Page 2461 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 31 July 2018
Mr Coe: Can you move to adjourn it, Caroline?
Ms Stephen-Smith: Not till next day.
Ms Orr: Don’t adjourn it.
Mr Coe: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am in a difficult position procedurally, because Ms Stephen-Smith has actually closed the debate.
Ms Stephen-Smith: Yes, I have.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: The process from here is to go to the Clerk. We could go there, and if members do not want to finalise the bill today, we can come back to finalise the bill. Procedurally, on the advice of the Clerk, I cannot go anywhere other than to resolve the question that the debate be adjourned. In that case, on the basis of the advice of the Clerk, I will put the question that the bill be agreed to in principle.
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
A division being called and the bells being rung—
Mr Wall: Madam Speaker, before you call the Clerk, I have a procedural matter on your previous ruling. Mr Coe sought to adjourn the debate prior to the vote being put. You had stated that the debate had been closed. Standing order 49 states that no further debate shall occur, but I draw your attention to standing order 65, “Adjournment of debate”. It states:
Except for a Member who has spoken to the question, or who has the right of reply, any Member may move the adjournment of the debate, which question shall be put forthwith and determined without amendment or debate. If the question is resolved in the affirmative, the Speaker shall then put a question to fix the time for the resumption of the debate.
I understand the division has since been called, but there was an attempt to adjourn the debate prior to the vote being put. Procedurally, standing order 65 does require that question to have been put forthwith and without debate.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that you are right. Mr Coe did move that the question be adjourned.
That the debate be adjourned.