😐 Points of Order

• Laura Trott (Conservative) raised a concern about the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, noting that the required impact assessment has not been published despite the Bill being in the Committee stage. She asked for advice on how to prompt the government to release the assessment. Madam Deputy Speaker acknowledged the issue and hoped the government would address it soon.

• Gregory Campbell (DUP) highlighted the ongoing crisis in Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland due to last week’s storms, which have left many without electricity and water. He asked if any ministers would come to the House to discuss additional steps being taken. Madam Deputy Speaker informed that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had already made a statement on the measures being taken.

• Chris McDonald (Labour) addressed the issue of the Prime Minister’s statement on a child protection inquiry and criticized the shadow Policing Minister for using social media to link councillors opposing a new inquiry with grooming gangs. This led to serious online and real-world harassment of the councillors. McDonald sought advice on how to highlight the dangers of such statements. Madam Deputy Speaker emphasized that while the Chair is not responsible for Members’ social media posts, all Members should be cautious about their online statements.

The session displays a moderate level of disagreement, primarily through the points of order raised by different members. While the disagreements are significant, they are not overly confrontational or hostile, leading to a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5.

1. Laura Trott’s Point of Order: This point raises a disagreement with the government’s handling of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The disagreement is over the absence of an impact assessment, which Laura Trott states impedes the ability of members to scrutinize the Bill properly. Madam Deputy Speaker acknowledges this issue as ‘unsatisfactory’ but does not escalate the disagreement further. This indicates a moderate level of disagreement between an MP and the government’s procedural approach.

   Example: - “The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is making its way through the House of Commons—indeed, we are well into the Committee stage—yet still we do not have an impact assessment to show what effect it will have.”

2. Gregory Campbell’s Point of Order: Here, the disagreement is with the government’s response to the storm disruptions in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Campbell raises the issue of inadequate assistance and seeks direct action from the Prime Minister or relevant Secretaries of State. Madam Deputy Speaker notes that a Chancellor’s statement was given the previous day, indicating some level of governmental response, but not the specific action Campbell seeks. This point of order shows a disagreement on the urgency and extent of government intervention.

   Example: - “Has the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that they will come to the House to spell out what additional steps they are proposing to help us bring this crisis to a speedy but overdue end?”

3. Chris McDonald’s Point of Order: The most contentious point of order, raising a significant disagreement involving political accusations and social media conduct. McDonald disagrees with the actions of the shadow Policing Minister and the impact of his social media posts, indicating potential political exploitation and leading to real-world consequences. The disagreement here touches on ethics and responsibility but is handled with a call for Members to reflect on their online behavior, which keeps the tone moderate.

   Example: - “…the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the shadow Policing Minister, has used social media to link councillors who voted against a new national inquiry with grooming gangs.”

Overall, the disagreements were presented in a structured manner through points of order, showing concerns and demands for better governmental practices and political conduct, but there was no escalation to overtly hostile exchanges or disruptions, leading to a rating of 3 for disagreement.