Official Secrets Bill (Hansard, 22 February 1989)

§ Mr. Speaker
Bill, as amended, to be considered.
The first new clause to be debated is new clause No. 1, with which it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9.

§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just read out "Bill, as amended". Is there an amended reprinted version of the Bill, because nothing is available in the Vote Office?

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that one word was changed.

§ Mr. Rooker
Therefore, the Bill we are considering is not "as amended". A version of the Official Secrets Bill, which has been passed by the Committee of this House, is not available for hon. Members to consider on Report. That is a consequence of the guillotine. If a Bill is not available—it does not matter whether the alteration is one word, one paragraph, or one clause—you have no right, Mr. Speaker, to put to the House that we carry on with these proceedings today.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Bill is available at the Table. I understand that this is the authoritative copy.

§ Mr. Rooker
Where is ours? There is nothing available for hon. Members. You, Mr. Speaker, are a Member. There is nothing available for hon. Members. Are we expected to debate and vote on a Bill which is not actually before us? We would not allow that in local government or anywhere else. There is no urgency. The Bill does not have to be debated today. We have no right to pass legislation that is not before the House. You cannot ask us to rely on a copy that the Clerk has on the Table. Are we supposed to queue up in rota and pass it around the House?

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
I move that the House stand adjourned.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Business Committee discussed the timetable. That was agreed and the matter was not raised there.

§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter was never before the Business Committee. The only question discussed at that Business Committee was the timetable for the proceedings on the remaining stages of the Bill. The question whether the Bill, as amended, would be available for hon. Members was not raised. In fairness, that matter was not raised by the Opposition or by the Government. The assumption was, of course, that the Bill would be available to hon. Members.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the Business Committee report, which the House has accepted on the nod, as it were, does not contain any reference to the alteration. You mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the Business Committee report, but there is no reference in that report to the alteration to the Bill. Therefore, even using the two 1003 documents—the unaltered Bill and the Business Committee report—would not provide hon. Members with the necessary documentation. I should have thought that it would be a breach of Standing Orders for you, Mr. Speaker, to submit to the House the Bill, as amended, when clearly it is not available as amended. It may appear a relatively small matter, but there is an important principle. We deal with important legislation. When legislation passes through the House, it applies to every citizen. Surely we must set standards of conduct which are above every possible criticism. Omitting a word can be extremely serious, and the House should accept the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to adjourn until printed copies are available for every hon. Member.

§ Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am conscious that in your intitial response you said that you had been informed that there had been only one word altered in the Bill. I want to submit to you the importance of that. It would be intolerable were a situation to arise where you had to judge whether the difference between the Bill presented to Committee and the Bill coming out of Committee were a significant one. With respect, it is neither for you, Mr. Speaker, nor for anyone else to decide whether an amendment is important. It is for the House to work on the assumption that all amendments have some significance and, therefore, that the Bill will have been changed substantially by any amendment, which I believe is comparatively true in this case.
We are suffering the problem of having not a guillotine, but an absurdly rushed one. Last week we had two consecutive days of discussion under the guillotine and we have moved on to Report and Third Reading within a week of the Committee stage being completed. That is an affront to the House and it makes the whole operation appear to be demonstrably as shabby and second-rate as it will be if the Government persist in going on with it under the circumstances.
I note that the Leader of the House is here and I hope that he will listen—

§ Mr. Skinner
He is not bothered.

§ Mr. Hattersley
I wonder whether the Home Secretary could draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that we are discussing matters directly relevant to him. The Leader of the House should know that the House is now put in an intolerable position. If we pursue this issue of principle and procedure we shall cut into the time allowed for the Bill to be debated on Report. If the Leader of the House appreciates the importance of the discussion that will now take place it is possible for him to assure us that at 10 o'clock or at some other time he will add on however long this procedure discussion takes, so that we do not lose any of the extremely limited time we have for Report and Third Reading.

