HC Deb 21 April 1989 vol 151 cc561-2

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

9.40 am
Mr. Greg Knight (Derby, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to page 1136 of the Amendment Paper. Amendment No. 29 deals with the Official Report. You have not selected that amendment for debate. I do not seek to challenge your judgment. It may be that when you read the Bill you observed, as I did, that clause 1(1) referred merely to a periodical. A periodical, as defined by "The Concise Oxford Dictionary", is something that is "published at regular intervals." It appears that the Official Report is likely to be caught, in any event, by the terms of the Bill. That raises a question of privilege. I am wondering whether the proceedings on the Bill should be deferred until the Committee of Privileges has had a chance to examine the question.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member is making that allegation, he must raise it with me in the normal way.

Mr. Knight

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept without question that when one raises a breach of privilege the matter must be raised in writing, but I am saying that this is an anticipated breach. Should the Bill ultimately become an Act, that could constitute a breach of privilege.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member must table a motion to that effect. We have known for a long time that the Bill would be debated today. If the hon. Gentleman sincerely thought that this was a question of privilege, he should have raised it with me before.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you able to say whether it is the intention of the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General to grace us with their presence this morning? There may be an announcement about Mr. Justice Hoffmann's proposals, which would allow for speedier and cheaper resolution of disputes concerning the law of defamation. Many of the right hon. and hon. Members who support the measure believe that the cost of defamation proceedings is so great that it is impossible for a private citizen to take on a newspaper. If Mr. Justice Hoffmann's proposals were to be implemented, many right hon. and hon. Members might reconsider their position on the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman used the word "if." As the hon. Gentleman said, it has not yet happened. It is a premature point of order.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may help us to make progress—this is the difference between my point of order and the others—if I were to intimate to you that I should be willing to accept—

Mr. Speaker

Order. No, not at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman mentions which amendments he is prepared to accept when we reach them, I am sure that that would expedite the proceedings on his Bill.

Mr. John Watts (Slough)

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and arising also from the amendment that stands in my name, Mr. Speaker. If our reading of the Bill is correct and the term "periodical" encompasses the Official Report of both this House and the other place, does not an issue of privilege arise concerning the other place? If that is so, should not the other place have been informed that this House is considering a matter that affects its privilege? Has the other place been so informed?

Mr. Speaker

That is another hypothetical matter. As the House would expect, I have been through the Bill and the amendments with the greatest of care and I think that I have been generous in my selection of amendments. They are all absolutely valid points and we should get on with them.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not seek to challenge your ruling in response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). You said that we should wait until we reached the amendments. However, it would be helpful if the House understood from the outset that my hon. Friend is the chief sponsor and promoter of the Bill and that he is prepared to accept all the amendments in groups 4, 7, 8 and 9.

Mr. Speaker

That is a helpful suggestion. However, let us now get on.

  1. New Clause 4
      2. cc562-600
    1. PRESS COMMISSION APPEAL TRIBUNAL 21,080 words, 2 divisions
  2. New Clause 5
      3. cc600-26
    1. COMMENCEMENT 15,189 words
Forward to