🤔 Point of Order

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

During a parliamentary session, MP Richard Holden raised concerns about a Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) discussing the government’s response to the Southport attacks, suggesting it might be inappropriate for PPSs to speak on issues directly related to their ministers’ responsibilities. Holden sought guidance on preventing such occurrences, hinting that the PPS might have been trying to boost the Prime Minister’s image. Deputy Speaker Nusrat Ghani acknowledged Holden’s notice but clarified that the issue falls outside the Chair’s jurisdiction, indicating it’s a matter of the ministerial code.

Summary

  • Point of Order: Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay, Conservative) raised a concern about the conduct of the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS), Liz Twist, during Justice questions.
  • Issue Raised: Liz Twist discussed the Government’s response to attacks in Southport, which directly relates to the Prime Minister’s responsibilities.
  • Concern: Mr Holden questioned whether PPSs should comment on issues directly related to their appointing Ministers, especially when it could be seen as defending the Minister’s actions.
  • Response: Madam Deputy Speaker, Ms Nusrat Ghani, clarified that this issue falls under the ministerial code and is not something the Speaker’s Office can address.

Divisiveness

The transcript provided shows a point of order raised by Mr Richard Holden, focusing on a procedural concern rather than a policy disagreement. There is no visible disagreement between the parties involved in the dialogue. Mr Holden inquires about the appropriateness of a Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) discussing issues related to their Minister’s area of responsibility, specifically referencing a recent event in Southport. Madam Deputy Speaker, Ms Nusrat Ghani, responds by stating that the matter Mr Holden raised pertains to the ministerial code and is not within the Chair’s jurisdiction to address. This exchange is purely procedural and does not exhibit any direct disagreement or contention over policy, facts, or personal opinions between the participants. The lack of disagreement, heated debate, or visible tension contributes to a low disagreement rating of 1.