Pointless Points of Order.docx

1

THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL

SCHOOL OF POLITICS, PHILOSOPHY AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Pointless Points of Order

being a Dissertation submitted for the Degree of

British Politics and Legislative Studies

by

Alistair Richard Lamyman

April 2015

2

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4

What’s the point; what are points of order? ........................................................................................ 4

What prompted the research to be undertaken? .................................................................................. 7

Why is this research important? .......................................................................................................... 7

The Question ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Reflections ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Presentation of findings ........................................................................................................................ 13

1992-1997 Parliament ....................................................................................................................... 13

Occupants of the Chair .................................................................................................................. 13

Visualisation of findings ............................................................................................................... 15

General Observations .................................................................................................................... 27

Notable mentions of particular points of order ............................................................................. 29

Have points of order been hijacked in this parliament? ................................................................ 30

1997-2001 Parliament ....................................................................................................................... 31


Visualisation of findings. ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.



Have points of order been hijacked in this Parliament? ................................................................ 48

2001-2005 Parliament ....................................................................................................................... 48


Visualisation of Findings .............................................................................................................. 49



Have points of order being hijacked? ........................................................................................... 63

2005-2010 Parliament ....................................................................................................................... 63


Visualisation of findings ............................................................................................................... 65



3

Have points of order been hijacked during this parliament? ......................................................... 82

2010-14 Parliament ........................................................................................................................... 82


Visualisations of Findings ............................................................................................................. 84



Have points of order been hijacked? ............................................................................................. 95

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 95

What has been discerned from each original aim? ............................................................................ 96

To discover if the use of points of order has changed over time .................................................. 96

To discover if the correct use of points of order has changed over time? .................................... 96

To find out if Speakers/Deputy Speakers feel the use of point of order has changed over time,

and whether their role in interpreting them has changed .............................................................. 97

To discover if raising a point of order is no longer useful as its intended purpose, or if it remains

useful due to its changed nature over time. ................................................................................... 97

To discover if one purpose for an invalid point of order is used more than others ....................... 98

To discover if certain political parties are more prolific at raising improper points of order than

others ............................................................................................................................................. 98

To discover if particular Members of Parliament are more willing to abuse the points of order

system than others. ........................................................................................................................ 98

The Answer ....................................................................................................................................... 99

Is there still a point to points of order? ............................................................................................. 99

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 99

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 99

Appendix 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 114

Appendix 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 123

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 129

4

Introduction

Anyone who is familiar with Parliament and its proceedings, more specifically the

proceedings of the House of Commons, will be undoubtedly aware of the frequency in which

the phrase ‘on a point of order, Mr Speaker’ is used. More often than not, the point of order

raised is not a genuine point of order of all, leading to the phrase ‘on a point of order, Mr

Speaker’, to be quickly rebuffed by the occupant of Chair’s response, ‘that is not a point of

order for me’. Given that an outside observer of the House of Commons would pick up on

this trend within a month or so of watching proceedings, can we safely assume that the points

of order system is no longer fit for practice? This research aims to investigate the points of

order system as a whole, and assess whether or not, given how apparent their improper use is,

they are pointless.

What’s the point; what are points of order?

Before we can determine whether or not points of order as a mechanism have become

pointless, we first have to establish what the point of them is to begin with. A reminder of the

definition presented in the proposal for this research, (said definition of what situation has to

be present for a Member to raise a point of order) which can also be found in Erskine May, is

shown below.

"It is the duty of the Speaker to intervene to preserve order, though he may refrain

from intervening if he thinks it unnecessary to do so. If he does not intervene,

however, whether for the above reason or because he has not perceived that a breach

of order has been committed, it is the right of any Member who thinks that such a

breach has been committed to rise in his place, interrupting any Member who may be

speaking, and direct the attention of the chair to the matter. A Member speaking to

5

order must simply direct attention to the point complained of, and submit it to the

decision of the Speaker. If the Speaker is of the opinion that the words or conduct

complained of are disorderly, he call upon the Member to conform to the rules of the

House”1.

As we can see from this definition, if the Speaker of the House or whosoever should be the

occupant of the Chair at the time is performing their role to a sufficient standard, one can be

lead to believe that an individual would not need to raise a point of order. Although this

research does not particularly focus on the role of the Speaker, the research undertaken

during the course of this project has found that this is not to be the case. Therefore, we can

act on the assumption that if the research demonstrates that points of order are raised

frequently, that the majority of them will be of a fraudulent nature.

It would also seem appropriate at this time to include the definitions given by previous

occupants of the Speaker’s Chair, to not only see how close their interpretation of the points

of order mechanism is to the one set out in Erskine May, but also to see if what is now

considered to be a point of order has changed over time.

Baroness Fookes, Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means between 1992 and 19972

stated, in an interview conducted for the purpose of this research, that a point of order is;

“It is an issue raised, either by the occupant of the Chair, or by, indeed very often by,

a Member of the Commons, drawing attention to what they think is something going

1 Lamyman, A. (2014) Dissertation Proposal: Pointless points of order, p.2 2 Baroness Fookes, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/baroness-fookes/830 [Accessed 14/04/2015]

6

wrong with procedure, either because somebody is doing it on purpose or

inadvertently”3

Although not as verbose as the description used in Erskine May, this definition is very

similar. It is also interesting to note that Baroness Fookes acknowledges in her description

that certain Members of Parliament may be “doing it on purpose”, which demonstrates that

she recognises the abuse of the points of order system.

Lord Naesby, the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means during the same time period as

Baroness Fookes4, stated that a point of order was “a member believing something has been

said, or omitted, that should have considered by the Chair”5. This demonstrates a more

lenient stance on the issue, but still recognises that a point of order needs to be a matter for

the chair.

However, Eleanor Laing, the Member of Parliament to most recently take up the occupancy

of the Chair6, seems to have differing thoughts on the issue. In a written response in which

she regrettable declined an interview, she stated, that in her opinion;

“It has now become generally accepted that a Member of Parliament can use the

mechanism of raising a point of order which is not technically a point of order in

order to bring to the attention of the House a matter which cannot be raised at that

particular moment in any other way”7

3 Baroness Fookes, Pointless points of order [Interview Conversation] 16 March 2015, 15:00. Royal Gallery, House of Lords 4 Lord Naseby, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-naseby/1251 [Accessed 14/04/2015] 5 Lord Naseby, Pointless points of order [Interview Conversation] 26 March 2015, 12:00. Royal Gallery, House of Lords 6 Eleanor Laing, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mrs-eleanor-laing/36 [Accessed 14/04/2015] 7 Laing, E., Response to an interview request [Letter]. Personal Communication, 3rd March 2015.

7

This represents a detraction from the original purpose of points of order, and raises the

question as to whether they have now evolved into just being an additional way for members

to be heard. Given that points of order are taken entirely at the Chairs discretion, and recent

occupants of the chair have demonstrated this opinion, can we now say with confidence that

this is the new face of the mechanism of points of order? More importantly, if it becomes

apparent as we progress that this is the case, should it be accepted as the new norm, or should

it, for the sake of parliamentary procedure, be resisted on all counts?

What prompted the research to be undertaken?

As was stated within the proposal for this project, the cause for this research was brought

about by The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, Eleanor Liang MP, who on the 15th

March 2013 stated “It is so refreshing to hear a point of order, that is a point of order”8. The

very fact that in the eyes of one of the Deputy Speakers, it is out of the ordinary that a

genuine point of order would be raised, should call into question the entire system in place

for making a point of order. This research therefore aims to establish if the mechanism by

which Members can raise points of order is ‘abused’ in a sense, or, if they have just evolved

into something different over time.

Why is this research important?

The first reason why the research is important is due to its originality. Despite the workings

and procedures of Parliament being one of the most prolific topics in terms of research, it is

not evident that any exist that delve into the specific element of the mechanism of points of

order. It seems most unusual that this is the case, given the problem of improper points of

8 Lamyman, A. (2014)

8

order being raised (as noted in the proposal for this research) has been an issue that the

Speaker has raised with the House as early as the 1950s9. Therefore, this research is a first

step into a much under-researched element of the field of parliamentary procedure.

The reason as to why this particular element is under-research can be disputed, but that does

not diminish the importance of the subject matter. Ultimately, points of order raised by

individual Members of the House, are referred to in Erskine May, which is often denoted as

being the ‘parliamentary bible’10

. If it is found in this research that Members are routinely

disregarding the words of Erskine May regarding points of order, in particular as there is a

larger turnover of Members, who is to say that other aspects of parliamentary procedure

stipulated in the Treatise won’t subsequently be ignored. The precedent for such ignorance

should not accepted lightly. As Baroness Fookes stated in her interview

“…My comment on that is that it may happen on occasion but it should be regarded

very much as the exception because it’s not much of a step from here to say that you

can raise something that isn’t a point of order, and bring to the attention of the House

anything that you want to be mentioned. It is a slippery slope”11

This research is important as it aims to demonstrate the extent to which the abuse of the

points of order system, and whether or not we have, in recent years, began to descend down

the slippery slope that Baroness Fookes warns about. If this becomes self-evident, as

mentioned before, the entire idea of parliamentary procedure could come under threat from

under-zealous occupants of the Speaker’s Chair. Hopefully, by demonstrating the extent of

9 Ibid 10 Parliament’s ‘Bible’ adapts to meet changing times, Parliament.uk (2011) Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/parliaments-bible-adapts-to-meet-changing-times/[Accessed on 15/04/2015] 11 Baroness Fookess, Pointless points of order

9

the problem, further steps will be taken by the powers that be to sort out the mechanism for

raising points of order once and for all.

The Question

To obtain the fullest potential from the research, one must remain focussed on a particular

aspect or question throughout the entire piece. Although already demonstrated within the

proposal for this piece, it should be fitting that it is reiterated here. The overriding question

that this research seeks to answer is;

“Are Points of Order still relevant ways for Members of Parliament to raise concerns

with matters of procedure, or have they been hijacked by those who wish to utilise the

point of order improperly”12

This shall be referred back to once the findings have been presented, to determine which of

these possible outcomes the case is. If one were to hypothesise at this point, one would

assume that the latter, the hijacking scenario, is the most likely.

Methodology

Again, although this information was listed in the proposal, the final methodology has altered

somewhat over the course of the project, so it seemed appropriate to document in its altered

form.

Firstly, it can be confirmed that every point of order raised in the House of Commons from

the opening debate of the 1992-1993 session (26th

April 1992)13

up until the final debate of

12 Lamyman, A. (2014) 13 HC Debs, 26 April 1992, Vol 207 Col 1

10

the 2013-14 session (14th

May 2014)14

has been documented and analysed for the purpose of

this research. As was previously stated, it is one thing to determine whether or not points of

order are valid or invalid, but it is a step further to then categorise the invalid ones. This

allows us to fully understand why people make points of order, and gives us the ability to

determine whether a particular abuse of the points of order mechanism has become more or

less prolific over time. The categories that made the final cut where as follows;

Valid: A valid, relevant point of order.

Continuation: An attempt to either continue the debate or question time session that

has just ended, or an utterance of the phrase “further to that point of order” when no

further point was necessary.

Personal Issue: A Member putting an issue based around either their constituency or a

specialist interest of theirs on the record. This has also been the used to categorise

points of information.

Ministers not making a statement/Ministerial Conduct: This category is

predominantly down to when individual Ministers are either unparliamentary in their

conduct, or have not made a statement on what an individual Member deems to be a

pressing issue.

Government Policy interpretations: Members commenting on Government policy.

Committee Conduct: Members being dissatisfied with how a Select or Bill Committee

as conducted itself.

Individual Conduct: When a Member believes another Member to be

unparliamentary, or disagrees with their conduct in general.

14 HC Debs, 14 May 2014, Vol 580 Col 862

11

Filibustering: Raising an unnecessary point of order in and obvious and deliberate

manner, to prolong a debate.

Dissent: registering dissent with the proceedings of the Chamber.

Intervention: Using a point of order to intervene on a speech, when the Member

giving the speech has indicated that they have no intention of giving way.

Categories have been added since they were initially proposed15

, and although there was

scope for further categories to be added, one has to be careful not to over dilute the research

by utilising too many. Hence why ten was deemed the most appropriate number. The

categorisation of points of order was done entirely ‘in-house’, so there may be some

imperfections in the consistencies, but with no alternative record to compliment the research,

the records taken shall suffice.

Interviews were also conducted for the purpose of this research, as has been previously

stated, along with written material from those who were asked for interviews but could not

conduct one.