§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen: (Wolverhampton, South-West)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are legislating for a generation; we are not legislating for the next five years. The question is whether the Bill will have the authority and legitimacy that will be necessary if prosecutions are to succeed in front of juries. Any juryman who saw our proceedings now would not feel the proper sense of respect and authority that the law-making process 1004 should have. Nothing will be damaged if we delay consideration of the Bill for another week or fortnight. I suggest that those who wish to protect our proceedings and wish to give proper delay and solemnity to the consideration of the Bill will be helping the Government and future Governments to secure that authority which, currently, the Bill lacks.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even if this were a relatively minor piece of proposed legislation, I would argue, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Rooker), that the principle remains the same. You should also bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this is an extremely controversial Bill and you are aware that it has been much contested. That is all the more reason why the documents that we have before us on Report should be accurate.
I hope that I can secure the Home Secretary's attention, as the Government have made much about the rule of law, but I submit that the rule of Parliament is also important and relevant. We are expected to debate on Report a controversial Bill which, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, is likely to stay on the statute book for many years to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has already explained to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill is defective. Therefore, it would be wrong to proceed on Report to discuss it, especially as there is no urgency for it, for all the reasons that you know, Mr. Speaker. In those circumstances I hope that you will agree to reflect on the matter, as it would be wrong for us to proceed on this basis.

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The suspense is killing us—what is the one word that has been changed, or is that an official secret?

§ Mr. Speaker
It might be helpful to know that. It is not infrequent, when a Bill has been amended by a change of word, as in this case, for the whole Bill not to be reprinted. It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that the change in Committee was made to clause 2(2)(a) on page 2 when prejudices the capability of was changed to damages the capability or

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Standing Order No. 69 refers to the report of a Bill from Committee to the whole House and states: At the close of the proceedings of a committee of the whole House on a bill, the chairman shall report the bill forthwith to the House, and when amendments shall have been made thereto, a day shall be appointed for taking the bill as amended into consideration". That has not occurred. The Government have been exceedingly sloppy about this affair and they have been caught out by the Opposition. As you know only too well, Mr. Speaker, it is not your job to support the Executive when they have made mistakes. They have obviously made an error, and in view of that I believe that the motion that I originally put, namely that the debate stand adjourned until further notice, should apply.

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the House knows the scale of the single word to which we refer, it is clear that it is not a minor matter, but a matter on which there was considerable discussion in Committee. The Government sought to claim that they were making a big concession by agreeing to the alteration of that word. Having made that big concession with which they were seeking to curry favour, for them to come before the House without having bothered to change the Bill is an important issue. The only proper way for the matter to be dealt with is for the debate to be adjourned.
The Leader of the House has been present, but has not said anything. As the person responsible for the situation, he should ask for the House to be adjourned. As everyone has said, it is perfectly possible for the Bill to be discussed next week or the week after without any damage to the discussion. It would inconvenience only the Government, and the Government have inconvenienced us by producing a defective Bill. I appeal to the Leader of the House to get you out of the scrape, Mr. Speaker, as these are points of order for you, by admitting the folly of the Government and agreeing to withdraw the Bill until another day.

§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you say who is responsible for ensuring that that amendment is made to the Bill before the House considers the amended Bill on Report? Am I right in believing that, far from its being the responsibility of the Government, it is the responsibility of the authorities of the House and that Opposition Members who are saying that the Bill should not proceed today are attacking the authorities of the House, and the matter has nothing whatever to do with the Government?

§ Mr. Speaker
The authorities of the House have carried out the normal practice. As I have already stated, when very minor amendments have been made to a Bill it has not been the practice for the entire Bill to be reprinted.

