§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice, about the hybridity of the Education Reform Bill. It arises in respect of clauses 130 to 136, which relate to provisions removing the security of tenure of academic staff.
A hybrid Bill is denned by "Erskine May" as
a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class".Clauses 130 to 136 contain various provisions for the removal of academic tenure in universities, including the appointment of commissioners to amend the statutes of universities and colleges. If and when the Bill receives the Royal Assent, the provisions will have retrospective force with effect from 20 November 1987, the day on which the Bill was published.It is clear from the construction of the Bill that the category or class encompassed by the Bill is that of the academic staff of universities and colleges. However, the Bill wholly fails to take into account that, while some universities, by virtue of their statutes, at present have a choice in law as to whether to grant tenure, other institutions — including the university of London in respect of professorships and readerships — have no choice. The law will remain thus until the passage of the Bill.
In the former case, where a choice exists, the university authorities may be able lawfully to take into account the 20 November date set out in the Bill. But where, as in the latter case of the university of London and other universities and colleges, no such choices exist, the university authorities face an insoluble dilemma which will directly affect the private interests of one group of academic staff differently from the interests of others in the same category or class. The university authorities may decide to take note of the provisions of clause 132, and not grant tenure to those appointed after 20 November. In doing so, they would plainly be according quite different treatment to an individual in the same class, entitled to the same rights under the existing statute of the university.
770 To underline that differential treatment—contrary to the university's legal obligations, which will subsist until the passage of the Bill — if a member of staff was so discriminated against, he would be entitled to take the university to court. The defence that a Bill was before the House would not lie. In those circumstances, there appears to be a clear differentiation in treatment between staff who are appointed before 20 November and staff appointed after that date under the same statutes in force. In those circumstances, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to declare that part of the Bill as hybrid and to refer it to the Examiners.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his submission because it has enabled me to give the matter careful consideration.
The hon. Gentleman asks that I should find the Bill prima facie hybrid because the clauses dealing with academic tenure may result in some academic staff being affected differently from others in the same class. In particular, he submits that if some universities take note of clause 132 and do not grant tenure to anyone appointed after 20 November they will be singling out that individual from the remainder of the class for adverse treatment.
In considering the question of hybridity, I have to look at the terms of the Bill. Provided that the formula or description used in the Bill deals with a category or class which is relevant to the purposes of the Bill and the Bill does not expressly specify or single out an individual or corporation within the category for different treatment, the Bill is not hybrid. The fact that individuals are differently affected when they fall within a general description is not relevant. Indeed, any general legislation will probably affect different people in different degrees.
In the present case, the Bill creates two categories of academic staff: those appointed before 20 November 1987 —that is the date of the introduction of the Bill—and those appointed after 20 November. These categories are entirely general and the criteria used are germane to the Bill. The fact that those concerned may be differently affected is not relevant. I must, therefore, rule that the Bill is not prima facie hybrid.