Communications Bill

Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Gale. It will not have escaped your notice that we have lost the opportunity to debate 16 clauses, as well as groups of amendments relating to local television services and the handling of complaints about contravention of conditions on television licensable content services licences. In effect, we lost the chance to debate clause 226 and amendments Nos. 16 to 19, which stand in my name. I raise this point of order not to whinge about that—although I am doing so—but because amendments Nos. 16 to 19 relate to clause No. 347, which we shall come to considerably later. Technically speaking, I could raise the issues on a clause stand part debate on that clause, but I could not move the amendments, because they were grouped for discussion at an earlier point.

I understand the merit of the amendments being grouped as they are, because they relate to similar subjects, but that has had the perverse effect of their not being debated. I wonder whether, in those circumstances, you have discretion to reconsider the selection of amendments, Mr. Gale, so that my amendments can be grouped and debated under clause 347?

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

So far as the grouping of amendments is concerned, I do not have discretion—I have total power. Not many in this place can say that. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Chairman is bound by the sittings motion, but what happened this morning is unfortunate and the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, so I shall consider the matter. As he rightly says, there is a short time before we come to clause 347. We shall see whether it is possible to accommodate his request on this occasion, but I must emphasise that I will not regard this as a precedent. Amendments are grouped, extremely skilfully, not by the Chairman but by the Clerk—albeit, obviously, with my approval. However, we will take another look at the matter.Clause 239 Regulation of independent radio services