Reflections

Before presenting the findings of the research, it is necessary to reflect on how the project

was conducted, so that any future analysis on the subject can improve on the inroads made

here.

One way in which this research could have been improved is based on timings, and the

absence of a structured time plan was something that hindered the overall project. For

example, a handful of the potential interviewees for this research cited that a lack of free

time, due to either overseas travel or a busy parliamentary timetable, was the reason for not

15 Lamyman, A. (2014)

12

being available for comment. Had the interview requests been sent out and finalised sooner,

this may not have been the case.

On the topic of interviews, it is an unfortunate reality that only two of those who were invited

to interview accepted the request, and neither of which had held the position of Speaker. It

would have no doubt added an additional level of insight to hear from such individuals. It

should also be noted at this stage that had analysis on the research been conducted at an

earlier date, then individuals from each parliamentary session who were particularly prolific

in raising invalid points of order would have been contacted. Names such as Dennis Skinner,

Tam Daylell, Douglass Hogg, George Galloway, Sir Gerald Kaufman, Simon Hughes,

Michael Fabricant, Peter Bone, and Sir William Cash all fit into this grouping, and their

reasoning as to why they continually raised bogus points of order would have also proved

useful.

It was also particularly disappointing to not be granted an interview by the current Speaker,

John Bercow. The reason this is more noteworthy than not been granted interviews with any

of the other Speakers, is Mr. Bercow’s track record. During his time as a backbench Member

of Parliament, his notoriety in raising points of order (almost all of which were invalid)

exceeded him; it is even on the record. When attempting to raise a point of order with Betty

Boothroyd, her reply was “My day would not be complete without one from the hon.

Gentleman16

”. This research would have benefitted markedly for his comment, on how he

shifted from being an individual keen to hijack the points of order mechanism, to one whose

job is to uphold it. But alas, it was not to be.

16 HC Debs, 5th April 2000, Vol 347 Col 979

13

Presentation of findings

Given that the research lends itself to chronological presentation that would seem the best

way for the research to be set out. The five parliaments (1992-97, 1997-2001, 2001-05, 2005-

10, and 2010-14) shall each be presented separately. Rather than attempting to analyse each

individual session in turn, it seems more appropriate to assess the parliament as a whole; this

way comparisons can be drawn over the four to five years being assessed, rather than trying

to present year by year snap shots. This way it can be demonstrated whether the ways in

which Members abuse the mechanism of order, if indeed they do at all, has changed over

time. Possible reasons for the specific outcomes of each session shall be included, along with

individual instances where Members raise bogus points of order to demonstrate the findings.

1992-1997 Parliament

Occupants of the Chair

During the course of this Parliament, the first female Speaker, Betty Boothroyd17

, oversaw

proceedings in the Chamber. She had held the position of Second Deputy Chairman of Ways

and Means in the previous Parliament18

(1987-92), and so was already relatively familiar with

what her responsibilities in the Chair were. Her three Deputies, Michael Morris19

, Sir

17 Baroness Boothroyd Parliament.uk (2015) Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/baroness-boothroyd/679 [Accessed on 13/04/15] 18 Ibid. 19 Lord Naseby, Parliament.uk

14

Geoffrey Lofthouse20

, and Dame Janet Fookes21

had held no previous speakership positions,

and did therefore not bring any previous experience to the role.

20 Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract (2015), Parliament.uk Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-lofthouse-of-pontefract/905 [Accessed on 13/04/2015) 21 Baroness Fookes, Parliament.uk

15

Visualisation of findings

Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes Total

Valid 330 135 75 80 620

Continuation 195 103 55 30 383

Personal Issue 98 55 23 30 206

Ministers not making a

statement/conduct 185 110 33 53 381

Government policy interpretations 120 35 30 10 195

Committee Conduct 40 25 8 20 93

Individual Conduct 80 75 60 63 278

Filibustering 75 35 10 10 130

Dissent 63 70 15 18 166

Intervention 45 45 10 35 135

Valid 27% 20% 24% 23% 24%

Invalid 73% 80% 76% 77% 76%

Total 1231 688 319 349 2587

16

Table 1: Table showing the total number of points of order taken, between 29th

April 1992 and 21st March 1997

22

22 HC Debs Vol 207-292

17

Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes

Valid 97 36 23 17

Continuation 63 29 20 9

Personal Issue 36 20 7 10

Ministers not making a statement/conduct 67 33 9 18

Government policy interpretations 38 13 9 3

Committee Conduct 12 9 2 6

Individual Conduct 27 20 21 20

Filibustering 23 9 3 3

Dissent 20 21 3 6

Intervention 14 11 3 11

Valid 24% 18% 23% 17%

Invalid 76% 82% 77% 83%

Total 397 201 100 103


April 1992 and 5th

November 199323


18

Boothroyd Naesby Lofthouse Fookes

Valid 70 36 14 30








Dissent 10 14 6 2


Valid 37% 24% 26% 42%

Invalid 63% 76% 74% 58%

Total 190 148 54 72


November 1993 and 3rd

November 199424


19


November 1994 and 8th

November 199525



Valid 62 18 16 2








Dissent 15 14 0 5


Valid 21% 14% 22% 3%

Invalid 79% 86% 78% 97%

Total 302 127 73 67

20


Valid 66 27 15 16








Dissent 13 14 3 4


Valid 27% 20% 23% 23%

Invalid 73% 80% 77% 77%

Total 247 138 65 71

Table 5: Table showing the total number of points of order taken between 15th


October 1996. 26


21

Table 6: Table showing the total number of points of order take between 23rd

October 1996 and 21st March 1997

27



Valid 35 18 7 15








Dissent 5 7 3 1


Valid 37% 24% 26% 42%

Invalid 63% 76% 74% 58%

Total 95 74 27 36

22

Figure 1: Table showing the total number of points of order taken, between 29th

April 1992

and 21st March 1997

28


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


Valid Continuation

Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct

Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct

Individual Conduct Fillibustering

Dissent Intervention

23

Figure 2: Graph showing the total number of points of order taken, between 29th

April 1992

and 5th

November 199329


0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Valid Continuation





24

Figure 3: Graph showing the total number of points of order taken between 18th

November

1993 and 3rd

November 199430


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Boothroyd Naesby Lofthouse Fookes

Valid Continuation





25


November

1994 and 8th

November 199531

31 HC Debs 250-265

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Valid Continuation





26


November

1995 and the 16th

October 199632

32 HC Debs 267-282

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Valid Continuation





27

Figure 6: Graph showing the total number of points of order taken between 23rd

October 1996

and the 21st April 1997

33

General Observations

As we can see from Table 2, there were what appears to be a significant amount of point of

orders raised during the 1992 session of parliament session of parliament, regardless of

33 HC Debs 284-292

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Valid Continuation





28

validity, with almost 400 being raised to the Speaker alone. The total number of points of

order raised within this session totalled 801, almost a third of all the 2,587 points of order

taken in the entire parliament. However, before one jumps to conclusions about what

parliamentary business was being debated to cause this influx in points of order, one must

take into account two things in particular about the 1992-93 session. Firstly, as we can see

from the dates given, this session was particularly lengthy; at 240 days, it is the third longest

session in this data set34

. It also contains the highest number of sittings that sat past midnight

(5635

) and the highest number of sittings past 2am (1236

). Therefore, the amount of time in

which the Commons was sitting has to be taken into account before we consider how many

points of order were taken. It stands to reason that if more time is available for parliamentary

activity, then there is also more time for Members to raise points of order. With this

especially lengthy sitting, combined with the fact that the 1992-93 session was when the

Maastricht treaty was considered37

, this goes some way to explain why the raw number of

points of order itself was so high. One can also contribute the Maastricht treaty to the high

amount of points of order in the 1992-93 session, that were raised under the ‘Government

Policy interpretations’, significantly higher than other sessions

It should also be noted here in particular, the amount of points of order that were actually

valid during this Parliament. When the question was posed to Baroness Fookes, as to how

many of the points of order she took over the course of the Parliament she believed to be

34 Politowski, B. House of Commons: Hours sat and late sittings since 1979, House of Commons Library Standard Note SN/SG/2226, 21 January 2015 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Goodwin, S.’ The Maastricht Debate: Major 'driven to confidence factor': Commons Exchanges: Treaty issue

'cannot fester any longer', The Independent, 23 July 1993 [Online] Available at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-maastricht-debate-major-driven-to-confidence-factor-

commons-exchanges-treaty-issue-cannot-fester-any-longer-1486498.html Accessed on 16/04/15

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-maastricht-debate-major-driven-to-confidence-factor-commons-exchanges-treaty-issue-cannot-fester-any-longer-1486498.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-maastricht-debate-major-driven-to-confidence-factor-commons-exchanges-treaty-issue-cannot-fester-any-longer-1486498.html

29

valid, she assumed the number was “around 5%”38

. As we can see from Table X, with the

validity of the Noble Baroness’s particular points of order directed at her being 23%, and the

highest level of validity concerning the Speaker, at 27%, she was far from correct. However,

it should still be a damning revelation that one of the occupants of the Speaker’s Chair

believed that only 5% of the points of order she took were valid, as this implies that she not

only knows that a problem exists, but also that she believed it to far more prevalent than it

actually turned out to be. It should, however, be noted at this point that as Table 4

demonstrates, during the session between 1994 and 1995, Baroness Fookes’ estimate was

accurate.

Notable mentions of particular points of order

One particular instance of abuse of the points of order mechanism which is noteworthy, came

quite early on in the Parliament, during one of the many debates on the Maastricht Treaty. In

a twenty five minute period, on the 2nd

of December, where thirty-six points of order were

raised, only two of which were genuine points of order. The whole exchange is shown in

Appendix 1 due to the sheer amount of data to present. Dame Janet stated that “if someone

was pulling a fast one, that’s different; no quarter given”39

, which would imply that she was

not prepared to give the leniency presented in this excerpt. Only twice are the invalid points

of order cut short, and one of these is because Dame Janet “had great difficulty hearing due to

the sedentary comments of the Hon Member for Derbyshire, South”40

. However, despite her

normal ‘no nonsense’ approach to invalid points of order, Dame Janet also stated in her

interview, when shown this passage of text that

38 Baroness Fookes, Pointless Points of Order 39 Baroness Fookes, Pointless Points of Order 40 HC Debs, 2nd Dec 1992. Vol 213 Col 350

30

“This was exceptional as it had very strong emotions, and when you have very strong

emotions and views are expressed, it is difficult to see how you prevent it all

happening. In a way, it may be, however irritating these points of order are that they

are allowed to let off steam a little bit. I’m not advocating it, but it may be a silver

lining to the cloud”41

What this indicates, is that although the occupant of the Chair was aware that the points of

order she was acknowledging where in fact invalid points of order, she seemed it more

appropriate, given the circumstances, to allow them. This discretion allowed by the Chair

however was “exceptional” and she did not want it “to become a safety valve for ordinary

business”42

.

Herein lies the issue with the mechanism of raising points of order in the first place; they are

all at the decision of the Chair. If the Chair allows their responsibilities to waver, even if it

means quashing points of order raised as means of a safety valve in exceptional

circumstances, their authority on points of order will continue to be challenged.

Have points of order been hijacked in this parliament?

In spite of the high amount of valid points of order raised during this Parliament, at least in

raw terms, it would appear in this parliament that the points of order mechanism has been

sufficiently hijacked by Members wishing to abuse it for personal gain. Although this was a

time when tempers may have ran high, in particular during the Maastricht debates and in the

dying hours of the Parliament when the next government seemed almost certain, it still does

not offer a sufficient excuse as to why the system was continually taken advantage of.

41 Baroness Fookes, Pointless Points of Order 42 Ibid.

31



This is the first Parliament over the course of this research (but not the last) where the

Speaker changed in the middle of the parliament. On the 12th

July 2000, Betty Boothroyd

announced that she would be standing down, not only as Speaker of the House, but also as a

Member of Parliament, immediately after the summer recess43

. This led to Michael Martin,

who had been the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means for the previous three years44

,

to ascend to the Speakership45

. As with the previous Parliament, we see a Speaker who has at

least had some past experience of the role. The three Deputies for this Parliament were Sir

Alan Haslehurst46

, Sir Michael Lord47

, and Sylvia Heal (who replaced Michael Martin in

2000)48

, and again, as with the previous one, none had had any prior experience in the

Speaker’s Chair.

