
East ham, Ken	McTaggart, Bob
Evans, John (St Helens N)	McWilliam, John
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Madden, Max
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Fearn, Ronald	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Martlew, Eric

Maxton, John	Short, Clare
Meacher, Michael	Sillars, Jim
Meale, Alan	Skinner, Dennis
Michael, Alun	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Snape, Peter
Morgan, Rhodri	Soley, Clive
Mullin, Chris	Spearing, Nigel
Nellist, Dave	Steel, Rt Hon David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Strang, Gavin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Straw, Jack
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Parry, Robert	Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Patchett, Terry	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Pendry, Tom	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Pike, Peter L.	Turner, Dennis
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Vaz, Keith
Prescott, John	Wall, Pat
Primarolo, Dawn	Wallace, James
Radice, Giles	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Randall, Stuart	Wareing, Robert N.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Reid, Dr John	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Richardson, Jo	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Wilson, Brian
Robinson, Geoffrey	Winnick, David
Rooker, Jeff	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Ruddock, Joan	Worthington, Tony
Salmond, Alex	Wray, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian
Sheerman, Barry	Tellers for the Ayes:
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Mr. Nigel Griffiths and
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Mr. Frank Cook.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter

NOES
Adley, Robert	Burt, Alistair
Alexander, Richard	Butcher, John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Butler, Chris
Amess, David	Butterfill, John
Amos, Alan	Carrington, Matthew
Arbuthnot, James	Carttiss, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Cash, William
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Aspinwall, Jack	Chapman, Sydney
Atkins, Robert	Churchill, Mr
Atkinson, David	Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Baldry, Tony	Colvin, Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Conway, Derek
Batiste, Spencer	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Beggs, Roy	Cope, Rt Hon John
Bellingham, Henry	Couchman, James
Bendall, Vivian	Cran, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Benyon, W.	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Day, Stephen
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Dickens, Geoffrey
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Dicks, Terry
Body, Sir Richard	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Dunn, Bob
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Durant, Tony
Boswell, Tim	Eggar, Tim
Bottomley, Peter	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Evennett, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Bowis, John	Fallon, Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Favell, Tony
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Brazier, Julian	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Bright, Graham	Fishburn, John Dudley
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Fookes, Dame Janet
Browne, John (Winchester)	Forman, Nigel
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Forth, Eric
Burns, Simon	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Fox, Sir Marcus	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Franks, Cecil	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Freeman, Roger	Maclean, David
French, Douglas	McLoughlin, Patrick
Fry, Peter	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Gale, Roger	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Madel, David
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Major, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Alastair	Malins, Humfrey
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Maples, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Marland, Paul
Gow, Ian	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Mates, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Maude, Hon Francis
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Gregory, Conal	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ground, Patrick	Miller, Sir Hal
Grylls, Michael	Miscampbell, Norman
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Mitchell, Sir David
Hanley, Jeremy	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Hannam, John	Monro, Sir Hector
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Moss, Malcolm
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Hayes, Jerry	Mudd, David
Hayward, Robert	Neale, Gerrard
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Nelson, Anthony
Heddle, John	Nicholls, Patrick
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hind, Kenneth	Norris, Steve
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Holt, Richard	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hordern, Sir Peter	Page, Richard
Howard, Michael	Paice, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Patnick, Irvine
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Patten, John (Oxford W)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Pawsey, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hunter, Andrew	Portillo, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Powell, William (Corby)
Irvine, Michael	Price, Sir David
Irving, Charles	Raffan, Keith
Jack, Michael	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Jackson, Robert	Rathbone, Tim
Janman, Tim	Redwood, John
Jessel, Toby	Renton, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)	Rhodes James, Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Riddick, Graham
Key, Robert	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Kilfedder, James	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy	Rost, Peter
Knapman, Roger	Rowe, Andrew
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)	Sackville, Hon Tom
Knox, David	Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Sayeed, Jonathan
Lang, Ian	Scott, Nicholas
Latham, Michael	Shaw, David (Dover)
Lawrence, Ivan	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lee, John (Fondle)	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Shelton, Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Shersby, Michael
Lightbown, David	Sims, Roger
Lilley, Peter	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Lord, Michael	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Speller, Tony
McCrindle, Robert	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Squire, Robin	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor	Walden, George
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Steen, Anthony	Waller, Gary
Stern, Michael	Walters, Sir Dennis
Stevens, Lewis	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Warren, Kenneth
Stokes, Sir John	Watts, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Wells, Bowen
Sumberg, David	Wheeler, John
Summerson, Hugo	Whitney, Ray
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Widdecombe, Ann
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Wiggin, Jerry
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Wilkinson, John
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wilshire, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Winterton, Nicholas
Thorne, Neil	Wolfson, Mark
Thornton, Malcolm	Wood, Timothy
Thurnham, Peter	Woodcock, Mike
Townend, John (Bridlington)	Yeo, Tim
Tredinnick, David	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Trippier, David	Younger, Rt Hon George
Trotter, Neville
Twinn, Dr Ian	Tellers for the Noes:
Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones
Waddington, Rt Hon David	and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause I agreed to.