Electricity and Gas Industries Bill

Before giving the member the call I shall rule on a matter that arose immediately prior to the Committee reporting progress when it was last considering this bill. On a point of order, an entitlement to a consecutive call for the first Opposition speaker was claimed. There is no such entitlement. The revocation of Standing Order 178 removed the requirement for the Chairperson to give preference to a member who had not previously spoken. The Chairperson now has the discretion to give consecutive calls. This does not mean that a member can claim a consecutive call as of right.

The giving of a call is always a matter entirely for the discretion of the Chairperson; it is not a matter for debate. Where a member seeks a consecutive call, and another member from the member’s own party also seeks the call, the Chairperson must also take into account the factors set out in Standing Order 102. The Chairperson has to have regard to proportionality as well as the seniority and interest of the member with the call. Giving a consecutive call might ultimately be at the expense of the member’s party colleagues.

The call, once given, cannot be taken away. During the point of order, Brian Connell sought to yield his time to the Hon Roger Sowry. Yielding is not a way of transferring one member’s speaking time to another. It is a way of providing time, during a speech, for a member to ask a question of the member with the call. But a member may choose not to continue his or speech. Brian Connell could surrender his call if he so wishes. It would be then for any member to seek the next call.

The question before the Committee now is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part, and Brian Connell has 5 minutes remaining, if he so wishes.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I listened to your ruling, and I want to take up with you the issue, which, I believe, you have inadvertently got wrong. At the start of your ruling you made the point that a claim was made that a member—and the claim was made by myself as the senior member speaking on this bill—was entitled to two consecutive calls. That was not what I claimed. [Interruption] I want to have your attention—I think that was half the problem. I never claimed that that was a right. I know the Standing Orders very well, and know that that is not a right. The point I was making was that, right the way through the debate, other Chairpersons had, by convention, been giving the senior spokespersons—who, in this case, was myself—consecutive calls, but only at the beginning of each part. We were at the beginning of a new part, and members were entitled—allowed, I guess, is a better word—to have consecutive calls.

The issue I raised with you was that it seemed odd to me, having been given consecutive calls on other parts of the bill, that when you took the Chair you did not follow the convention of the other Chairpersons. I made the point to you that I hoped that was not something you were personally doing—that you were operating with different rules or that, perhaps, you did not like me, or something. You advised me that you had given consecutive calls to me in the past. I have been back and had a look, and I can find an occasion on which that occurred, in the previous week. So I do not want to imply that you have a snitcher on one particular member. What I want to say is that it would be nice if you could, at the next meeting of presiding officers, raise the issue of senior members going for a consecutive call, so that it becomes the convention that that occurs, rather than have the sort of whim that took place last week. After all, all sorts of members will seek a call. Of course they will—they have to, to contest it. I say to the Chairperson that when I looked at the Hansard it was noticeable to me that the one time that a particularly hard-hitting speech was being given was the time that a consecutive call was not given. The debate, I have to say, with the Minister in the chair, has been largely non-acrimonious. There have been issues that we have disagreed over, around the bill, but the debate, in which the Minister has taken several calls, has been a good debate in the Committee. There was an issue around the retrospectivity of the legislation that was causing a heated exchange and a vigorous speech, and at that point the Chairperson chose not to give a consecutive call. All I ask is that you have a look at this and raise it with the other chairpersons, because it seemed to me, when I looked at the way in which the debate on the rest of the bill has been carried out, that the exercising of the call was being done for a wider range of reasons.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have been generous in listening to the member. There is nothing in what the member said that I did not cover in my remarks. The call cannot be debated, and I am ruling that nothing that has been said requires my ruling.

Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled. I ask the member whether it is a new point of order.

Of course it is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have been very tolerant to the member, but I have not yet heard anything that is a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is the first occasion that I have seen on which someone has asked the Chairperson whether he or she would at least take something back and discuss it—which is what happens among presiding officers—and the Chairperson has ruled that he or she will not do that. Is that what I am to take from your ruling?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. I have made my ruling. As I said, there is nothing in what the member has said that requires a ruling on a point of order.

Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I warn the member that raising trifling points of order is disorderly. I have ruled on the point of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am not asking for a ruling—let me be quite clear. I am asking whether, as a presiding officer, you can establish a clear convention around the issue of a second call. That is all I am asking for. I ask whether you would accept that request and discuss the issue with the other presiding officers.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have made that perfectly clear in the ruling I read out.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)