43 HC Debs, 12th July 2000. Vol 353 Col 869 44 Lord Martin of Springburn, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-martin-of-springburn/3899 [Accessed on 17/04/2015] 45 HC Debs, 23rd October 2000. Vol 355 Col 99 46 Sir Alan Haselhurst, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-alan-haselhurst/43 [Accessed on 17/04/2015) 47 Lord Framlingham, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-framlingham/134 [Accessed on 17/04/2015] 48 The Guardian, ‘ Sylvia Heal: Electoral history and profile’, The Gaurdian (2010) Available at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/person/2331/sylvia-heal [Accessed on 17/04/2015]

32

Visualisation of Findings

Table 7: Table showing the total number of points of order taken between 7th

May 1997 and 11th

May 200149


Boothroyd Haselhurst Martin Lord Heal Total

Valid 87 22 43 21 6 179

Continuation 64 38 42 26 0 170

Personal Issue 54 27 61 9 4 155

Ministers not making a statement/conduct 132 49 118 25 2 326

Government policy interpretations 10 0 0 0 0 10

Committee Conduct 8 3 16 5 0 32

Individual Conduct 47 23 58 28 0 156

Fillibustering 13 6 9 5 0 33

Dissent 32 34 37 29 2 134

Intervention 15 10 14 9 2 50

Valid 19% 10% 11% 13% 38% 14%

Invalid 81% 90% 89% 87% 63% 86%

Total 462 212 398 157 16 1245

33

Boothroyd Haselhurst Martin Lord

Valid 35 8 10 3


Personal Issue 22 8 3


Government policy interpretations 8

Committee Conduct 2 4 1


Fillibustering 7 1 2

Dissent 20 2 6 5


Valid 16% 16% 24% 9%

Invalid 84% 84% 76% 91%

Total 218 49 42 35

Table 8: Table showing all points of order taken between 7th

May 1997 and 19th

Nov 199850


34


Valid 32 6 5 8

Continuation 10 15 8



Government policy interpretations




Dissent 8 24 3 8


Valid 23% 7% 10% 18%

Invalid 77% 93% 90% 82%

Total 142 81 51 44

Table 9:Table showing total number of points of order taken between 24th

Nov 1998 and 11th

Nov 199951


35

Table 10: Table showing total number of points of order taken between 17th


November 200052



Valid 20 4 4 6





Committee Conduct 2


Fillibustering 4 4 2 2

Dissent 4 2 2

Intervention 4 2 2

Valid 20% 13% 17% 21%

Invalid 80% 88% 83% 79%

Total 102 32 23 28

36

Table 11: Table showing total points of order taken between 6th

December 2000 and 11th

May 200153


Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal

Valid 24 4 4 6





Committee Conduct 10 2

Individual Conduct 38 6 10

Fillibustering 6

Dissent 26 6 16 2

Intervention 8 2 2

Valid 9% 8% 8% 38%

Invalid 91% 92% 92% 63%

Total 282 50 50 16

37

Figure 7: Figure showing total number of points of order taken between 7th

May 1997 and

11th

May 200154


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Boothroyd Haselhurst Martin Lord Heal

Valid Continuation





38


May 1997 and

19th

November 199855


0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Valid Continuation





39


November 1998

and 11th

November 199956


0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Chart Title

Valid Continuation





40


Nov 1999 and

30th

Nov 200057


0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Valid Continuation





41


December 2000

and 11th

May 200158


The first item that is noteworthy from this Parliament is the number of points of order that

were actually valid. As we can see, for Betty Boothroyd, who had already been in her


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Valid Continuation





42

position for some time at the start of the Parliament, almost one fifth of points of order raised

to her were valid points. As for the other three deputies, (discounting Sylvia Heal at this

point, as she was only in the post for the 8359

sitting days of the final session of this

parliament) close to nine tenths of the points of order taken by them were deemed to be

invalid points. Although there is no direct confirmation as to why this phenomenon exists, it

is likely to do with a respect for seniority of Betty Boothroyd. Members were already aware

that she did not suffer fools, and would perhaps think twice about raising a point of order that

they deliberately knew was invalid. This occurrence may also have its elements in the respect

for the individual too, as if it were just based on seniority, Michael Martin would have not

had as many invalid points raised against him in his first year as Speaker.

The second thing to note when all the sessions of this Parliament are observed together, as

shown in figure 7 is the two very prominent spikes shown in the ‘Ministers not making a

statement/conduct’ category for both Boothroyd and Martin. It is interesting to see that of the

118 invalid points of order challenging a Minister in some way that Martin took over the four

year period, 92 of these (78%) where in the year that he was elected Speaker. This further

demonstrates the trend that when Ministers are more likely to be present, for example, during

question time, Members are more likely to raise points of order referring to them, and it is the

Speaker who will usually be in the Chair for such occasions.

A further reason as to why ‘ministers not making a statement’ is particularly high is very

likely to be to do with the policies pursued by the Labour party from 1997-2001. With

devolution to Scotland, Wales, and London, the introduction of tuition fees, the signing of the

59 Politowski, B. Hours sat and late sittings since 1979

43

Good Friday Agreement, and the reform of the House of Lords60

, the parliamentary schedule

was very busy, and Members were very likely to want to question Ministers as often as

possible.

There is also no correlation, as with the previous Parliament, whereby any category is

consistently high across all the occupants of the Speaker’s Chair. This is likely due to the

different approaches exercised by Speakers and Deputies alike, and Members will begin to

know how to approach each occupant of the Chair in turn.

One final point on the general observations of this Parliament is noticing how the Commons

appears to ‘test’ the Speakership of Michael Martin, through a trial by fire with points of

order. During the 1999-2000 session, as we can see from Table 10., only 185 points of order

were raised, 102 (56%) of which were raised to the Speaker. This was during a parliamentary

session that sat for 1443 hours61

, meaning, on average, a point of order per 8 hours of sitting.

Conversely, during the 2000-01 session of this Parliament, as shown in table 11, over double

the amount of points of order were raised. Of the 408 points of order raised, 282 (69%) were

raised to the Speaker. One also has to bear in mind that this vast amount of points of order,

which is the highest in the Parliament, was also taken over the shortest period of time. With

only 697 hours in this session62

, this works out at an average of a point of order per 1.7 hours

of sitting. Although this cannot be confirmed, the theory that presents itself appears very

fitting to the situation.

60 European Parliament, ‘Tony Blair 1997-2007 Labour’, European Parliament Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/wgme20080325cvblair_/wgme20080325cvblair_en.pdf [Accessed on 18/04/2015] 61 Politowski, B. Hours sat and late sittings since 1979 62 Ibid.

44


Several examples of invalid points of order that add additional weight to the idea that the

system is being abused were taken during the course of this parliament, the earliest being

during on the 10th

of December 1997.The exchange is as follows;

“Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Further to that point of order,

Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Please be seated, as I have not yet dealt with the point

of order raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn)--which was not a

matter for the Chair. I am also quite sure that the hon. Member for North Shropshire

(Mr. Paterson) is capable of raising issues affecting his constituents in other ways.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Further to

that point of order," but it was not a point of order. I therefore hope that he will not

continue.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a further point of order. If what my hon.

Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said is correct, there has been an

assault by Labour Members on another hon. Member. That is a matter not only for

Madam Speaker but for the Serjeant at Arms, because a criminal offence has been

committed in the House. I therefore ask you urgently to refer the matter to the

Serjeant at Arms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order.

45

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy

Speaker. I was in the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire

(Mr. Paterson), and I ask you--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will take no further points of order on that matter. I

control what happens in the Chamber. I call the hon. Member for New Forest, West

(Mr. Swayne) to present his petition.

Mr. Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is not a repeat of what we have already had.

Mr. Howarth: Madam Speaker is always telling hon. Members that she believes that

her duty, first and foremost, is to protect the rights of hon. Members, and especially

the rights of Back Benchers. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am in control of the situation in the Chamber. I have

given a ruling on the matter that was raised, and it was a good ruling63

.

As we can see from this exchange, it point blank demonstrates multiple abuses of the

mechanism of points of order. Firstly, there is persistence by Douglas Hogg to get his point

on the record, in spite of being told multiple times that there is no point of order to raise.

Secondly, three more interjections are attempted, on the same issue no less, by Gerald

Howarth. It is clear that the Members are attempting to use the point of order system, albeit

improperly, to register their dissent with how individuals have conducted themselves in the

Chamber. Although there are other methods for raising this point, through private channels

63 HC Debs 10 December 1997, Vol 302 Col 1152

46

with either the Speaker, or in this case the Serjeant at Arms, the Members feel that the

grievance will receive more prominence if it publicly aired. As it transpires, this is simply not

the case.

A further exchange, one which exemplifies how occupants of the Chair almost always deal

with points of order, even those they strongly assume to be invalid, took place in the

December of 1998

“Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I hope that it is a point of

order. Many hon. Members will not be called for this debate.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the hon. Lady's comments germane to a

debate about tax harmonisation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I knew that it was not a point of order”64

.

The method used in this exchange is what Baroness Fookes termed “the warning shot across

the bows”65

; whereby you warn someone who you feel may be close to getting out order, give

them a chance to retract, before declaring that they are, in fact, out of order. However, the

main reason for including this quotation, is that it demonstrates that Members know that

raising a point of order, regardless of whether is it are valid or not, is a way of registering

dissent without consequence. Furthermore, the Chair appears powerless, even though they

have strong superstitions that the point of order will not be genuine, to prevent the Member

from raising it.

64 HC Debs 9 December 1998 Vol 322 Col 408 65 Baroness Fookes, Pointless points of order

47

In spite of what the previous point demonstrates, occupants of the Chair are not always

completely powerless in determining whether or not points of order are worth hearing. There

was an exchange taking place on the 17th

December, an exchange which is listed in its

entirety in Appendix 2, in which Sir Alan Haselhurst states that he has either “not taking any

more points of order on the issue”66

or that “we must move on”67

on ten occasions throughout

the exchange. This is due to the fact that no less than thirty separate points of order, all of

which were invalid, were raised within the space of twenty minutes. Sir Alan is crucially

aware that Members are simply “seeking to prolong the debate and put further things on the

record”68

and it eventually leads to almost unprecedented rebuttal from the Chair. Finally, he

resorts to stating that “I cannot believe, with all honesty, that the points of order that

honourable Gentlemen seeking to raise are not related to the matter on which we have now

spent several hours”69

along with “No. I am not prepared to take the points of order.”70

The reason that this is an important inclusion, is that it demonstrates that the Chair, despite

what certain honourable Members might think, does have the authority to expressly refuse to

take points of order that it feels to be invalid. This is a precedent which is very important, as

it shows that the willingness to accept points of order is entirely at the Chairs discretion; a

“warning shot across the bows” is not needed. It is curious that such a mechanism exists, and

yet is not used to its fullest extent.

66 HC Debs 17 December 1998 Vol 322 Col 1189-1193 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid.

48

Have points of order been hijacked in this Parliament?

Although it has been demonstrated above, that it is clearly possible, using the ultimate

authority of the Chair, to curtail bogus points of order, this Parliament does not buck the trend

for demonstrating that the mechanism has been hijacked. Although it appears that Sir Alan

Haselhurst is more than willing to utilise every mechanism available to him, he is not willing

to use it unless as a last resort. This also finds some grounding in a letter which he wrote, in

which he states that “it is sometimes wise to listen to a point of order in a particular situation,

even though you suspect it may be bogus”71

. This seems to be adding further argument to the

case that points of order are only hijacked, as various occupants of the Chair allow certain

mitigating circumstances, in which they are allowed to be hijacked.



This is the only Parliament analysed over the course of this research where not only have the

occupants of the Chair remained the same throughout the Parliament, but all of them have

had previous experience in the Chair (as they simple continued on from the previous

Parliament). This, one would assume, would make this the Parliament with the fewest points

of order due to both the experience, and no necessary ‘trial by fire’ events that were needed in

2000.

