Date post: | 15-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alistair-lamyman |
View: | 117 times |
Download: | 1 times |
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
Occupants of the Chair .................................................................................................................. 31
Visualisation of findings. ................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
General Observations .................................................................................................................... 41
Notable mentions of particular points of order ............................................................................. 44
Have points of order been hijacked in this Parliament? ................................................................ 48
2001-2005 Parliament ....................................................................................................................... 48
Occupants of the Chair .................................................................................................................. 48
Visualisation of Findings .............................................................................................................. 49
General Observations .................................................................................................................... 59
Notable mentions of particular points of order ............................................................................. 60
Have points of order being hijacked? ........................................................................................... 63
2005-2010 Parliament ....................................................................................................................... 63
Occupants of the Chair .................................................................................................................. 63
Visualisation of findings ............................................................................................................... 65
General Observations .................................................................................................................... 77
Notable mentions of particular points of order ............................................................................. 78
3
Have points of order been hijacked during this parliament? ......................................................... 82
2010-14 Parliament ........................................................................................................................... 82
Occupants of the Chair .................................................................................................................. 82
Visualisations of Findings ............................................................................................................. 84
General Observations .................................................................................................................... 92
Notable mentions of particular points of order ............................................................................. 93
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
Table 2: Table showing the total number of points of order taken, between 29th
April 1992 and 5th
November 199323
23 HC Debs Vol 207-231
18
Boothroyd Naesby Lofthouse Fookes
Valid 70 36 14 30
Continuation 30 24 4 6
Personal Issue 6 4 4 4
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 14 22 8 6
Government policy interpretations 20 2 6 2
Committee Conduct 8 2 2 4
Individual Conduct 10 20 6 10
Filibustering 14 10 2 2
Dissent 10 14 6 2
Intervention 8 14 2 6
Valid 37% 24% 26% 42%
Invalid 63% 76% 74% 58%
Total 190 148 54 72
Table 3: Table showing the total number of points of order taken, between 18th
November 1993 and 3rd
November 199424
24 HC Debs Vol 233-248
19
Table 4: Table showing the total number of points of order taken, between 16th
November 1994 and 8th
November 199525
25 HC Debs Vol 250-265
Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes
Valid 62 18 16 2
Continuation 48 17 18 6
Personal Issue 33 18 5 8
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 60 22 5 15
Government policy interpretations 28 12 6 2
Committee Conduct 8 8 1 4
Individual Conduct 22 10 18 15
Filibustering 16 4 2 2
Dissent 15 14 0 5
Intervention 10 4 2 8
Valid 21% 14% 22% 3%
Invalid 79% 86% 78% 97%
Total 302 127 73 67
20
Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes
Valid 66 27 15 16
Continuation 39 21 11 6
Personal Issue 20 11 5 6
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 37 22 7 11
Government policy interpretations 24 7 6 2
Committee Conduct 8 5 2 4
Individual Conduct 16 15 12 13
Filibustering 15 7 2 2
Dissent 13 14 3 4
Intervention 9 9 2 7
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
November 1995 and 17th
October 1996. 26
26 HC Debs Vol 267-282
21
Table 6: Table showing the total number of points of order take between 23rd
October 1996 and 21st March 1997
27
27 HC Debs Vol 284-292
Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes
Valid 35 18 7 15
Continuation 15 12 2 3
Personal Issue 3 2 2 2
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 7 11 4 3
Government policy interpretations 10 1 3 1
Committee Conduct 4 1 1 2
Individual Conduct 5 10 3 5
Filibustering 7 5 1 1
Dissent 5 7 3 1
Intervention 4 7 1 3
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
28 HC Debs Vol 207-292
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes
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
29 HC Debs Vol 207-231
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
24
Figure 3: Graph showing the total number of points of order taken between 18th
November
1993 and 3rd
November 199430
30 HC Debs Vol 233-248
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Boothroyd Naesby Lofthouse Fookes
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
25
Figure 4: Graph showing the total number of points of order taken between 16th
November
1994 and 8th
November 199531
31 HC Debs 250-265
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
26
Figure 5: Graph showing the total number of points of order taken between 15th
November
1995 and the 16th
October 199632
32 HC Debs 267-282
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
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
Boothroyd Morris Lofthouse Fookes
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