§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you said inadvertently that it was a minor amendment, and that on reflection you would agree that it is a significant matter. It is not the case of an "and" or "if" being missed out in an earlier drafting and then reinserted. The amendment goes to the core of the Bill.
We had a major debate, and it is still in contention that the word "damage" is insufficient and should be prefaced by the word "seriously". Far from its being minor, it is a significant amendment. We all understand how the error has occurred, but whether it is the responsibility of the Government or the authorities of the House, the ultimate responsiblity must lie with the Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House faces the clear fact that the Bill is now not in order. It is not "as amended". Were this normal legislation, there would be agreement on both sides of the House not to push the point in a pedantic way, but the Bill is deeply offensive to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having discussed an important issue on which the full procedures of the House have not been fulfilled, and having faced a guillotine motion on a constitutional Bill of great significance, surely 1006 the House is within its rights in demanding that the Bill is not proceeded with today and is brought back at another time.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You explained to the House most helpfully that the Bill as originally presented has been amended by the change of one word on page 2—[Interruption.]—it would be more courteous and helpful to the House if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) allowed me to complete my sentence. Therefore, since the Bill was published and since Second Reading, the Bill has been altered by one word. As I understand it, you, Mr. Speaker, outlined the normal practice on occasions when such a minor alteration is made. It has nothing to do with the substance of the alteration, but involves the number of words that are altered. One word has been altered and it is the normal custom of the House to continue with proceedings on the Bill without reprinting it. I believe that we should continue the normal procedures of the House and get on with considering the Bill. There are important issues to be discussed and I believe that we should not delay any longer.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Leader of the House is correct. Perhaps I should correct what I said about its being a minor amendment. I am not concerned with the importance of the word, which I accept is a major issue. The amendment is minor in that it alters only one word.
We passed the timetable motion a few moments ago and we are now in timetable time. It would be wise if the House were to get on with the debate.

§ Mr. Hattersley
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will notice that, apart from the Leader of the House, not one right hon. or hon. Member who has spoken has not expressed concern about the situation. I reflect my own concern about biting into the time allowed by the guillotine. Might I suggest that it is a House of Commons matter. Right hon. and hon Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern, and the way to resolve it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) so that the House can decide whether it wishes to proceed and then we can get on with the timetable and the other issues.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not able to accept a dilatory motion at that stage. I quote the motion passed by the House on 13 February: No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on the Bill should be made on an allotted day, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. I am not empowered to accept the dilatory motion. The House is in some difficulty. Technically, the Bill should have been reprinted, but, as I have already said, when amendments of a minor kind, in terms of the number of words, have been made in the past, it has always been the practice not to have the Bill reprinted.

§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might not the simple answer to the problem be for you to accept a manuscript amendment to the Bill so that we can debate it?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that we should proceed now.

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that there is a question whether there is a Bill that has been amended for the House to debate. If the Bill has not been printed, it is at least arguable, in the light of the Standing Order that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) read out, that we are not in a position to debate the Bill. We were advised that such a Bill would appear before us, but it has also been said that the amendment is minor in terms of the number of words, but it is a major issue in that there is no debate on Report if that amendment has not been passed. As that amendment is the sole change that has been made, the Bill should have passed straight to another place. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a Bill that we can debate today.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Committee reported some days ago, the Bill at the Table is the authentic text.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Chair is in some difficulty because we are really on the timetable motion. I shall hear the points of order, but they are taking time out of the debate.

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that all those who had spoken were opposed to the Bill proceeding. That is simply because the rest of us were quite satisfied to proceed, so we did not bother speaking.

§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What seems to me to be most iniquitous is that many of us have been prevented from taking part in a serious discussion which is novel to many right hon. and hon. Members. No one doubts that the points of order are serious, but we are aware of immediacy of the guillotine—never has that word been so precise as it is today—so we are nervous about raising points of order on what everyone understands is a serious matter. I ask for your guidance and consideration, Mr. Speaker. When such discussions legitimately occur, should there not be some mechanism by which the time lost through points of order is made available for debating the Bill, or it will be impossible to raise points of order?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not something over which I have control. That would be a matter for the usual channels, which would be the best way of dealing with it.

§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears that the guillotine motion refers to a "Bill". The argument is that at the moment there is no such Bill before the House. If there is no such Bill before the House, the guillotine motion cannot apply and, therefore, you can accept a dilatory motion. I should like your ruling on that.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. The Bill is on the Table.