71 Haselhurst, A., Response to an interview request [Letter]. Personal Communication, 20th February 2015

49

Visualisation of Findings

Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal Total

Valid 42 26 25 15 108



Ministers not making a statement/conduct 211 48 25 34 318

Government policy interpretations 2 4 5 0 11

Committee Conduct 2 2 6 3 13


Fillibustering 13 10 8 5 36

Dissent 55 26 15 25 121

Intervention 19 4 6 14 43

Valid 8% 14% 17% 9% 10%

Invalid 92% 86% 83% 91% 90%

Total 553 188 146 170 1057


June 2001 and 7th

April 200572

72 HC Debs Vol 370 432

50


Valid 8 8 12 6








Dissent 24 6 4 12

Intervention 4 8

Valid 5% 16% 21% 11%

Invalid 95% 84% 79% 89%

Total 170 50 56 57


June 2001 and 7th

Novemeber 200273


51


Valid 6 12 4 2






Individual Conduct 18 4

Fillibustering 2 2

Dissent 12 10 1

Intervention 3 1

Valid 4% 22% 36% 7%

Invalid 96% 78% 64% 93%

Total 151 54 11 27



November 200374


52


Valid 18 3 6 3





Committee Conduct 2



Dissent 8 4 2 10

Intervention 2 5

Valid 13% 9% 19% 5%

Invalid 87% 91% 81% 95%

Total 134 35 32 56


Nov 2003 and 18th

November 200475


53


Valid 10 3 3 4


Personal Issue 13 12 6


Government policy interpretations 2 4 5

Committee Conduct



Dissent 11 6 8 3

Intervention 12 2 6

Valid 10% 6% 6% 13%

Invalid 90% 94% 94% 87%

Total 98 49 47 30

Table 16: Table showing total number of points of order taken between 23rd

November2004 and 7th

April 200576


54

Figure 12: Figure showing all points of order taken between 6th

June 2001 and 7th

April

200577


0

50

100

150

200

250


Valid Continuation





55

Figure 13: figure showing total points of order taken between 6th

June 2001 and 7th

Nov

2002.78


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Valid Continuation





56

Figure 14: Figure showing total points of order taken between 13th


November 200379


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Valid Continuation





57



November 200480


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Valid Continuation





58

Figure 16: Figure showing total points of order taken between 23rd


April 200581


0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Valid Continuation





59


The first thing that is crucial to note about this Parliament, as shown in figure 12. is the

extraordinary number of invalid points of order in the ‘ministers not making a statement’

category, taken under the Speakership of Michael Martin. In fact, the 211 points of this nature

make up almost a fifth of all the points of order this Parliament. This further cements the idea

that the Speaker is primarily the individual who deals with business that involves important

members of the Government.

On the subject of ‘Ministers not making a statement/conduct’ as a category, this Parliament is

the closest we have had so far with consistency across each individual occupant of the Chair.

As Table 13. demonstrates, this category is the highest for all occupants of the Chair, the only

exception being Sir Michael Lord, for whom it is a very close second. This shows that during

the course of this Parliament, Members were particularly disgruntled with Ministers, which

might have something to do with the size of Tony Blair’s majority (which was, and the

resultant likelihood that legislation would inevitably pass. This would make members more

likely to raise these invalid points of order, as a mechanism of registering at least some level

of dissent at the way in which the Government was conducting, through its Ministers, its

business.

Given that the 2004-2005 session had less than half the sitting hours of the previous two

sessions (with only 535 hours to the previous two’s 1215 and 1287 respectively82

) it still had

a relatively high number of points of order that were raised at 224, as Table 16. establishes

(with the other two previous sessions being 257 and 243 respectively, as shown in Tables 14.

and 15.) . This final session is also the session with the highest number of invalid points of

82 Politowski, B. Hours sat and late sittings since 1979

60

order across all occupants of the Chair, with at least 85% being invalid for each of them. This

sudden level of discontent is most likely to do an impending election, and considering 86

Members of Parliament were standing down83

(amongst them the notorious Tam Daylell),

and so the Members are, for want of a better phrase, trying to get in some final words.

It is also worth noting that by this Parliament, particularly in contrast with the 1992-97

Parliament, the number of invalid points of order based on ‘Government policy

interpretations’ have all but depleted, making up only 1% of the total points taken. This could

also explain why the number of ‘Ministers conduct’ points of order have exponentially

increased; the points of order that are being raised are now seeing their anger and discontent

aimed directly at the Ministers presenting the policy, rather than at the policy itself


Given the trend that emerged over the course of this Parliament, whereby Michael Martin had

to deal with an unprecedented number of points of Order falling into the ‘Ministers category’,

it seemed appropriate to include an example. In this exchange, which is listed in Appendix 3,

Micheal Martin makes the point that “I am not responsible for Ministerial answers. That is a

problem for the Minister, not the Speaker”84

and then in response to a further point of order

utters the phrase “The honourable Gentlemen must be persistent with Ministers. That is the

best advice I can give him”85

. He then goes on to make similar remarks a further five times

during this one exchange. This persistence of Members, in spite of what the Speaker is

saying, to get their points on the record shows not only a complete lack of respect for the

individual in the Chair, but also for the mechanism of points of order itself.

83 Kimber, R. ‘Retiring MPs’ (2012) Available at http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge05/retire.htm [Accessed on 18/04/2015] 84 HC Debs 21 Nov 2001 Vol 375 Col 319 85 Ibid

61

Another observable fact which became apparent in this Parliament was the blatant use of the

points of order mechanism to actively continue debates. Below is an example;

“Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you

clarify the confusion that has arisen in the past hour, during business questions? I

have the honour and privilege to sit on the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select

Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and I do not recall any

Treasury Minister appearing in this parliamentary Session. Will you use your good

offices to request the Leader of the House to explain when any Treasury Minister last

addressed the Transport Sub-Committee?

Mr. Speaker: There is always next week. The hon. Lady can put her question to the

Leader of the House then.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin

Cook): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have this week—let us use this

week. I referred to the Transport Committee in the last Parliament. However, the

Government were the same, and we do not resile from that. The dates, if the hon.

Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) wishes to look them up, are March 1999,

when the Economic Secretary appeared, and April 1999, when the Financial Secretary

appeared.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady does not need to catch my eye next week, then”86

.

This is a direct continuation of the debate that has just ended. The very fact that the Speaker

allows the Leader of the House to intervene on a point of order, is in itself, a direct abuse of

86 HC Debs 21 March 2002 Vol 382 Col 471

62

the system. Allowing events like this to continue further demonstrate the slippery slope

mentioned previously by Baroness Fookes, in that points of order are now essentially in

danger of being used for any topic Members choose.

There are two further instances in this Parliament, which even though they are almost three

years apart, both represent another prime abuse of the mechanism of points of order, and the

seeming reluctance, if not supposed impotence, or the chair. The first instance is from April

2002

“Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order from the hon. Member for North-

West Leicestershire (David Taylor), although it will probably not be a point of order.

David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise us whether

"Erskine May" describes this continuous rebuttal of would-be interventions as either

intellectual weakness or political cowardice?

Mr. Speaker: I knew that it was not going to be a point of order”87

The second instance, which is in a similar vein, is from 2005

“Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker indicated dissent.

Mr. Sheerman: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I bet it is not.

Mr. Sheerman: I will not ask how much.

87 HC Debs 23 Apr 2002 Vol 384

63

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is in a state of confusion. May the

House be suspended for five minutes while he takes counsel from the Leader of the

Opposition and the shadow—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please have a seat. I won the bet.

What this demonstrates is that although the Speaker is very sure that the points of order raised

in both instances will not be valid, they are still taken by the Chair. As we have seen from the

previous Parliament, an occupant of the Chair can expressly refuse to take points of order, so

why, in these instances, they are still taken, is rather perplexing. If there is no system in place

for the Chair to rebuff Members, then Members will continue to take advantage of the

mechanism of points of order and use them improperly.

Have points of order being hijacked?

One thing which is becoming increasingly more apparent in this Parliament compared to

others is not only that points of order themselves have been hijacked, but that those who are

supposedly in the position to prevent this, are become lackadaisical in their approach. If this

trend continues to happen, then it will prove to be a Herculean task to remedy the abused

mechanism of points of order.



This Parliament sees all three of the previous Deputies remain in their place for the full

duration, meaning they had a combined length of service of almost 46 years888990

, so the

experience in dealing with invalid points of order from Members should be well grounded.

However, it is also during this time that we see the election of a new Speaker, in the form of

88 Sir Alan Haselhurst, Parliament.uk 89 Baron Framlingham, Parliament.uk 90 Sylvia Heal: Electoral history and profile’, The Gaurdian

64

John Bercow91

. It will be interesting to see how his experience, of being a newly elected

Speaker in the final session of a Parliament, draws parallels with the Speakership of Michael

Martin, and whether or not a similar ‘trial by fire’ experience will occur.

91 John Bercow, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/john-bercow/17 [Accessed on 20/04/2015]

65

Visualisation of findings

Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal Bercow Total

Valid 30 22 16 12 22 102

Continuation 49 49 23 16 34 171

Personal Issue 53 31 9 24 36 153





Fillibustering 10 7 5 4 2 28

Dissent 25 16 12 7 10 70


Valid 8% 11% 14% 9% 12% 10%

Invalid 92% 89% 86% 91% 88% 90%

Total 361 192 117 131 180 981


May 2005 to 8th

April 201092


66


Valid 8 4 2 3





Committee Conduct 3 2 2



Dissent 6 2 2 2

Intervention 4 4 2

Valid 10% 7% 6% 6%

Invalid 90% 93% 94% 94%

Total 83 57 36 53


May 2005 and 8th

Nov 200693



67

Valid 10 10 4 6


Personal Issue 10 10



Committee Conduct 2


Fillibustering 4 1

Dissent 8 4 4 5

Intervention 2 2

Valid 11% 16% 16% 25%

Invalid 89% 84% 84% 75%

Total 92 61 25 24



October 200794


Valid 8 4 6 2



68

Personal Issue 14 2

Ministers not making a statement/conduct 42 4 14


Committee Conduct 2


Fillibustering 6

Dissent 8 2 4


Valid 7% 18% 30% 7%

Invalid 93% 82% 70% 93%

Total 108 22 20 30



November 200895


Valid 6 1 2 1

Continuation 15 3 3


69




Committee Conduct 4



Dissent 3 1

Intervention 3 1 1

Valid 8% 8% 11% 13%

Invalid 93% 92% 89% 88%

Total 80 13 18 8

Table 21: table showing total points of order taken between 3rd

December 2008 and 12th

November 200996

Bercow Haselhurst Heal Lord

Valid 22 6 4 3



70




Committee Conduct 6



Dissent 10 8 1


Valid 12% 14% 20% 16%

Invalid 88% 86% 80% 84%

Total 180 42 20 19



April 201097


71

Figure 17:Figure showing total number of points of order taken between 11th

May 2005 and

8th

April 201098


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal Bercow

Valid Continuation





72


May 2005 and 8th

November 200699


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Valid Continuation





73

Figure 19: figure showing total points of order taken between 15ht November 2006 and 30th

October 2007100

100 HC Debs Vol 453-465

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Valid Continuation





74



November 2008101

101 HC Debs Vol 467-483

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Valid Continuation





75

Figure 21: Figure showing total number of points of order taken between 3rd

December 2008

and 12th

November 2009102

102 HC Debs Vol 485-499

0

5

10

15

20

25


Valid Continuation





76

Figure 22:Figure showing the total number of points of order taken between 18th

November

2009 and 8th

April 2010103

103 HC Debs Vol 501-508

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Bercow Haselhurst Heal Lord

Valid Continuation





77


As with the previous Parliament, the Speakership of Michael Martin appears to have been

characterised by an inability to control Members from raising points of order directed

specifically at Ministers, as shown in figure 13. As we can also observe from this figure, the

primacy of the Speaker is solidified, as John Bercow receives almost as many points of order

during his short time in the Chair than two of his Deputies received over the course of five

years.

Continuing to observe Figure 13, it is also quite apparent that the column concerning

‘individual conduct’ stands out a lot more than it did over the previous Parliaments. This is

most likely to do with the increased amount of social media that was now starting to be used

in politics around this time, where a quick jibe at an individual, even if it were through the

points of order mechanism, could be the means of a quick headline. If anything were to

further denigrate the role a point of order should play in our parliamentary system, social

media is certainly a contender. This apparent rise in using points of order for personal attacks

has completely removed any points of order from the ‘government policy interpretations’

There is still yet to be a Parliament where all occupants of the Chair have had one particular

categorisation of point of order shine out amongst the rest, and this Parliamentary session is

no exception to that rule.

If at this point we turn to Figure 17 we can see an unusually high amount of ‘individual

conduct’ point of order raised against Michael Martin; it should be noted that the vast

majority of these were raised against the Speaker himself, in regards to the expense scandal.

78


One instance in this Parliament which seems worthy of noting, is so for two reasons. The first

is because it shows, after ten years of dealing with, as he called them, ‘bogus points of

order’104

, Sir Alan Haselhurst is not willing to allow any further abuse of the system. It also

demonstrates the willingness of Members to use any tool they think is available to them to get

their point across.

“Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on a matter that has just been

debated in this House. This House has made its decision; the other place has made a

decision that has nothing directly to do with us. The Secretary of State has responded

to a point of order in a way that I would hope is helpful to the House.

Several hon. Members rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will allow a point of order from the hon. Member for Bath

(Mr. Foster) as he has some connection with this, but we will not have a general

debate.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): I am extremely grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The

amendment that was successful in another place was in the name of my hon. Friend

Lord Clement-Jones. It required the separation of the order that was before us into

two halves so that some of it could go forward—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was trying to give the hon. Gentleman some latitude,

but I am afraid that he has abused it. That is not a point of order.

104 Haselhurst, A. Response to an interview request.

79

Several hon. Members rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that there can be any further debate on

this matter. It is not now a matter for this House—it is for the Government to reflect

on what has happened. The House must await an announcement, which the Secretary

of Secretary has undertaken to give. I believe that a line has to be drawn under the

matter at this stage.”105

This also offers a perfect example of a statement Baroness Fookes proclaimed during her

interview. When asked what could be done to tackle invalid points of order, she said

“They can only be tackled head on by those who are responsible, as the Speakers and

the Deputies, and a lot has to rest with them, to sit on people who make bogus points

of order. It’s a bit like children, they will take advantage if there is no clear rule, or no

strong leadership, they will use whatever methods they can106

”

There is also a further example from this Parliament, one concerning the newly elected

Speaker, which demonstrates the style in which he intends to define his Speakership;

“Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am

sure that the Leader of the Opposition did not mean to mislead the House when he

said that Michael Foot was a friend of the Soviet Union. Michael was a staunch anti-

Stalinist and a critic of the Soviet Union. When I was put in prison by the communists

in Warsaw for supporting Solidarity, Michael Foot came to support my release, at a

time when Margaret Thatcher was denying visas to Poles who were trying to escape

105 HC Debs 28 March 2007 Vol 458 Col 1602 106 Baroness Fookes, Pointless points of order

80

from communism. We need to learn some history, which the Leader of the Opposition

is wholly incapable of.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his attempted point of order. With

his customary force and clarity, he has put his views on the record. I must say to him

and to the House that I was, of course, listening very carefully to what the Leader of

the Opposition said-I always listen carefully to what every right hon. and hon.

Member says-and my distinct recollection is that he referred to his disagreement with

the views of Mr. Foot on the subject of nuclear disarmament- [ Interruption. ] Will

the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) let me

finish? [ Interruption. ] Order. I will deal with this. The right hon. Gentleman has

asked me for a ruling, and he is going to get it. He ought to listen to my ruling, which

I hope the House will do as well. The Leader of the Opposition said that he disagreed

with Mr. Foot's views on nuclear weapons and on the Soviet Union, but he certainly

did not accuse him of supporting the Soviet Union-

Mr. MacShane rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to get into any further debate on the matter, and I

do not think that the right hon. Gentleman seriously expects me to do so.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we

celebrate an unusual occasion-namely, an apology from a Secretary of State? Is there

a way of putting it on the official Hansard record? The Speaker will know that-

81

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to cut the hon. Gentleman off; it is always a pleasure

to listen to his mellifluous tones. Even as he is delivering his attempted point of order,

however, he is barely able to conceal his smile, for the simple reason that he knows

perfectly well that what he is saying does not constitute a point of order-

Michael Fabricant rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his views on the official record-

[ Interruption. ] Well, he has as far as I am concerned, and he is not going to have the

opportunity to do so any further. I have made my position clear, and I shall brook no

contradiction107

”

What this extract shows us, is that Bercow is aware of when something is not a point of order,

and will insist on telling Members when they are not giving correct ones, as his response to

Michael Fabricant establishes. However, the verbosity in which he administers his reply to

both individuals in this instances, especially Denis McShane, is unnecessarily unwieldy. In

Denis McShane’s case, he all but answers the question, in spite of originally chastising the

Member for not raising a proper point of order. This is noteworthy, as it shows at this early

stage, that over the course of his Speakership, this trend could evolve either way; one being

good for the mechanism of points of order, and one being rather detrimental.

Further in this exchange, John Bercow himself admits that he has been “trying to respond in

detail108

” to the points of order put to him, and that “it is not right to abuse the procedure of

making points of order to develop, extend or start debates109

”. One would think, at this stage,

107 HC Debs 10 March 2010 Vol 507 col 299-305 108 Ibid 109 Ibid

82

that no further points of order would be taken, but several more are taken. This could be to do

with the fact that, as critics have pointed out, he “loves the sound of his own voice”110

.

Having a Speaker with this quality does not bode well for how he intends to take points of

order.

Have points of order been hijacked during this parliament?

It has become more apparent that during the course of this Parliament that not only has the

points of order mechanism been abused, but it appears to be the beginning of an era in which

it is facilitated by the occupants of the Chair. It shall be interesting to see whether or not a

revival of stricter Chairs comes back in the subsequent Parliament, or if this downward trend

continues.

2010-14 Parliament


This Parliament sees a new set of Deputy Speakers, one of which resigns half way through

the term following criminal allegations111

. This mean that one session of this Parliament will

have a new First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, whose time in office will have to be

examined with a pinch of salt. The newly elected Deputy Speakers in 2010 were Lindsay

Hoyle112

, Nigel Evans113

, and Dawn Primarolo114

, with the election of Eleanor Laing115

110 Oborne, P. ‘John Bercow and his cronies threaten this countries parliamentary democracy’, The Telegraph 24/08/2014. Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11059163/John-Bercow-and-his-cronies-threaten-this-countrys-parliamentary-democracy.html [Accessed on 20/04/2015] 111 BBC, ‘Nigel Evans quits as Deputy Speaker amid sex charges’, 11 September 2013, Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24042797 [Accessed on 21/04/2015] 112 Rt Hon Lindsay Hoyle, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mr-lindsay-hoyle/467 [Accessed on 22/04/2015] 113 Mr Nigel Evans, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mr-nigel-evans/474 [Accessed on 22/04/2015] 114 Rt Hon Dame Dawn Primarolo, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/dame-dawn-primarolo/217 [Accessed on 22/04/2015]

83

happening in 2013. John Bercow continues in his post as Speaker of the House, but he still

has very little experience of being in the Chair compared to previous Speakers at this stage. It

should also be noted at this stage that not only were many of the new occupants of the Chair

new and inexperienced, but there had also been a turnover of almost a third of Members of

Parliament, with 227 new ones116

. The greenness of this Parliament could prove very

interesting as far as points of order are concerned.

115 Mrs Eleanor Laing, Parliament.uk 116 Characteristics of the new House of Commons, Parliament.uk Available at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/the-new-parliament/characteristics-of-the-new-house-of-commons/ [Accessed on 22/05/15]

84

Visualisations of Findings

Bercow Hoyle Evans Primarolo Laing Total

Valid 20 8 7 6 3 44

Continuation 72 15 13 13 3 116

Personal Issue 115 31 12 10 5 173





Filibustering 9 0 1 5 2 17

Dissent 21 5 4 2 0 32


Valid 4% 6% 8% 9% 15% 5%

Invalid 96% 94% 92% 91% 85% 95%

Total 493 131 92 68 20 804

Table 23: table showing total number of points of order taken between 18th

May 2010 and 14th

May 2014117

117 HC Debs Vol 510-580

85

Bercow Hoyle Evans Primarolo

Valid 10 3 4 2







Filibustering 4 4

Dissent 16 3 4

Intervention 12 2

Valid 3% 4% 9% 5%

Invalid 97% 96% 91% 95%

Total 306 84 44 39

Table 24:Table showing total point of order taken between 18th

May 2010 and 1st May 2012

118

118 HC Debs Vol 510-543

86


Valid 5 3 2 3

Continuation 4 3 2


Ministers not making a statement/conduct 56 10 16




Filibustering 1 1

Dissent 1 2

Intervention 1 2 1

Valid 5% 11% 5% 20%

Invalid 95% 89% 95% 80%

Total 97 27 39 15


June 2012 and 25th

April 2013119

119 HC Debs Vol 545-561

87

Bercow Hoyle Evans Liang Primarolo

Valid 5 2 1 3 1



Ministers not making a statement/conduct 20 4 1 1 1




Filibustering 5 2

Dissent 4 2


Valid 6% 10% 11% 15% 7%

Invalid 94% 90% 89% 85% 93%

Total 90 20 9 20 14

Table 26: table showing total points of order taken between 8th

May 2013 and 14th

May 2014120

120 HC Debs Vol 563-580

88

Figure 23:Figure showing total number of points of order taken between 18th

May 2010 to

14th

May 2014121

121 HC Debs Vols 510-580

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Bercow Hoyle Evans Primarolo Laing

Valid Continuation





89

Figure 24: Figure showing total number of points of order raised between 18th

May 2010 and

14th

May 2012122

122 HC Debs Vol 510-543

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Valid Continuation





90


June 2012 and 25th

April

2013123


0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Valid Continuation





91

Figure 26: Figure showing total number of points of order between 8th

May 2013 and 14th

May 2014124

124 HC Debs Vol 563-580

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Bercow Hoyle Evans Liang Primarolo

Valid Continuation





92


The first observation with this Parliament, is the sheer amount of points of order that are

invalid. With the Speaker himself at a tremendous 96% rate of invalidity, and all of his

principal Deputies (excluding Eleanor Laing for the same reason Sylvia Heal was excluded

earlier) presenting an invalidity rate of at least 90%, this is certainly the worst Parliament in

terms of people using invalid points of order.

As Figure 23 shows a distinct similarity between the invalid points of order taken by John

Bercow and Lindsay Hoyle. Both have the highest proportion of their points being raised in

the ‘Ministerial’ category, followed closely by ‘personal issue’, with ‘continuation’ and

‘individual conduct’ coming third and fourth. What this exhibits is that both occupants of the

Chair are treated similarly by individual Members, who appear that both Bercow and Hoyle

will be as sympathetic to their causes in these areas. Contradictorily, Dawn Primarolo has no

stand out invalidity which is raised more often, implying that she does not react

sympathetically to any particular categorisation of invalid point of order.

A further observation at this stage would be the prominence of the “personal issue”

categorisation, considering it is both the second most prolific category in the entire

Parliament for both John Bercow and Lindsay Hoyle (see Fig. 23), and the most abundant

category in the final session analysed for Bercow, Hoyle, and Laing (see Fig. 26) This is most

likely to do with the sheer amount of new Members, and their lack of knowledge as to what

constitutes a proper point of order. It is as Baroness Fookes stated in her interview that “one

of the problems is you get too many people in together and it’s very easy for the way of doing

things and the standards to slip because of the influx of new people coming in at once125

”

125 Baroness Fookes Pointless Points of Order Interview

93


One point of order which would be impertinent to not mention, would be an exchange

between Eleanor Laing and the Speaker, upon confirming her appointment as the next First

Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr Speaker: In a moment—I am saving the hon. Lady up.

The results under the single transferable vote system will be made available as soon as

possible in the Vote Office and published on both the intranet and the internet for public

viewing. Let us hear first from the hon. Lady.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Laing: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I welcome the announcement you have

just made? I thank the Clerks and Officers of the House for the way they conducted today’s

election, and for doing it so swiftly. I would like, on behalf of all the candidates who took

part, to thank each of the other candidates for the demure and pleasant way the election was

conducted. I thank the House for placing its confidence in me to let me become part of your

team. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s typically gracious words. What she said by way of

tribute to the staff of the House, who are always exemplary in professionalism, discretion and

efficiency, will have been noted, in particular126

.

In this exchange, her first act upon assuming the post of Deputy Speaker, one of the supposed

guardians of the mechanism of points of order, uses an invalid point of order. It should also

126 HC Debs 16 October 2013 Vol 568 Col 801

94

be noted that she was invited to speak by the Speaker, and yet she still insisted on raising a

point of order to get her point across. The completely undermines the mechanism of points of

order, and this is evidence of it descending into disrepute.

There is also evidence of the trend we noticed emerging in the 2001-05 Parliament, which is

the direct continuation of debate facilitated by the use of points of order, except in this

instance, it is exacerbated.

“Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Leader of the House referred to the supplementary programme motion. I have

checked with the Table Office and the Public Bill Office, and no such supplementary

programme motion has yet been tabled. If Members seek to amend that

supplementary programme motion, they have to do so before close of business today.

Could you advise, sir, how we can amend a motion that has not been laid?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): It may be helpful for the Leader of the

House to give us an answer to that question.