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
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
1997-2001 Parliament
Occupants of the Chair
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
49 HC Debs Vol 294-368
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
Continuation 40 7 7 4
Personal Issue 22 8 3
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 56 13 4 8
Government policy interpretations 8
Committee Conduct 2 4 1
Individual Conduct 23 10 5 10
Fillibustering 7 1 2
Dissent 20 2 6 5
Intervention 5 1 2 2
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
50 HC Debs Vol 294-319
34
Boothroyd Haselhurst Martin Lord
Valid 32 6 5 8
Continuation 10 15 8
Personal Issue 12 3 10 3
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 48 20 16 5
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 6 1 2 2
Individual Conduct 18 3 11 6
Fillibustering 2 2 1
Dissent 8 24 3 8
Intervention 6 7 4 3
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
51 HC Debs Vol 321-337
35
Table 10: Table showing total number of points of order taken between 17th
November 1999 and 30th
November 200052
52 HC Debs Vol 339-357
Boothroyd Haselhurst Martin Lord
Valid 20 4 4 6
Continuation 14 4 1 6
Personal Issue 20 4 4 2
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 28 6 6 8
Government policy interpretations 2
Committee Conduct 2
Individual Conduct 6 4 4 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
53 HC Debs Vol 359-368
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid 24 4 4 6
Continuation 34 12 8
Personal Issue 44 12 4 4
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 92 10 4 2
Government policy interpretations 0
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
54 HC Debs Vol 294-368
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Boothroyd Haselhurst Martin Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
38
Figure 8: Figure showing total number of points of order taken between 7th
May 1997 and
19th
November 199855
55 HC Debs Vol 294-319
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Boothroyd Haselhurst Martin Lord
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
39
Figure 9: Figure showing total number of points of order taken between 24th
November 1998
and 11th
November 199956
56 HC Debs Vol 321-337
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Boothroyd Haselhurst Martin Lord
Chart Title
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
40
Figure 10: Figure showing total number of points of order taken between 17th
Nov 1999 and
30th
Nov 200057
57 HC Debs Vol 339-357
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Boothroyd Haselhurst Martin Lord
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
41
Figure 11: Figure showing total number of points of order taken between 6th
December 2000
and 11th
May 200158
General Observations
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
58 HC Debs Vol 359-368
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
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
Notable mentions of particular points of order
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.
2001-2005 Parliament
Occupants of the Chair
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
Continuation 84 30 30 24 168
Personal Issue 61 34 18 23 136
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
Individual Conduct 64 4 8 27 103
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
Table 12: Table showing total points of order taken between 6th
June 2001 and 7th
April 200572
72 HC Debs Vol 370 432
50
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid 8 8 12 6
Continuation 20 10 14 6
Personal Issue 10 6 10 6
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 88 18 8 6
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 6 1
Individual Conduct 14 2 10
Fillibustering 2 2 2
Dissent 24 6 4 12
Intervention 4 8
Valid 5% 16% 21% 11%
Invalid 95% 84% 79% 89%
Total 170 50 56 57
Table 13: Table showing total number of points of order taken between 6th
June 2001 and 7th
Novemeber 200273
73 HC Debs Vol 370-392
51
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid 6 12 4 2
Continuation 26 8 2 4
Personal Issue 22 6 2 4
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 62 14 2 10
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 2 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
Table 14: Table showing total number of points of order taken between 13th
November 2002 and 20th
November 200374
74 HC Debs Vol 394-413
52
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid 18 3 6 3
Continuation 30 6 12
Personal Issue 16 10 6 7
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 36 12 6 11
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 2
Individual Conduct 22 2 2 5
Fillibustering 2 2 4 3
Dissent 8 4 2 10
Intervention 2 5
Valid 13% 9% 19% 5%
Invalid 87% 91% 81% 95%
Total 134 35 32 56
Table 15: Table showing total number of points of order taken between 26th
Nov 2003 and 18th
November 200475
75 HC Debs Vol 415-426
53
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid 10 3 3 4
Continuation 8 12 8 2
Personal Issue 13 12 6
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 25 4 9 7
Government policy interpretations 2 4 5
Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct 10 2 4 8
Fillibustering 7 4 4
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
76 HC Debs Vol 428-432
54
Figure 12: Figure showing all points of order taken between 6th
June 2001 and 7th
April
200577
77 HC Debs Vol 370-432
0
50
100
150
200
250
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
55
Figure 13: figure showing total points of order taken between 6th
June 2001 and 7th
Nov
2002.78
78 HC Debs Vol 370-392
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
56
Figure 14: Figure showing total points of order taken between 13th
November 2002 and 20th
November 200379
79 HC Debs Vol 394-413
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
57
Figure 15: Figure showing total points of order taken between 26th
November 2003 and 18th
November 200480
80 HC Debs Vol 415-426
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
58
Figure 16: Figure showing total points of order taken between 23rd
November 2004 and 7th
April 200581
81 HC Debs Vol 428-432
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
59
General Observations
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
Notable mentions of particular points of order
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.