§ Mr. Dobson
That is a matter of opinion.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman. There is only one Bill, which is the Bill on the Table. The Bills available in the Vote Office are copies of that Bill.

§ Mr. Dobson
We do not have access to that Bill, which contains the change that we consider to be significant and 1008 substantial and a material alteration of the nature of the Bill and the requirements in it. In those circumstances, such a Bill is not before the House in the way that it should be under the guillotine motion and, therefore, the guillotine motion cannot apply and you, Mr. Speaker, should be able to accept a dilatory motion.

§ Sir Ian Gilmour (Chesham and Amersham)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter could be settled easily if you could quote a precedent, which I am sure is available, for such a set of circumstances. You said that it is common practice, but I am not sure that many right hon. and hon. Members know about that. If you are able to quote a precedent, I am sure that the matter could be settled immediately.

§ Mr. Speaker
I should need notice of that.

§ Mr. Rooker
Further to the point of order Mr. Speaker. I am raising this point only because, while listening to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) move his ten-minute Bill, I started to look at the amendments in detail. It suddenly dawned on me that I had only the marked copy of the Bill that I used last week and I thought the Bill had been reprinted. I went to the Vote Office and the clerk kindly looked for the new Bill at least three times because I told him that the Bill must have been reprinted because it contained an alteration.
I was reluctant to raise a point of order because of the guillotine motion. However, I realise that we are discussing a Bill that is not before us so I do not see why I or anybody else should hesitate.
You might argue, Mr. Speaker—and the Clerks would agree—that we have passed the motion for the allocation of time and the Business Committee motion. The Business Committee motion makes no mention of the fact that the Bill to which the timetable applies is not printed and before the House. The second motion on the Order Paper says: Official Secrets Bill [allotted day]: As amended, to be considered. When you read out that motion, Mr. Speaker, I interrupted you, because I wished to challenge the words as amended, to be considered. The House should decide whether we wish so to consider. There is no motion for us to approve which says that, "Notwithstanding the requirements of Standing Orders of the House that the Bill shall be printed and before the House, the House agrees to carry on." If there is a majority in favour of that, there is nothing the minority can do. We are demanding the right to decide—the right to lose—whether to continue in this unconstitutional way.

§ Mr. Cryer
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question of a dilatory motion is covered in Standing Order No. 34(2). You, Mr. Speaker, said that you were not entitled to accept a dilatory motion under the terms of the guillotine motion. Hon. Members are saying that the copies of the Bill as presented do not conform to the requirements of the guillotine motion and that the Bill should be rejected. Under those circumstances, you would be able to accept a motion "That the Question be now put", because that is not within the terms of Standing Order No. 34(2), which lists dilatory actions as motions, for example, for the Adjournment of the House or debate, or for the Chair of a Committee such as yourself, Mr. Speaker, to report progress.
We have a solution if you, Mr. Speaker, can accept a motion, "That the Question be now put". The copies of the 1009 Bill are not adequate because they do not represent the guillotine motion that has been put before the House. That excludes the terms of the guillotine motion which you say inhibits you from accepting the motion for the Adjournment of the House proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I should have thought that that would have been of help to you.
From both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, you have heard concerns expressed by hon. Members who feel that the debate should not take place. Hon. Members should be provided with an opportunity to vote, because it would be outrageous for the Government to ignore what, to most hon. Members, is a clear error by them and simply bulldoze the error through the House and use their majority to trample on the rights of Members of Parliament. Surely we should have an opportunity for a vote.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I can probably save the time of the House. There is no motion before the House now. We have passed the timetable motion and I was about to propose the new clause, which would be a motion before the House.

§ Mr. Budgen
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I suggest that you invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to explain in practical terms what would be lost if the matter were delayed for a week or a fortnight? It is all very well for him to say that in his opinion the technicalities are in order and that as practical people we should disregard a technical difficulty in the Bill as it now stands.
This legislation for a generation has been bashed through on the guillotine. If we delayed a little longer it would provide time for the proper procedural measures to be taken and would give the public an opportunity to reflect on the Bill. They cannot do that if there is not sufficient time between the various stages. Surely my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can explain to the House and to those of us who usually support him whether anything serious would happen if we were to delay for a week or a fortnight.

