Points of Order (Hansard, 14 March 1990)

§ Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At about 1 pm today, the Evening Standard reported a horrifying near-collision between two underground trains at King's Cross. This information calls into question the one-person operation on the tube and has revealed serious signal faults.

§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)
This is not a point of order.

§ Ms. Ruddock
The information came to us when the House was sitting and prevented me from applying to you, Mr. Speaker, for a private notice question. The matter is of such great concern to my constituents and to the constituents of all hon. Members representing London constituencies that I must ask whether you have any information that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement to the House on this matter, which could have been another horrifying tragedy at King's Cross.

§ Mr. Speaker
The whole House is anxious about such accidents, but fortunately there was no injury to people in this case. I have received no information from the Government, but I am sure that those on the Front Bench heard the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have not we today been hoist by our own petard? Was it not the much-praised prison service of Northern Ireland that allowed the prisoners to escape?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order. Furthermore, I do not know what a petard is.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of an extremely important matter. The Standing Committee that is considering the Broadcasting Bill has now reached its 36th sitting. I apologise for not raising the matter earlier, but I was given the courage to do so when I noticed that the Committee that considered the legislation that became the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 had 58 sittings before the matter of its hybridity was raised.
I want you to consider, Mr. Speaker, whether the Broadcasting Bill is hybrid and should follow another course of action, such as a referral to examiners or to a Joint Select Committee. The accepted definition of hybridity is that of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, who said that a hybrid Bill was a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class. That relates to the problems that have arisen in Committee.
The matter was brought to our attention when the Government tabled new clause 42, which was entitled Duty to provide advance information about programmes". It affects only two journals in Britain. I refer again to Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster's words: other persons or bodies of the same category or class". The journals are the TV Times and Radio Times. The nature of their copyright possession on scheduling of programmes was to be changed. Without that element of control, the parent ownership of the Radio Times was left 488 at the mercy of other competitors who could reschedule accordingly. Furthermore, the basic business of the TV Times and the Radio Times,which are both private companies—one is owned by BBC Enterprises Limited and the other by Reed International—was strongly affected.
My second reason for believing that the Broadcasting Bill is a hybrid Bill is—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into detail about what is going on in a Committee. That does not concern the House.

§ Mr. Buchan
I am giving a truly factual account of an amendment to the Bill. I am not concerned with what has happened in the Committee but what has been incorporated in the Bill.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice of the matter, and I have been able to consider it in some detail. I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House. I believe that the new clause and the amendment to which he has referred have not yet been disposed of in Committee. It is not out of order for a Committee to make amendments that make a Bill hybrid, but I should not wish to make a ruling on such a matter before the Bill has been reported.

§ Mr. Buchan
In that case, I shall stick to the second ground why I believe that the Bill is hybrid. I have also given you notice of that in my letter.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I cannot rule on the matter until the Committee has reported.

§ Mr. Buchan
I understand that, but, according to the precedent, which I examined with care, the earlier such an issue was raised, the better. On the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act, 1977, the apology was begged for 58 sittings and I have already apologised for 36 sittings. The matter should have been raised on Second Reading, but it came to our attention only when new clause 42 was tabled.

§ Mr. Speaker
What, then, is the hon. Gentleman asking me to do?

§ Mr. Buchan
I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to undertake to report, presumably tomorrow, to the House, as happened on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, on whether you think that there is an element of hybridity in the Bill. If there is, a course of action other than proceeding with the Bill in its present form is then open to you, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot undertake to do that tomorrow but I shall certainly undertake to do that with the greatest care when the Bill has been reported to the House in the usual way.

§ Mr. Buchan
Would it not be more sensible and in the interests of everyone if that could be rectified? That is why I should like to proceed and it is important that I should proceed—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The debate has not yet been concluded. As I understand it, the new clause is currently under discussion. It has not yet been disposed of by the Committee.

§ Mr. Buchan
What I am trying to make clear is that I have two distinct grounds. This having been brought to my attention yesterday, I examined the Bill to deal with the second ground, which is—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot rule upon it now. It is not in my power to do so. I must wait until the Bill has been reported. That is the moment when I shall look upon it with great care. If the House agrees to the timetable motion, our debate today must end at midnight. It is taking a lot of time to deal with a matter that I really cannot rule upon.

§ Mr. Buchan
I am proceeding according to the precedent set when the previous Bill was dealt with. I will have to find other means of drawing attention to the peculiar case of Mr. Murdoch, who is being exempted from the operations of the Bill. If that does not create hybridity, I do not know what does. We are now told that the Bill will not apply to one individual, although it affects everyone else. The Minister said that it was not for the Government to pull the plug on a venture that was already running and had cost Mr. Murdoch vast amounts of money. It therefore also means—this is why it is so serious—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman has asked me now to pre-empt a decision which I shall have to consider with the greatest care at the appropriate moment. I cannot do that in the middle of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is taking time from other hon. Members.

§ Mr. Buchan
If the Bill is hybrid, this is the exact moment to raise the matter, so that it does not go through any more useless consideration by the Committee and we can follow the proper procedure. There is a different procedure for hybridity. That is why I must make the case to you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether you can prevent the Government from wasting their time and the House from wasting its time in Committee and later on Report. It would take me two minutes to finish, so that you could consider the matter.
The position of Mr. Murdoch and his holdings—above all, Sky Television—has apparently been exempted from the Bill, which means a lifting for him of those barriers to people possessing other groups and bodies. The maximum 20 per cent. holding rule for those who have other press holdings does not apply to Mr. Murdoch. He owns 35 per cent. of the national press of this country. The requirement 490 to be a British citizen or a citizen of the EC will not be a barrier to Mr. Murdoch and Sky Television. He is an American. This puts him in a different position from all others who may compete for the licence. The Bill is hybrid. We should examine it so that we will no longer waste time on what is, in any case, a pretty inadequate Bill, and can treat it in the proper way.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
There can be nothing further to it, because I have already made a ruling that I shall look at it with the greatest care when the Bill has been reported.

§ Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House a few moments ago that he had not volunteered a statement on the issue which was raised in the private notice question. Surely the matter is of such importance that we should have a statement, if not from the right hon. Gentleman, certainly from the Attorney-General. Have you any information, Mr. Speaker, about whether he will make such a statement? Furthermore, often when the business for the week is given on a Thursday, we are told that the necessary documents such as those relating to the EC will be printed in the Official Report so that we will have an opportunity to study the documents before the debate comes up. Could that general policy be followed before any statement is made or any debate takes place in the House regarding the two judgements of the Supreme Court in the Irish Republic, so that all hon. Members could study the judgments and form their opinions on them?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench. I granted today's private notice question, but I have no knowledge of a statement.

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)
On a matter of mutual assistance, Mr. Speaker. Would you, as an ex-military man, care to know what a petard is? I feel sure that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) has no idea. Would you, Mr. Speaker, be interested to know?

§ Mr. Speaker
As a matter of fact, I would—but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me later over a cup of tea.