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley): It is just over four

and a half hours until the close of business. We will strive to ensure that the

supplementary programme motion is laid, with time thereafter for Members to seek to

amend it, should they choose to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It may be helpful to the House to know that manuscript

amendments are acceptable in an emergency, if need be127

”

127 HC Debs 14 March 2013 Vol 560 Col 506

95

Rather that the Leader of the House responded point of order with another point of order, as

was the case with Jack Straw that we observed earlier, in this instance he is actually invited

by the occupant of the Chair to respond. Not only was this improper point of order not dealt

as it should have been, but the Deputy Speaker actively allowed the continuation of debate.

This is what Question Time is intended for, and it should not be allowed to continue.

Have points of order been hijacked?

During this Parliament, more than any that have been observed in this research, it is self-

evident that the points of order mechanism has been hijacked. Not only has it reached the

stage now where the occupants of the Chair are complicit in allowing points of order that are

invalid to occur, it has even become the case where they are actively facilitating it.

Conclusion

Before coming to the final conclusion based on the research conducted in this piece, it feels

appropriate to revisit the aims that were originally set out in the proposal, to determine

whether or not they have been completed.

96

What has been discerned from each original aim?

To discover if the use of points of order has changed over time

As we can see from Tables 7, 12, 17, and 23 the most prolific invalid point of order category

raised to the Speaker across these four Parliament, was concerning the conduct of Ministers

in some way, and as table 1 shows, it was the second most prominent category in the 1992-97

Parliament. Although with this data present, it would be easy to make the claim that nothing

has changed, one has to observe the other categories. One cannot ignore the fact that those

points of order accounting for ‘Government policy interpretations’ decreased from 7.5% of

the total raised in the 1992-97 Parliament (see Table 1) to 0.2% of those raised in 2010-14

(see table 23), and none at all raised in 2005-10 (see Table 17). The potential reasoning for

this is explained in the research, and the consequences of this (seeing less scrutiny of

Government in favour of individual attacks) has consequences in its own right. It should also

be taken into account the rise in ‘personal issues’ over time, which is more than likely to do

with the rise of the constituency base of Members of Parliament. These three aspects appear

to demonstrate that the usage over time has altered, and it has altered and evolved in the same

way that Parliament has over that same time period.

To discover if the correct use of points of order has changed over time?

The evidence provides us with a very clear answer to this question; yes, and in a negative

manner. Valid points of order have decreased from their high point of almost a quarter of all

taken (24%) in the 1992-97 parliament, progressively gotten worse in each Parliament (14%

in 1997-2001, 10% in 2001-05, 10% in 2005-10), before culminating in the lowest number in

the 2010-14 Parliament at only 5%. As explained previously, this is most likely due to so

many new Members who haven’t been shown how to use the mechanism (and are unlikely to

97

learn), combined with occupants of the Speaker’s Chair who are reluctant to deal with the

issue at hand.

To find out if Speakers/Deputy Speakers feel the use of point of order has changed

over time, and whether their role in interpreting them has changed

The first issue with assessing this point is the lack of responses to interview requests that

were received. Given that only two interviews were conducted, both of which were given by

occupants of the Chair during the same period, this makes this aim harder to fulfil. Baroness

Fookes was of the thinking, that it did not matter individual Members felt that the point of

order mechanism had evolved, or even if subsequent occupants of the Chair felt it had

evolved; if a point of order was invalid, it was invalid. When queried on Eleanor Laing’s

definition of a point of order, she stated this should be “the exception, not the rule”128

. So,

from these two definitions, it becomes clear that individual occupants of the Chair have

different opinions on what points of order are, but those opinions have not altered over time.

To discover if raising a point of order is no longer useful as its intended purpose, or if

it remains useful due to its changed nature over time.

If at this stage, we are continuing to base the intended purpose of a point of order to be that

what is set out in Erskine May, then there can be only one answer to this question. The

intended purpose of the point of order mechanism has been undermined in such a way, that

few would even think of the validity of their intended point of order before raising it to the

occupant of the Chair, and this has seen its usefulness decline significantly. However,

depending on whether or not one accepts that the point of order is defined by what is set out

128 Baroness Fookes, Pointless Points of Order

98

in Erskine May, or by those who happen to be the occupants of the Speaker’s Chair at the

time. If one believes the latter to be the case, than a point of order still remains useful.

To discover if one purpose for an invalid point of order is used more than others

If one observes the vast majority of Figures presented in this paper, it becomes obvious that

the most often used invalid point of order, across every Parliament and almost all sessions

within them, concerns Ministerial conduct. These points of order invariably come after the

Question Time session of that day, or at the very beginning of the day when the Order Paper

lacks a statement on a particular issue. Given the primacy of this issue, if any solution were to

be found to the current issue we are experiencing with invalid points of order, this element

would have to be addressed first.

To discover if certain political parties are more prolific at raising improper points of

order than others

Due to the overwhelming nature of the research undertaken, this was something which,

although would have been interesting to discover, was sacrificed due to improper time

management.

To discover if particular Members of Parliament are more willing to abuse the points

of order system than others.

As was stated within the reflection section of this paper, if more research had been conducted

earlier on, perhaps this aim could have been answered more thoroughly. As was stated

previously, there are certain individuals, who could be termed ‘repeat offenders’, but without

allowing them to state their case through interview, it seems improper to list them here.

99

The Answer

In terms of the question that was posed at the beginning of this research, the answer is not as

simplistic as one had hoped it would be. It is undoubtedly true that the points of order

mechanism has been hijacked over the years, at an increasing rate, by those who wish to use

it improperly. However, it still remains the only mechanism in place by which a Member can

raise a procedural point, and that mechanism is sacred.

By this extension, the logic is not to proclaim that the point of order mechanism is altered, it

is to say how can we get it to revert back to its intended purpose. As Baroness Fookes stated

in her interview “it shouldn’t be a case of ‘let it be done’, but should be ‘let’s find a better

way of doing it’”129

Is there still a point to points of order?

Ultimately, what this research has determined is that there is still a point to point of orders, it

just needs the right sort of people to restore it to its proper usage. Through the use of better

education for newly elected Members of the House, who will then be better informed of the

mechanism, it will reduce the problem significantly. However, it is with the Speakers and

Deputy Speakers, with whom the true fate of the points of order mechanism lies. If they are

will to address this issue head on and no longer suffer those who raise invalid points of order,

and exercise their right to expressly refuse to take them, the points of order mechanism could

see the renaissance it has been seeking for a long time.

Appendices

Appendix 1

The Second Deputy Chairman : Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

129 Baroness Fookes, Pointless points of order

100

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : On a point of order, Dame Janet. A few minutes ago, you said

that you deprecated long interventions. As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I fully accept

that ruling, but will you accept that hon. Members who have been sitting for many hours are

deeply concerned that when the Minister, who is one of the great architects of this misguided

treaty and policy, sits down, the closure motion will be moved?

Hon. Members who have a valuable contribution to make to the debate have not had the

opportunity to do so. The amendments allow Members on both sides of the Committee to

debate the principle behind title I of the treaty and to articulate our fundamental opposition to

what the House, under the guidance of the Government, is likely to be forced to do.

Constitutional issues are being forced through, not in a free debate but on a three-line Whip. I

ask you to say that you will allow the debate to go on after the Minister has sat down. Several

hon. Members rose --

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I shall deal with one point of order at a time.

As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)

will be well aware that, in Committee, the presence of a Minister at the Dispatch Box does

not mean, as it would in an ordinary debate, the end of the debate. I cannot anticipate what

might happen after that.

Mr. Winnick : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. You are aware of the importance

of the debate and I know that you and your colleagues in the Chair wish to defend the

integrity of the House and the Committee. You said that the fact that the Minister intends to

speak again does not mean that the debate will be concluded. As many hon. Members on both

sides want to speak, if a closure motion is moved, I beg you, in defending the Committee and

101

bearing in mind how crucial the debate is, not to accept it. The decision, I understand, lies

with you. A rumour--it may be unfounded--is circulating that a closure motion will be moved

shortly, certainly before 10 o'clock or just at 10 o'clock. In those circumstances, if you are in

the Chair, Dame Janet, I beg you not to allow the motion to be moved, because it would make

a mockery of the debate.

Several hon. Members rose --

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I shall deal with this point of order first.

I do not anticipate what may happen ; I deal with what happens. I confirm that the acceptance

of such a motion is entirely at my discretion.

Mr. Devlin : Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for

Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Dame

Janet. Some hon. Members sat here yesterday evening--as you know, because you accepted

two points of order from me. A number of the hon. Members who are rising in their places

have already intervened in long speeches. This is an extensive debate, with many

amendments, and many hon. Members are keen to make progress. I therefore hope, with all

the hope in my heart, that you will accept a closure as soon as possible so that we can get on.

Mr. Rowlands : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I have sat here almost continuously from

3.30 pm to 10 pm yesterday and from 3.45 pm today until now. Like other hon. Members, I

therefore feel able to make a plea to you.

You said that the fact the Minister intends to speak again does not mean that the debate will

be concluded. Some of us wish to follow up aspects of the Minister's speech and put some

102

points to him, to which we should like a reply. Will you consider not calling the Minister so

that other hon. Members can make their speeches and put some specific points to the Minister

that arose from his speech yesterday afternoon?

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. We spent a

considerable amount of time on this debate yesterday, and at 10 pm we will have devoted a

whole day to it today. I would not for a minute suggest what you should do, but I merely

point out that, by then, we will have had as long as we normally have on a Second Reading

debate. It must surely be obvious to everyone that certain hon. Members, far from observing

the 10-minute rule, have occupied-- [Interruption.] I am as aware as anyone that there is no

rule, but I also know, as you do, Dame Janet, that, when colleagues are anxious to let as many

hon. Members speak as possible, they practise a little self-denial.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. It is a convention of

the House that speeches move from one side of the Chamber to the other. The last speaker

was a Conservative Member, so it was confidently expected that a Labour Member would be

called next. You called the Minister, which has given rise to a number of fears. Indeed, the

Minister had a brief conversation with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to

indicate, from what I could tell, that he was going to get in immediately after the hon.

Gentleman, and that he could curtail his remarks.

The debate is being keenly argued, and many hon. Members want to speak, which is another

consideration that Chairmen of Committees bear in mind. I was told that the Minister was

going to speak at 8.30 pm, the closure would be moved, and it had all been set up. If that

103

happened--I am sure that you, Dame Janet, would not be a party to it--it would provoke great

anger.

This is an important issue, and many hon. Members have a lot to say about it. Once we leave

these amendments, we shall lose the opportunity to talk about title I, which is important. This

debate is vital to us all. I am not making any jokes about false points of order. If we do not

have the opportunity to debate the treaty, I and many other hon. Members will be extremely

angry about the Government conspiring to deny us the opportunity to speak. I hope that my

hon. Friends on the Front Bench are not involved in that agreement, or consensus--because

there is no consensus tonight.

The Second Deputy Chairman : I know nothing of any private conversations or

conspiracies--and if I did, they would not move me one iota.

Mr. Richard Shepherd : On a point of order, Dame Janet. When the Chairman of Ways and

Means, unusually, convened a meeting on Monday, he emphasised that he recognised the

great importance of title I, and the fact that, as it constructed the architecture of the Bill, it

gave us probably our only opportunity to view the treaty and the Bill in perspective.

Some of us could not speak on Second Reading because of the demand of so many hon.

Members to speak, and the Chairman of Ways and Means suggested that we would have the

opportunity to come back. There is therefore a sense of alarm that the Minister is being called

at such an early stage, when so few people have spoken. One has not had an opportunity--

[Interruption.] The point is that Mr. Morris showed us that he recognised that the matters

before us are terribly important. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member had spoken out of order,

I am sure that the occupant of the Chair would have notified the individual concerned.

104

There is a real sense of anxiety that we may be frustrating the purpose of the Committee

stage, and our examination of the important title I. The amendment was moved by the Liberal

Democrats, and it will be to the disadvantage of other hon. Members who wish to speak on

the subject if we subvert the processes of proper debate.

Mr. Spearing : On a point of order, Dame Janet. The whole House recognises that if anyone

claims to move the closure the occupant of the Chair has to make a decision in the

circumstances at the time, and do a balancing act. May I, through this point of order, put to

you two matters which I hope that you will bear in mind if that occasion should arise at any

time during the debate on the amendments?

As Mr. Morris said, and as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)

reminded us, this debate is in a sense a broad conspectus on the total meaning of the treaty as

contained in title I. The breadth and gravity of the matters concerned are considerable, and

they affect this country's constitution.