§ Mr. Wakeham
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), I should say that when I spoke earlier—my hon. Friend may not have been listening—I supported your ruling that things are proceeding in order and in accordance with our custom. If the House believes that our long-established customs for the way in which we proceed are not satisfactory and should be looked at, we can arrange for the Procedure Committee to look at that to see whether changes should be made. However, as I understand it, we are proceeding in accordance with the established procedures of the House and we should get on with it.

§ Mr. Foot
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What the Leader of the House has just said is grossly misleading. If we proceed on the basis on which the 1010 Government have presented the Bill to the House today, the Bill will go to another place in this defective form. It is not merely a question of what has happened here.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I can probably help the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill will not go to another place in that form because the alteration is in the Bill.

§ Mr. Foot
The change has not been made in the Bill before the House. Therefore, what the Leader of the House has proposed in not a remedy. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no fault on the part of the Government in bringing a defective Bill before us adds to the offence. It certainly does not ease the problems.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Let me try to deal with the matter. The Bill contains the alteration. The alteration is not made in the copies of the Bill. That is the factual position.

§ Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)
Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have sympathy with the arguments expressed by Opposition Members. However, can you advise me whether in supporting them I am challenging your ruling, which I would not wish to do, or whether I am merely challenging the Government, which I would be prepared to do?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman would be challenging a ruling that I had made. I repeat to the House that this has been our custom for many years. When a small alteration, in terms of words, is made, it has not been our custom and practice to reprint the copies of the Bill.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and myself, when we were talking about a vote on the matter, that there were some difficulties. I am sure that you appreciate that it is possible for the Question not to be put. Only a few Fridays ago, you dealt with a matter by saying that the Question, That the Question be not now put—complicated though it is—can be put to the House. The Leader of the House is present and it is quite possible for that Question to be put. I suggest, notwithstanding other advice, that as we have had a recent example and as there was another example when such a matter arose in 1985, it is possible for the Question, That the Question be not now put, to be proceeded with. If we lose the vote, so be it, for it will show that this bulldozing Government have had their way again, notwithstanding the fact that they have not even printed the Bill.

§ Mr. Speaker
On that Friday, there was a Question before the House. At the moment, there is not. We have only about 40 minutes left, so we should proceed.

§ Mr. Dobson
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What we are concerned about—and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) clearly shares this concern—is whether there is a precedent for a significant change to be made to a Bill and then for the Bill not to be reprinted if it is subject to a guillotine motion. On precedents, we should like to know how many words would need to be amended and what significance they would need to carry before the precedent would not be binding. We find it difficult to imagine that, whereas it is possible to have a substantial number of minor changes to which no hon. Members would take offence and which 1011 they would be willing to nod through, the proposal before us is a substantial change which has been the subject of considerable argument and is likely to be the subject of further argument. What are the precedents that bind you, Mr. Speaker, to make the ruling that you are making today?

§ Sir Ian Gilmour
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, the question of precedents is important and I had the impression that you intended to brush my point aside. We do guide our affairs by precedent. I wonder whether in the interval since I asked my first question the authorities of the House have been able to find a precedent because that would assist the House. I hope that we shall hear, sooner or later, of the precedents that are guiding you.

§ Mr. Speaker
Going hack to the days when I had different responsibilities, I can say that it has, for many years, been our custom and practice to operate in this way. It is nothing new. I do not have the precedents to hand immediately, but they are being looked up now.

§ Mr. Adley
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given the impression that between Committee and Report a Bill is not normally reprinted. Surely it is normally reprinted with the changes made. Am I not right in thinking that it has not been reprinted on this occasion because we had a Committee of the whole House and because there simply was not time?

§ Mr. Speaker
Those are not the reasons. Sensibly, the issue was to do with the costs of reprinting.

