What began as Speaker Juliet Holness’ explanation of why the Crown Land Bill, proposed by Opposition Leader Mark Golding, was being sent to the attorney general quickly turned into another parliamentary clash on Tuesday, as Opposition members questioned whether she should have used her opening remarks to address the issue.

The tension in the Chamber started after Holness concluded her opening statement and Golding sought to respond but was not allowed to do so immediately. Opposition members then rose to their feet in protest, signalling their objection to the Speaker’s handling of the matter. Golding subsequently rose on a point of order to challenge the issue.

He objected to the Speaker’s handling of the matter, arguing that her opening remarks were not the appropriate forum for addressing substantive issues before the House.

Golding pointed to Standing Order nine, which sets out the order in which business is to be conducted at sittings of the House, and argued that the practice had been for the Speaker to welcome members and visitors before the House proceeded through that prescribed order of business.

He was cut off by the Speaker as he sought to make his point.

The intervention prompted the Speaker to point to another provision of the Standing Orders.

Opposition members on their feet while Leader of Government Business Floyd Green (right) makes a point during Tuesday’s sitting of the House of Representatives. The Opposition members had risen in protest after Opposition Leader Mark Golding was not allowed to respond immediately following the Speaker’s opening statement on the proposed Crown Land Bill. (Photo: Garfield Robinson)

Holness said Standing Order 4(6), which deals with the Speaker’s role in presiding over the House, gives the Speaker the authority to regulate the conduct of business in matters that are not specifically provided for in the Standing Orders.

Holness then explained that she had allowed Golding to intervene during Public Business at the previous sitting, giving him an opportunity to make a personal explanation on the Crown Land Bill.

She said that decision was made in keeping with the Standing Orders and the authority of the Chair, while defending her decision to make an opening statement to the House.

Leader of Government Business in the House Floyd Green defended the Speaker’s handling of the matter, saying the point of order had already been raised and answered. He also argued that the Speaker’s opening remarks had allowed Golding an opportunity he had requested.

“I for one believe that the Speaker has rightfully used her opening remarks to respond to matters that needed response. And again, out of this opening, out of this opening, the Speaker literally acceded to the request of the Leader of the Opposition,” he said.

The dispute then widened, with Leader of Opposition Business Phillip Paulwell raising the issue again and arguing that members on his side of the floor should have an opportunity to respond when they believe they have been criticised by the Speaker.

Paulwell said the matter was particularly important because of the Speaker’s handling of the previous week’s proceedings.

Speaker of the House Juliet Holness (Photo: Garfield Robinson)

“Last week when the matter was raised, you gave this House the impression that you could allow the Leader of the Opposition to speak on the point in public business. Again, there’s nothing in the Standing Orders that allows you to do that. What we were contending is that if you, in your opening, berated a member, the member there and then has the right to respond. It is only fair and proper,” he said.

Paulwell then declared that the Opposition intends to continue challenging what he described as a recurring practice.

“And we are not going to tolerate this where on a weekly basis, you come and you berate people without them getting a chance to respond,” he added.

Holness again rejected the suggestion that Golding had been denied an opportunity to address the Crown Land Bill issue.

“I allowed the member [last week] because in public business it allows for him to do a personal explanation. And I decided that I should give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to do so in keeping with the Standing Orders, in keeping with the authority of the Chair, to make his explanation as it relates to the bill he brought in that time,” she said.

“I will remind members that the Speaker, as an umpire at the Chair, does not participate in debates, as all other members do. And as such, the Speaker in all parliaments across the Commonwealth are at liberty to make an opening statement if it is necessary to do so,” she said.