MARINE, &c., BROADCASTING (OFFENCES) BILL (Hansard, 5 April 1967)

§ Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you proceed to put the Question on the first Amendment selected, may I draw your attention to the fact that among the Motions put down yesterday, Tuesday, 4th April, and appearing in that day's Order Paper was a Motion in my name— That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Marine, &c, Broadcasting (Offences) Bill with respect to the application of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business to the Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee. I understand that, in accordance with practice, that Motion does not appear now in the Orders of the Day but has been transferred to the ordinary Private Members' Motions for which no day has been fixed. I submit that there are precedents for such a Motion having been moved, and, whether or not I am right in suggesting that the Bill should be referred to the Examiners, it seems a defect that an hon. Member who considers it right that a Public Bill should be referred to the Examiners has no means of getting a debate on the topic unless it is a Government Motion.

It is my submission that this Bill is, in fact, a Hybrid Bill and not a Public Bill, as it deals with one class of person, namely, 10 pirate radio stations. What I put to you is that it has been impossible for me to obtain a debate on whether or not there is any merit in the suggestion that I put forward because my Motion is now just an ordinary Private Member's Motion and has not been put forward by the Government of the day. There has been no chance of debating the proposed reference of the Bill to the Examiners, and I wonder if it might be considered.

§ Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The point which he raises is a substantial one. The fact that his Motion had appeared on the Order Paper called my attention to the matter, on which I shall now give a Ruling.

273 The question of determining whether a Bill is hybrid or not is often a difficult one, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Erskine May at page 871. However, the hon. Gentleman has had his Motion on the Order Paper for several days, so that I have been able to consider the issue carefully.

As the House may recall, a Hybrid Bill has been defined as a Public Bill which affects a particular interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class.

The Bill now being considered by the House has the object of making certain activities illegal. The Bill applies to anyone carrying out such activities; the fact that they are, apparently, carried out by a limited number of known operators in no way affects the interests of such operators in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies. No change has been made to the Bill by way of amendment in Committee which alters this situation.

I cannot, therefore, discern any prima facie ground for finding that the Bill is one which ought to be referred to the Examiners.