§ Mr. Budgen
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has not given the House his guidance on the question of the time between Committee and Report. It is, of course, true that, with their vast majority, the Government have steamrollered all hon. Members who disagree with them on this non-party Bill and there is no doubt that that is their privilege. But surely the purpose of delay between Committee and Report is to allow the public as a whole to write to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to say, "Mr. Hurd, we notice that in your arguments with those disagreeable Tory rebels you managed to squash them on every occasion with your large and honourable, but ignorant, vote. But, as a matter of fact, I think you lost the argument on some of those issues." If one does not have a sufficient delay between Committee and Report, one cannot have any proper public interest and comment on these matters. That is just another example of the damaging effects of bashing through such legislation in a hurry and with a guillotine.

§ Mr. Hattersley
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree, irrespective of your rulings, that this has been a wholly legitimate series of points of order. But I hope you also agree that the House has been put in an intolerable situation. We have virtually lost the debate which would have been initiated by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). [Interruption.] It is no good for the Patronage Secretary to say "Hear, hear." He is responsible for the confusion and I have no doubt that he welcomed it, as the Government's technique throughout the Bill has been to postpone and avoid as much debate as possible.
1012 I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for another ruling, which does not simply concern the availability of the Bill. You make your judgments on precedent, not on custom and practice—which are what the Prime Minister is determined to stamp out in British employment. I hope that you will tell us how many words amount to a significant alteration. Is it one, five, 11, 27, or whatever number there happens to be when the appropriate Secretary of State has forgotten to make a reprint?
My principal point is that I hope that the Leader of the House will be agreeable to another procedure, which I put to him through you, Mr. Speaker. It would be intolerable to the House and to the Leader of the House if the first crucial debate were to be extinguished. The Business Committee should be asked to sit again and agree to extend the debate simply by the amount of time that we have spent on legitimate points of order. If the Leader of the House will not agree to do that, he will not make the slightest concession to the wholly legitimate views of the House and the wish to conduct the debate in good order and with proper, democratic discussion.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a helpful suggestion. We should now get on with the debate. If the usual channels were to discuss how we may get out of this considerable difficulty, the whole House would be satisfied.

§ Mr. Wakeham
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am perfectly content that we should have discussions through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Speaker
In that case, we shall proceed with the debate on new clause 1.

§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. Page 4 of the Bill refers to the "Security Service Act 1988". There is, of course, no such Security Service Act of that year, so the Bill is clearly incorrect. I assume that it was a slip and I wonder whether a Bill is in good faith when there is no such Act.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is entirely correct. I think we must get on. New clause No. 1, with which it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9. Mr. Aitken—

§ Mr. Shepherd
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not understand your ruling that it is correct that there is a Security Service Act of 1988. There is no such Act.

§ Mr. Speaker
Would the hon. Gentleman please say that again?

§ Mr. Shepherd
I understand from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that there is a Security Service Act 1988. There is no such Act. It was only discussed this year, it is still a B:11 and it has not yet gone to the House of Lords.

§ Mr. Speaker
The date refers to the year in which the Bill was presented. That is another drafting convention.

§ Mr. Shepherd
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is intolerable that the Bill refers to an Act that does not exist. We are told that that is no drafting mistake, but an amendment was tabled—[Interruption.] There can be no Security Service Act 1988 because no such Act was passed in 1988. An amendment was tabled to correct that, but the Government would not accept it and the correction 1013 does not appear in the Bill. Therefore, we are trying to legislate or to make judgments on a Bill which is misprinted and which refers to an Act that does not exist.

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that this is always the practice. The Bill was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 30 November 1988.

§ Mr. Shepherd
It is not an Act. The point is that the Bill refers to the Security Service Act 1988, but there is no such Act.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman were to discuss this with the experts at the Table, he would probably be able to get an answer.

