§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns the Defamation Bill, particularly clause 13, which was passed by the House yesterday. It was generally agreed that, when that clause is enacted after Royal Assent, it will raise important issues of procedure and privilege as well as legal matters and, particularly, constitutional change.
It was generally agreed in debate that our procedures yesterday did not allow a full opportunity to assess the possible implications of that change. Indeed, there is no existing Committee of either House or a Joint Committee which was in a position to deal with that, particularly with the constitution of the Union—the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and no other—and the possible differences that the Act will bring about on the different parts of that Union. The other place and ourselves are jointly the constitutional court of our constitutional Union, so both Houses have a part to play.
I believe that, during yesterday's debate, suggestions were made about how the gap in our procedures might be filled. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to undertake consultation with various parts of the House to see whether the concern I have expressed is a general one, and if whether some conversations can take place about how we should proceed? Otherwise, should we not be dealing with our own constitutional duties in the way that I have described?
§ Madam SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he gave me some indication of his point of order. The House has taken a decision on the proposals to which he referred, and has given the Defamation Bill its Third Reading.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue his concern about the outcome—from what he said, that seems to be the case—he will have to find another way of bringing it before the House. He can do that by pressing those on his Front Bench or the Leader of the House for a Joint or Select Committee to review the law on privilege. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious enough to be able to do that.
§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It concerns your ruling on an early-day motion about child abuse which I attempted to table last night. You said that the decision of the House on 20 June to approve a motion to set up a tribunal of inquiry means that the House's sub judice rule now applies, and that you cannot allow the early-day motion to appear on the Order Paper, although it refers to 1971 and the terms of reference of the tribunal are from 1974 onwards.
I question whether the motion of 20 June setting up the tribunal panel of inquiry was properly passed by the House. I was not able to object to the motion, as it was not called in the usual way. Over the past few days, I have looked at all the procedures used when remaining orders of the day have been taken since the House returned from its Whitsun recess.
I have examined the video recordings and found that, in every instance when a motion has been put, the number of the motion is called. For instance, on 5 June, only one motion was put to the House, and was introduced with the 167 words, "Motion No. 4". On 7 June, only one motion was put to the House and was introduced with the words, "Motion 2—business." In every instance, except on Thursday 20 June, that has been the case.
On that occasion, the Deputy Speaker said, "Now for the motion. The Question is the motion on the Order Paper." Where is the precedent for calling the motion without calling its number at the same time? I have failed to find it, and I should be grateful if you would inquire further into the matter.
§ Madam SpeakerI am sorry that the hon. Lady is continuing to pursue this point, notwithstanding the fact that I have written to her fully about it and explained things. I had hoped that my letter would clarify matters for her. I suggest that she looks again at what I have said in relation to her draft early-day motion and the motion agreed to by the House last Thursday. No timetable was mentioned in the motion, which was agreed by the House, on setting up a tribunal.
The hon. Lady's clear duty undoubtedly lies in providing the tribunal, when it is established, with all the very important evidence that she appears to have.
As regards what took place last Thursday, I am satisfied that the hon. Lady could not have been in any doubt about the motion under consideration. She was in her place, and she therefore had every opportunity to object to it—as she had done on previous days. I can help her no further now with this matter.