The Minister found some difficulty talking about those matters yesterday--

Mr. Garel-Jones indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing : The Minister shakes his head, but I believe that there was some difficulty in

the manner in which he replied to some of his hon. Friends, and to some Opposition

Members. It is not appropriate for the Minister to speak again before some of us have had an

opportunity to follow up those important matters--unless there will be another opportunity for

us to speak, and the debate is to continue.

105

I therefore hope that, if you have to make such a decision, Dame Janet, you will bear in mind

that important consideration, and the fact that several of my hon. Friends and I have been in

the Chamber all day yesterday and most of today, yet we have not had the opportunity even

to comment on what the Minister said in his opening speech yesterday.

Mr. Butcher : On a point of order, Dame Janet. The part of the Committee discussion which

deals with title I is of fundamental constitutional importance. I readily concede that some

over-lengthy speeches have been made in the House in the past two days, but some hon.

Members who have an immense contribution to make to the debate have waited patiently to

speak. There is a clash on the exact meaning and applicability of title I--and we may never

have another chance to discuss it. Six or seven major questions remain in the air, and have

not been resolved.

If you were asked a question about the closure, would you think it fair to close the debate

after the Minister had spoken? May I put that question to you now?

The Second Deputy Chairman : The hon. Gentleman may put the question, but I retain my

discretion, and I do not answer hypothetical questions.

Mr. Ian Taylor : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Will you give guidance to the Committee

? It seems to me that the debate on title I and on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member

for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has contained many of the same points

as were raised in earlier debates on the Bill.

I am aware that we are in Committee, but many of the points raised in the debate have been

raised at earlier stages, especially on Second Reading. That is important, because the Bill has

106

already been discussed by the House for longer than all the stages of the Single European

Act. There can be no question of there not having been a proper debate. If certain of my hon.

Friends decided to make very long speeches covering all the points, naturally it will not be

possible for other hon. Members to contribute if we are to make progress.

I hope that we can make progress on the Bill, Dame Janet. Many of us would like to

contribute to debates on amendments on the Order Paper, which will be discussed in later

groups. This debate on the opening group has already been very long.

Mr. George Robertson : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Unfortunately, you are embroiled

in dealing with hypothetical situations, but may I offer you the information that it is my view,

and that of my hon. Friends, that the Opposition have not had an adequate opportunity to air

our variety of views on the fundamental part of the debate which is now taking place? Lest

there be confusion in anyone's mind, let me tell the House what I told the Minister earlier this

evening : if the Government Whips choose to move the closure at this stage, we shall oppose

it.

Mr. Shore : The House has entirely legitimate anxieties about the Minister's intentions. Is it

not possible for the Minister himself to rise on a point of order and allay those anxieties by

assuring us that he has no intention of moving the closure--[ Hon. Members :-- "Or anyone

else."]--yes, or anyone else on the Government Front Bench.

The Second Deputy Chairman : That is, of course, not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Garel-Jones rose --

Mr. Bill Walker rose --

107

Hon. Members : Sit down.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I tell the right hon. Member for

Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that I have no notion what the intention of the

business managers may be--

Mr. Winnick : Why don't you ask them ?

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Several hon. Members rose -

-

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I am taking a point of order from Mr. Davies. It is a

point of order, I take it?

Mr. Davies : Yes, Dame Janet. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have sat here for almost two

days. This debate is not the debate we had on Second Reading. We are discussing some

difficult legal matters, including the justiciability of title I. The Minister of State made some

important points, although he has not clarified many of the matters which we wish to raise. If

the debate is closed after his second intervention, we will have no further opportunity to

debate those matters

Mr. Bill Walker : On a point of order, Dame Janet. We have had a two -day debate, and

some of us have sat through the whole two days. You will notice that I represent one of the

Scottish constituencies. Some aspects of title I must be addressed, as they affect the unitary

Parliament and the Union. It is necessary for me to raise matters with the Minister and to get

some sort of answer. I fail to see how I can do that if the Minister addresses the Committee

now. It will give the Government no opportunity to answer the matters that I wish to put to

108

the Minister. That would certainly send the wrong message to Scotland and to the rest of the

country.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you

explain why the Minister looks as if he is about to be called to speak again when other hon.

Members have not spoken once, although they have sat through the whole debate? Some of

us want to hear those other Members. Why have we broken the rule that we call hon.

Members alternately from both sides of the Chamber? Will two Conservative Members be

called consecutively? Are you aware that our fears have been strengthened as a result of the

non-assurance and the weasel words of the Minister?

The Second Deputy Chairman : The right hon. Member I was about to call is the Minister

in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen : On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I express my extreme distaste for the

way in which the Minister of State dealt with the Committee a moment ago? He had an

opportunity to calm the Committee and to offer a reasonably conciliatory gesture. However,

he tried by a clever sleight of tongue to give an ambivalent answer to you, simply to irritate

the Committee.

With the exception of the Government, the Committee wishes the debate to continue. If we

are to have satisfactory discussions, we must create some trust between the Minister who is

dealing with the matter and the rest of the Committee. The Minister's ambivalent--I even go

so far as to say impertinent--remark does nothing but create contempt.

109

The Second Deputy Chairman : The Committee will appreciate that I am not responsible

for the answers given by a Minister or, indeed, by any other hon. Member.

Mr. Barnes : On a point of order, Dame Janet. We are in some difficulty because you have

called the Minister to speak, and the points of order are an attempt to make you change your

mind. I appreciate that you have already made your decision. In those circumstances, would it

not be helpful if the Minister announced that he did not wish to speak at this stage, but that he

would be willing to speak later? The Minister's remark was not helpful to the Committee. He

can now rise on a point of order and assist us all.

Mrs. Gorman : On a point of order, Dame Janet, I appeal to your sense of fairness in the

matter. Many of us on the Back Benches, who, because we are not Privy Councillors and

have not held offices that would enable us to attract the attention of the Chair in such a

debate, have tried in vain many times to contribute to debates on Europe. That means that we

sit for hours during such debates. On Second Reading, I tried to speak on the subject--

[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I have great difficulty in hearing, due to the

sedentary comments of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). That is not

acceptable to me.

Mrs. Currie : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I apologise ; I merely wished to make the

point that what was said by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was not a point of

order ; it was a load of humbug --

110

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I shall be the judge of what is a point of order ; it is

not for the hon. Lady to do so. Has the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) finished

her point of order?

Mrs. Gorman : The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has spent more time

out of the Chamber in the past two days than I have.

The Second Deputy Chairman : That is not a point of order. I must move on to another

point of order.

Mr. Lewis : On a point of order, Dame Janet. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and

others have referred to the fact that we are in Committee. Is it not the case that, in Committee,

extra time should be given to allow hon. Members on both sides to make their contributions?

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I am sure you recognise

that several hon. Members have sat through the whole two-day debate and have not been

called. Although there is debate and argument about whether title I should be included in the

Bill, the fact of the matter is that title I is an integral part of the treaty. Once the treaty is

ratified, it will be interpreted as though title I stood part of it. Therefore, it is extremely

important for the Committee to be given a full opportunity to debate the matter almost

exhaustively, because it is of such fundamental constitutional importance.

Mr. Livingstone : On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you rule that it is completely out of

order for hon. Members who have been called and made their speeches to try to curtail the

debate? We have a noble tradition in the Labour movement that such action is completely out

of order and insulting to everyone else.

111

The Second Deputy Chairman : I am not aware of any such rule in the House of Commons.

Rev. Ian Paisley : On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I draw your attention to the fact that

the other parts of the United Kingdom have a right to be heard in the debate on this

constitutional matter? I am the only Northern Ireland Member who has attended the

Committee both days. I believe that I have a duty to the people who sent me here and a duty

to the overwhelming majority of voters of Northern Ireland who, on three occasions, have

endorsed my view of the European Economic Community. I believe that I should have an

opportunity to put my view.

I have not spoken at length in this Committee. In the European Parliament, I spoke many

times for many hours. In this Committee, I have always respected the Chair, and I have

always done right by the Chair. I should feel very angry tonight if not one speaker from

Northern Ireland was allowed to put his view.

I have heard something of the plottings, and I have overheard remarks. It was disgraceful of

the Minister to act as he did tonight. This is a constitutional issue. It will not affect us for 10

minutes or for an hour : it will affect our future, our families, our children and our

grandchildren, and we have a right to be heard. The Bill was drafted in such a way as to gag

us. What we could have said in order we shall not now be allowed to say.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : On a point of order, Dame Janet. I appeal to you as someone who

safeguards the interest of Back-Bench Members. May I remind you that the Minister said

during these points of order that he had no knowledge whatever of what the business

managers of the House intended? May I ask whether I and other long-serving Members are

expected to believe that?

112

The Second Deputy Chairman : As we are all supposedly honourable Members--I trust that

we are--we must accept what another hon. Member has said.

Mr. Budgen : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I dare say that there are right hon.

and hon. Members who are generous enough to believe the Minister of State when he says

that he does not know what the business managers intend to do. As I speak, he has an

opportunity to ask the Whips what their intentions are. If he cannot move the two feet

necessary to get to the Whip, I am sure that the Whip is sufficiently athletic to move that two

feet himself. The Minister might then be able to give the Committee some information. I

repeat : the Minister's earlier reply was offensive to the Committee.

Mr. Cash : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. Is it in order for the Minister to say

that he has had no contact with the Whips on this question when there are those in the

Committee who have some access to other information? Would it be possible for us to be

able to put it to you that the Minister may have information which he is not disclosing to the

Committee about what is going on this evening in relation to the proceedings?

The Second Deputy Chairman : The duties of the Chair are onerous enough, without

checking every rumour or suggestion. The Chair cannot be involved in that.

Mr. Leighton : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I suggest that you adjourn

the Committee for two minutes to allow the Minister to find out what the Whips intend to do?

Mr. Budgen : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I respectfully suggest that the

hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has made an extremely sensible and

helpful suggestion? The Committee is, in general, very fond of my right hon. Friend the

113

Minister of State. However, he has offended the Committee tonight. This is an opportunity

for him to speak to the Chief Whip. It is sensible to suggest that the Committee might rise for

a few minutes to enable my right hon. Friend the Minister to discuss the matter in a calm and

civilised way.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend the Member

for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and I have both done time in the Whips

Office. It will not come as a surprise to him to be told that it is not infrequent in these matters

that sometimes the last person the usual channels choose--[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. As I understand it, the Minister seeks to answer a

point of order. We do not have interventions on points of order.

Mr. Garel-Jones : It is of course the case, as my hon. Friend was saying, that I have

attempted in the course of the afternoon to ascertain what are the plans for the future, and I

assure hon. Members that my whole purpose in seeking to intervene when I did was to hope

that other hon. Members might be able to continue to speak after I had sat down130

.

130 HC Debs 2nd December Vol 213 Col 347

114

Appendix 2

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no Member willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, so the

motion now lapses, and we move on.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does this not mean that the House

has voted unanimously against the military operation in the Gulf?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We must now move on to

the next business.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has voted not to adjourn, so

the debate continues.

115

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has not voted. It is now past 10 pm; the motion lapses, and

we must move on.

Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order on this issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order on that issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Galloway: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it further to the previous point of order?

Mr. Galloway: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with that, and we must now move on.

Mr. Galloway: So the House is being cheated--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order, and we must now move

on.

Mr. Galloway: The House has been cheated of its opportunity to vote--

116

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order. We shall now move on to

the next business.

Mr. Galloway: The House has been cheated of an opportunity. The minority of hon.

Members who are against the war-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, hon. Members will sit down. The hon.

Gentleman has had more than his say this afternoon.

Mr. Galloway: I beg your pardon--I have not even been called this afternoon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I insist on my right as a Member of

Parliament to raise a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Galloway: It is not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I will listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Galloway: The country is at war and, as a result of a procedural trick, the minority

opposition to that war is being cheated of the opportunity to record its vote. What kind of

Government--what kind of war effort--require parliamentary democracy to be abused and

mocked in such a circumstance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but we must, I am

afraid, now move on.

117

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that

there is no motion on the Order Paper on the military action? The only motion on the Order

Paper is for the Adjournment of the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr.

Galloway) has simply misread the procedures of the House of Commons. He does not

understand.

Mr. Galloway: You cannot face 20 people opposing you--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough. The hon. Gentleman will resume his

seat. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin is an experienced Member of the

House. We all know and understand just how important this debate is and just how much

emotion it has aroused. The House has listened to his point of order and fully understands

both his concerns and his point of view, but we must move on to preserve the rest of the

business. I trust that he will accept that.

Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we have dealt more than adequately with the point of

order.

Mr. Benn rose--

Mr. Dalyell rose--

118

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot prolong the debate, which, in a sense, is what the

right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr.

Dalyell) are seeking to do.

Mr. Dalyell: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not within your power to

ask Madam Speaker to resume the Chair? Frankly, this issue--I speak with 36 years'

experience in the House--bluntly brings the House of Commons and its procedures into

disrepute. Minorities have a right to register their view. On one previous occasion, Speaker

Selwyn-Lloyd came to the Chair in roughly similar circumstances. Could we ask, through

you, that Madam Speaker be apprised of the situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Canavan: rose--

Mr. Benn rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we have followed the procedures of the House.

At this point, there is nothing more that I can do to help. We must move to the next item of

business.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order.

Mr. Benn rose--

119

Mr. Canavan rose--

Mr. John Austin (Erith and Thamesmead): I spy Strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have dealt with matters as the House should. Hon.

Members may not be content personally with the way in which things have gone, but we have

followed the procedures of the House. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr.

McWalter) is here to present a petition to the House. It is only right that we should move on

to such business.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.


Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.


Mr. Benn rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not be on his feet when I am on

my feet. He has heard today's debate; the subject has been thoroughly aired. I understand his

concern about the way in which the proceedings have ended, but we cannot correct them

tonight. I am not prepared to dwell on this matter any longer. If the right hon. Gentleman

wishes to make any complaint about the way in which things have gone, he may do so

through the usual channels.

Mr. Benn rose--

120

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. We shall now take the petition.



Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have no idea, Mr. Deputy Speaker,

what I wish to put to you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it an entirely separate point of order?

Mr. Benn: It is entirely separate. I make no complaint about the procedural correctness of

what happened. I want to put it on record that the Government called a special debate but the

House of Commons was denied the opportunity to register its opinion, yet British service

men and women are at risk. I put that on the record as a matter of fact--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I thought, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking only to

prolong the debate and put further things on record. I am sure that other hon. Members who

are rising in their places also want to put other things on the record. I shall now call Mr. Tony

McWalter.





121

Mr. Galloway: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is an entirely separate

point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that all the points--

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No; I am on my feet. When I am on my feet other hon. Members will

sit down. I cannot believe, with all honesty, that the points of order that hon. Gentlemen are

seeking to raise are not related to the matters on which we have now spent several hours. I

addressed the hon. Member for Kelvin at great length a few moments ago, and I thought that

he understood the position. Many of the other hon. Members who are seeking to rise are

experienced Members of the House. I have already said that I understand the feelings that are

aroused by a debate like this, but we have done things correctly as the House should do them,

and there is nothing more that we can do to correct things tonight. If hon. Members want to

raise--



Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I am not prepared to take the points of order. Hon. Members

really ought to be fair to the hon. Member who is waiting to present his petition. Mr. Tony

McWalter.

122




Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now prepared to take points of order only if they are on

entirely separate matters.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order on an entirely different matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard

my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) say, "I spy Strangers." I

am not sure whether you heard that, and whether we could take a vote on that matter.

Mr. Galloway: I spy Strangers, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the House that there is no such motion that we can put

before it. Tony McWalter.



Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the petition.131

131 HC Debs 17 December 1998: Vol 322 col 1189-1193

123

Appendix 3 Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given

you prior notice. It concerns 11 straightforward, factual questions tabled by me on 12

124

November and which related to Treasury involvement in decisions on Railtrack, to which the

spectacularly unilluminating reply from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was:

"Treasury Ministers and officials have discussions with a wide range of organisations,

including other Government Departments, on a wide range of subjects on a regular

basis."—[Official Report, 19 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 144W.]

Given the code of practice on access to Government information, the resolution of this House

of 19 March 1997 that Ministers should comply with it, and the fact that most of my

questions do not concern the detail of internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation

or deliberation, but simply the dates of discussion and attendance at meetings, is not the

Treasury's refusal to answer those questions an insult to Parliament, a breach of the code and

a justification for a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not responsible for ministerial

answers. That is a problem for the Minister, not for the Speaker.

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hear what

you say, but Members regard you as a key guardian of the interests of the House. On behalf

of a constituent who has experienced rising insurance premiums, I tabled a question to the

Chancellor of the Exchequer about insurance premiums since 11 September. I asked the

Chancellor what representations he had received from other bodies on that matter, to which I

received the reply:

125

"We receive representations on a wide range of subjects from a variety of

organisations and individuals."

What expectations can hon. Members have that Ministers will answer their questions?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be persistent with Ministers. That is the best advice

I can give him.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to hon. Members who want to speak further on that point of order

that I have made my views clear.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I

intrude a little further? Although I understand precisely when you say that you cannot control

ministerial answers, surely the Chair is right to issue guidance to Ministers that questions

should be properly and fully answered.

Mr. Speaker: The Government issue guidance to Ministers, not the Speaker.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I raised with

you the report of the parliamentary ombudsman, which stated that

"this is the first occasion on which a Government department has refused to accept the

conclusions of the Ombudsman on a question of disclosure of information".

126

Following my point of order, I went to the Table Office and tabled a series of questions to the

Deputy Prime Minister, who, according to the Government, is responsible for the central

secretariat which is

"the Government's central link with the parliamentary ombudsman".

Every question I table is transferred. How can I get the Minister to answer the questions, Mr.

Speaker? Could you please advise?

Mr. Speaker: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, but in the end it is not a matter for the

Chair.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that these matters are not going to be pursued. I have made my

case and I certainly cannot keep pursuing the matter.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): Further to that point of order, Mr.

Speaker. Of course, I accept everything that you have just said, but could you perhaps give us

some advice? I ask for your guidance on holding the Executive to account. If we cannot rely

on rulings from the Chair, could you please tell us where we should go and how we can hold

them to account? It is a simple question.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Lady must keep at Ministers. That is the best advice I can give

her.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You

will know that there is a resolution of the House, which was passed in 1997, with regard to

127

the duty of Ministers to make full and candid answers. Would you please advise the House

what it can do when there is a manifest breach of the resolution of the House—as there

frequently now is?

Mr. Speaker: Knowing that the resolution is there, the right hon. and learned Gentleman

must persist. Other Members must persist. That is the best advice I can give in the

circumstances.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of

course, we welcome your guidance and indeed respect it, as ever. You have told us, quite

rightly, that the Government are responsible for the answers—or lack of answers—that

Ministers give. But, Mr. Speaker, you are the custodian of the relationship that must exist

between the Government and this House of Commons. I am not asking for an answer now,

Mr. Speaker, but I ask you to reflect on how you believe you can guide the House further to

make effective both the ministerial code and the relationship that should exist between the

House and the Government. It would appear to have broken down completely, given the point

of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). We should

welcome your further guidance,Mr. Speaker, perhaps after further reflection, on what we can

do other than repeatedly putting questions and repeatedly failing to receive answers from

Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: I have some sympathy with what hon. Members have said. The right hon.

Gentleman is right—let me reflect on the matter and I shall come back to the House.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

128

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not further to the previous point of order, because I think that I

did not make a bad reply to the shadow Leader of the House. The right hon. Member for

Fylde (Mr. Jack) should quit while he is ahead.

Mr. Jack: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the status of the contents of "Erskine

May". In your process of reflection, may I ask you to consider the advice therein, particularly

as it reflects on the contents of questions?

Mr. Speaker: I shall consider that matter.132

132 HC Debs, 21 Nov 2001 : Vol 375, Column 319-321

129

Bibliography

Baroness Fookes, Pointless points of order [Interview Conversation] 16 March 2015, 15:00.

Royal Gallery, House of Lords

BBC, ‘Nigel Evans quits as Deputy Speaker amid sex charges’, 11 September 2013,

Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24042797 [Accessed on 21/04/2015]

European Parliament, ‘Tony Blair 1997-2007 Labour’, European Parliament Available at

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/wgme20080325cvblair_/

wgme20080325cvblair_en.pdf [Accessed on 18/04/2015]

Goodwin, S.’ The Maastricht Debate: Major 'driven to confidence factor': Commons

Exchanges: Treaty issue 'cannot fester any longer', The Independent, 23 July 1993 [Online]

Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-maastricht-debate-major-

driven-to-confidence-factor-commons-exchanges-treaty-issue-cannot-fester-any-longer-

1486498.html Accessed on 16/04/15

Guardian, The ‘ Sylvia Heal: Electoral history and profile’, The Gaurdian (2010) Available at

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/person/2331/sylvia-heal [Accessed on 17/04/2015]

Haselhurst, A., Response to an interview request [Letter]. Personal Communication, 20th

February 2015

House of Commons Hansard Debates

-HC Debs, 29th

April 1992-21st March 1997,Volume 207-292

-HC Debs, 29th

April 1992, Volume 207 Column 1

-HC Debs, 2nd

December 1992. Volume 213 Column 350

-HC Debs, 7th May 1997-11th May 2001, Vol 294-368

-HC Debs 9th December 1998 Volume 322 Column 408

-HC Debs 17th December 1998 Volume 322 Column 1189-1193

130

-HC Debs, 5th

April 2000 Volume 347 Column 979

-HC Debs, 12th

July 2000 Volume 353 Column 869

-HC Debs, 23rd

October 2000 Volume 355 Column 99

-HC Debs, 6th June 2001-7th April 2005 Volume 370-432

-HC Debs, 21 Nov 2001 Vol 375, Column 319-321

-HC Debs, 11th

May 2005-8th

April 2010 Volume 434-508

-HC Debs 28 March 2007 Volume 458 Column 1602

-HC Debs 10 March 2010 Volume 507 Column 299-305

-HC Debs 18th

May 2010- 14th

May 2014 Volume 510-580

-HC Debs 16 October 2013 Volume 568 Column 801

-HC Debs 14 March 2013 Volume 560 Column 506

-HC Debs, 14 May 2014, Volume 580 Column 862

Kimber, R. ‘Retiring MPs’ (2012) Available at

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge05/retire.htm [Accessed on 18/04/2015]

Lamyman, A. (2014) Dissertation Proposal: Pointless points of order, p.2

Laing, E., Response to an interview request [Letter]. Personal Communication, 3rd

March

Lord Naseby, Pointless points of order [Interview Conversation] 26 March 2015, 12:00.

Royal Gallery, House of Lords

Oborne, P. ‘John Bercow and his cronies threaten this countries parliamentary democracy’,

The Telegraph 24/08/2014. Available at

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11059163/John-Bercow-and-his-cronies-threaten-

this-countrys-parliamentary-democracy.html [Accessed on 20/04/2015]

Parliament.uk,

-Baroness Boothroyd, Parliament.uk (2015), Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/baroness-boothroyd/679 [Accessed on

14/04/15]

131

-Baroness Fookes, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/baroness-fookes/830 [Accessed

14/04/201]

-Characteristics of the new House of Commons, Parliament.uk Available at

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-

parliament/the-new-parliament/characteristics-of-the-new-house-of-commons/

[Accessed on 22/05/15]

-John Bercow, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/john-bercow/17 [Accessed on

20/04/2015]

-Lord Framlingham, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-framlingham/134 [Accessed on

17/04/2015

-Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract (2015), Parliament.uk Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-lofthouse-of-pontefract/905

[Accessed on 13/04/2015)

-Lord Martin of Springburn, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-martin-of-springburn/3899


- Lord Naseby, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-naseby/125 [Accessed on

14/04/2015]

-Mr Nigel Evans, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mr-nigel-evans/474 [Accessed on

22/04/2015]

-Mrs Eleanor Laing, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mrs-eleanor-laing/36 [Accessed

14/04/2015]

-Parliament’s ‘Bible’ adapts to meet changing times, Parliament.uk (2011) Available

at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/parliaments-bible-adapts-to-

meet-changing-times/ [Accessed on 15/04/15]

132

-Rt Hon Dame Dawn Primarolo, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/dame-dawn-primarolo/217


-Rt Hon Lindsay Hoyle, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/mr-lindsay-hoyle/467 [Accessed on

22/04/2015]

-Sir Alan Haselhurst, Parliament.uk (2015) Available at

http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/sir-alan-haselhurst/43 [Accessed on

17/04/2015)

Politowski, B. House of Commons: Hours sat and late sittings since 1979, House of

Commons Library Standard Note SN/SG/2226, 21 January 2015

Documents

Pointless Points of Order.docx