2005-2010 Parliament
Occupants of the Chair
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
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 131 36 19 33 40 259
Government policy interpretations 0 0 0 0 0 0
Committee Conduct 9 4 2 0 6 21
Individual Conduct 35 18 22 19 24 118
Fillibustering 10 7 5 4 2 28
Dissent 25 16 12 7 10 70
Intervention 19 9 9 16 6 59
Valid 8% 11% 14% 9% 12% 10%
Invalid 92% 89% 86% 91% 88% 90%
Total 361 192 117 131 180 981
Table 17: Table showing total number of points of order taken between 11th
May 2005 to 8th
April 201092
92 HC Debs Vol 434-508
66
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid 8 4 2 3
Continuation 8 14 2 4
Personal Issue 18 6 4 16
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 30 16 10 12
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 3 2 2
Individual Conduct 4 12 8 12
Fillibustering 2 1 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
Table 18: Table showing total points of order taken between 11th
May 2005 and 8th
Nov 200693
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
93 HC Debs Vol 434-451
67
Valid 10 10 4 6
Continuation 12 16 12 4
Personal Issue 10 10
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 38 12 2 4
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 2
Individual Conduct 14 1 2 3
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
Table 19: Table showing total points of order taken between 15th
November 2006 and 30th
October 200794
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid 8 4 6 2
Continuation 14 6 2 4
94 HC Debs Vol 453-465
68
Personal Issue 14 2
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 42 4 14
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 2
Individual Conduct 2 2 6 2
Fillibustering 6
Dissent 8 2 4
Intervention 12 4 2 6
Valid 7% 18% 30% 7%
Invalid 93% 82% 70% 93%
Total 108 22 20 30
Table 20: Table showing total points of order taken between 6th
November 2007 and 26th
November 200895
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid 6 1 2 1
Continuation 15 3 3
95 HC Debs Vol 467-483
69
Personal Issue 11 5 3 4
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 21 2 5 2
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 4
Individual Conduct 15 2 1
Fillibustering 2 1 1
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
Continuation 34 10 4 4
96 HC Debs Vol 485-499
70
Personal Issue 36 10 2 2
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 40 2 2 1
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 6
Individual Conduct 24 3 4 1
Fillibustering 2 1 1 2
Dissent 10 8 1
Intervention 6 2 2 6
Valid 12% 14% 20% 16%
Invalid 88% 86% 80% 84%
Total 180 42 20 19
Table 22: Table showing total points of order taken between 18th
November 2009 and 8th
April 201097
97 HC Debs Vol 501-508
71
Figure 17:Figure showing total number of points of order taken between 11th
May 2005 and
8th
April 201098
98 HC Debs Vol 434-508
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal Bercow
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
72
Figure 18: Figure showing total points of order taken between 11th
May 2005 and 8th
November 200699
99 HC Debs Vol 434-451
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
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
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
74
Figure 20: Figure showing total points of order taken between 6th
November 2007 and 26th
November 2008101
101 HC Debs Vol 467-483
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
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
Martin Haselhurst Lord Heal
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
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
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
77
General Observations
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
Notable mentions of particular points of order
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
Occupants of the Chair
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
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 180 42 33 15 1 271
Government policy interpretations 0 1 0 1 0 2
Committee Conduct 8 2 0 3 1 14
Individual Conduct 50 23 20 10 4 107
Filibustering 9 0 1 5 2 17
Dissent 21 5 4 2 0 32
Intervention 18 4 2 3 1 28
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
Continuation 50 12 8 6
Personal Issue 70 20 2 5
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 104 28 16 14
Government policy interpretations
Committee Conduct 6 2
Individual Conduct 34 16 10 6
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
Bercow Hoyle Evans Primarolo
Valid 5 3 2 3
Continuation 4 3 2
Personal Issue 20 6 8 3
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 56 10 16
Government policy interpretations 1
Committee Conduct 2 2
Individual Conduct 8 4 8 3
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
Table 25: Table showing total points of order taken between 11th
June 2012 and 25th
April 2013119
119 HC Debs Vol 545-561
87
Bercow Hoyle Evans Liang Primarolo
Valid 5 2 1 3 1
Continuation 18 3 2 3 5
Personal Issue 25 5 2 5 2
Ministers not making a statement/conduct 20 4 1 1 1
Government policy interpretations 1
Committee Conduct 1 1
Individual Conduct 8 3 2 4 1
Filibustering 5 2
Dissent 4 2
Intervention 5 1 1 3
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
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
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
Bercow Hoyle Evans Primarolo
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
90
Figure 25: Figure showing total points of order taken between 11th
June 2012 and 25th
April
2013123
123 HC Debs Vol 545-61
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Bercow Hoyle Evans Primarolo
Valid Continuation
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
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
Personal Issue Ministers not making a statement/conduct
Government policy interpretations Committee Conduct
Individual Conduct Fillibustering
Dissent Intervention
92
General Observations
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
Notable mentions of particular points of order
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. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order on that issue.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
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. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order.
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. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
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.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order.
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. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
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. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
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. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
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
[Accessed on 17/04/2015]
- 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
[Accessed on 22/04/2015]
-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