§ Mr. Skinner
rose—

Mr. Eric S. Helfer (Liverpool, Walton)
rose—

§ Mr. Winnick
rose—

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We have already spent half an hour on this and the Leader of the House has made a helpful suggestion, which would be for the convenience of the whole House. He is prepared to discuss this through the usual channels.

§ Mr. Hattersley
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough to say that my suggestion that the Business Committee should meet would be helpful and now you have described the Leader of the House as helpful. The only way in which the House could be helped would be if the Leader of the House agrees to an immediate meeting of the Business Committee—the first vote should come in 30 minutes. If the House is to be treated sensibly and with respect, the Leader of the House should say now that he is prepared to have a Business Committee meeting so that we may regain the 45 minutes that you, at least, believe has been spent on legitimate points of order. I ask the Leader of the House now to say that he will have an immediate meeting with the Business Committee so that the lost time can be regained.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I call Mr. Amery.

§ Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I urge the Leader of the House to take those points seriously? The new clause that I hope to move if the Bill is, by your ruling, still in order is of considerable importance. It is an issue of principle. I do not think that we would even be discussing the reform of the Official Secrets Act 1911 had it not been for a dispute about the principle on which the authorisation for publicaton could be given.
We have had the unusual occurrence in the House that assurances given—in good faith, I know—by the Minister of State, Home Department have apparently been repudiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that what stands in the Official Report at the moment may or may not still have validity. If it has not, we must have an explanation of why that is so. I do not see how, under the timetable motion, it would make sense for 1014 myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, indeed, hon. Members of all parties who share my view—to try to discuss the new clause.

§ Mr. Budgen
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that it would not be useful to have a discussion between the usual channels while the House continues its discussion of the Bill? The fact is that the most sustained criticism of the Bill has come from Conservative Benches so it would be unwise for the Chief Whip to pretend that he represents the views of Conservative Members who disagree with the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) disagrees with an important part of the Bill and it would be wrong for his objection to be disregarded because of some private discussion between the Chief Whips. If the House were to rise for even half an hour or three quarters of an hour, all hon. Members who are genuinely interested could discuss the matter. However, if the Chief Whips get together, they may do a deal that they cannot honour.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I call the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Wakeham
We are getting ourselves into some difficulties. I respond to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who wishes to know what can be done to reallocate time and to make the best use of it so that we can have the best discussions. I sympathise totally with that proposition. I suggest that if the House gets on with the first amendment on the Amendment Paper—new clause 1—I can immediately have discussions through the usual channels to decide the best way to proceed. If the best way to proceed is to call a meeting of the Business Committee, I shall favour that, but I want to have discussions about the best way to deal with the difficulties. We should not be told what the answer is before we put the question.

§ Mr. Hattersley
The Leader of the House must understand that what he is proposing is not a solution. By the time the usual channels—whatever they may be—have met and had their discussions we shall be into our first vote and the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) will not have had the chance to move his new clause in the manner that it justifies.
I remind the Leader of the House that he need not be so fearful. He has a majority on the Business Committee and if the Committee meets, the Government's will will prevail. My proposition has the implicit suggestion that the Government's majority on that Committee will behave reasonably. Therefore, I ask him again to agree that it should meet. It could meet in five or ten minutes' time and return to the House with a new motion which, I am sure, will be carried unanimously. The right hon. Member for Pavilion can then move his new clause properly and in the way in which it deserves and the whole House can proceed in good order.

§ Mr. Amery
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this again. I do not think that the House would find it acceptable if this controversial new clause, which is, I know, embarrassing to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, were to be dismissed in a matter of 20 minutes. If we are to proceed, which is of course a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide, it is 1015 necessary that the new clause that I wish to move be given adequate time. Even under the timetable motion, that time is not adequate.

§ Mr. Wakeham
My proposal would be that we change the times when the guillotine will fall to make up for the time that has been lost in the first debate. If we start the first debate, we can meet and settle this in a few minutes. That is what I propose we do.

Mr. Heller
rose—

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That is a sensible suggestion.

