📜 Business of the House

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

Parliament set a tight schedule to vote on crucial social security and pension updates for 2025, limiting debate to just three hours per set of motions. Key proposals include adjustments to social security benefits, guaranteed minimum pensions, national insurance contributions, and child benefits. The session allowed for continuous proceedings, even if opposed, ensuring all necessary votes could be completed without interruption.

Summary

  • The parliamentary session focused on setting time limits for discussing several important motions related to social security and benefits.

  • The first set of motions, proposed by Sir Stephen Timms and Torsten Bell, dealt with the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025. These discussions were scheduled to conclude no later than three hours after the session began.

  • The second set of motions, proposed by James Murray and Darren Jones, concerned the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025 and the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2025. These discussions were also scheduled to end no later than three hours after starting the first motion.

  • The session allowed for discussions to continue, even if opposed, until any hour and could start after the usual interruption time.

  • The usual rule for deferred voting (Standing Order No. 41A) was suspended for these proceedings.

Divisiveness

The provided transcript is a procedural order in a parliamentary session, focusing on the scheduling and time allocation for various motions related to social security and pension up-rating orders. There is no evident disagreement or debate within the transcript itself. It simply outlines the rules and time limits set for discussing and voting on these motions. The session appears to proceed in an orderly and agreed-upon manner, with no dissenting voices or conflicting opinions mentioned. For instance, the specification of time limits and procedures does not inherently suggest contention but rather a structured approach to handling legislative business. Therefore, the level of disagreement displayed is minimal to none, warranting a rating of 1.