§ Mr. Heffer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment. I am on my feet and the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have just said that what the Leader of the House has said seems a reasonable solution aimed at getting the House out of the difficulty in which it finds itself.

§ Mr. Heffer
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall hear the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Heffer
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been trying for long enough. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have the power to suspend the sitting while the meeting takes place. I suggest that, because you have that power and because we are getting near to five o'clock when the first guillotine will fall and we cannot have a proper discussion, you suspend the House while the discussion takes place and then report back to the House so that we can then proceed.

§ Mr. Speaker
There is no point in that. As the Leader of the House has already said what he will do about this, the discussions would simply be wasting further time.

§ Mr. Riddick
rose—

§ Mr. Dobson
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I call Mr. Dobson.

§ Mr. Dobson
It appears that the Government Front Bench may be willing to adjust the later business, and obviously we welcome that. However, if the Government were to move a dilatory motion that we adjourn for 10 minutes, which they have the power to do under the guillotine motion, it would be possible to have a seemly and sensible discussion of the Business Committee at which all members of the Business Committee could be present, and it would enable the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) to know that he could have a debate for a reasonable time without being cut off in mid-sentence, and we would know that a Minister would eventually reply to the debate.
The proposition of the Leader of the House is rather ragged and we could end up with a mess at the end of the discussion in the Business Committee. It would be altogether more sensible and seemly if the House were to adjourn for 10 minutes so that agreement could be reached in the Business Committee and the debate conducted in the way in which it should have been conducted all along.

§ Mr. Riddick
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you say whether any of our proceedings this 1016 afternoon are out of order, because it seems to me that everything is in order? The Bill, as amended, is on the Table and the Leader of the House has come up with a sensible and reasonable suggestion. Those who are riot prepared to take it are clearly trying to make mischief.

§ Mr. Wakeham
If it is correct that I can move a dilatory motion—I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, before I do anything—in my view it probably is the best plan if we adjourn for 10 minutes, see whether we can resolve the matter and then return.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If it is the wish of hon. Members that the House should suspend informally for 10 minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—so be it.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Business Committee recommends that the time set out in the Table of Proceedings be advanced by one hour, so that the first guillotine will fall at six o'clock, the second at 7.30 pm, the third at 8.15 pm, and the fourth at 9 pm. Third Reading will be concluded at 10 pm.

§ Mr. Hattersley
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not propose postponing debate on the amendment of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), since the purpose of the operation that has been successfully carried out in the last hour is to give his amendment the opportunity that it deserves. However, I place on record that, while we hoped and believed that the Business Committee would provide that which the House wanted and deserved, it has insisted that the debate concludes at 10 o'clock. Therefore, the House has lost one hour of debate because of the Government's intransigence and incompetence. I do not believe that the House would have been incapable of making an adjustment to the Ten o'clock motion, had that been the will of the Leader of the House, and had the House endorsed it. Instead, the debase has been scandalously guillotined, which is another example of the excesses for which the Government are responsible.

§ Mr. Speaker
I believe that the House should proceed with the debate.

§ Mr. Budgen
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I remind you of my suggestion that if the two Chief Whips got together it would be for the purpose of screwing down Conservative opposition to the Bill. Many right hon. and hon. Members who voted for its Second Reading will wish to express their reservation about the way in which matters have been dealt with throughout the guillotine procedures. We would have had the opportunity to do so on Third Reading, but, as a result of the agreement reached between the two Chief Whips, many right hon. and hon. Members will be prevented from doing so. That is another example of the way in which discussion and dissent is being limited by the guillotine, and of the 1017 actions taken by members of the Government and Opposition Front Benches, getting together to keep the awkward squad out.

§ Mr. Wakeham
I wish to proceed with debate as much as you do, Mr. Speaker, but I say to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that the Business Committee did not have the power to extend the Third Reading vote beyond 10 o'clock, as that was in the guillotine passed by the House. The Business Committee had power to adjust earlier guillotines to the convenience of the House, and it did so unanimously. However, it did not have the power to do that which the right hon. Gentleman suggested.