🤔 Points of Order

• Point of Order by Lee Anderson:
  • Lee Anderson from Ashfield (Reform UK) raised a point of order contesting statements made by Stephen Flynn, leader of the Scottish National Party, who referred to Reform UK MPs as “Putin’s puppets” and claimed they were absent during a defence and security statement. Anderson clarified that he was present, left briefly for a break, and returned to the session.
  • Madam Deputy Speaker advised against accusing other members of misleading the House and emphasized the importance of maintaining decorum in debates.
• Point of Order by Gregory Campbell:
  • Gregory Campbell from East Londonderry (DUP) raised concerns about the BBC’s decision to air and later withdraw the documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” due to its links to Hamas and a celebratory tweet by the cameraman after the 7th October massacre.
  • He questioned whether the Culture Secretary would make a statement to the House about the BBC’s lack of due diligence. Madam Deputy Speaker noted no such statement was planned, but the issue could be raised during upcoming Culture, Media, and Sport questions.
• Crime and Policing Bill:
  • Secretary Yvette Cooper presented the Crime and Policing Bill, which aims to address anti-social behavior, offensive weapons, various crimes including sexual offences, property crimes, and the criminal exploitation of persons.
  • The Bill also covers police powers, border force, confiscation, terrorism, national security, and the criminal liability of organizations.
  • The Bill was read for the first time and scheduled for its second reading the following day.

The disagreement level in the transcript is minimal, which warrants a rating of 1 out of 5. Disagreement in parliamentary sessions generally involves explicit conflicts, heated debates, or strong oppositional rhetoric. In this session, while there are instances of points being raised that could potentially lead to disagreement, they do not culminate in any substantial conflict or opposition. Here is the detailed reasoning:

1. Point of Order by Lee Anderson: Anderson raises a point of order challenging a statement made by Stephen Flynn about the absence of Reform UK MPs during a statement on defense and security. Anderson clarifies his own presence in the Chamber, implying a rebuttal but does not escalate the issue into a broader disagreement. The response from Madam Deputy Speaker maintains the tone and advises on decorum without leading to further debate.
   • Example: Anderson states, ‘The leader of the SNP has misled the House and should apologise, if you can find him.’ This could be interpreted as a mild disagreement, but the Deputy Speaker quickly moderates the tone without allowing further elaboration or escalation.
2. Point of Order by Gregory Campbell: Campbell raises a concern about the BBC’s decision to broadcast a documentary, which he feels was inappropriate due to the affiliations of individuals involved. He inquires about an anticipated statement from the Culture Secretary on this issue. This does not lead to any direct disagreement or debate within the session.
   • Example: Campbell’s question, ‘…has she indicated to the Speaker’s Office that she intends to make a statement to the House…?’ is a procedural inquiry rather than a point of contention or disagreement.
3. Presentation of the Crime and Policing Bill: The introduction of the Bill is procedural and does not involve any expressed disagreement or debate during the session. It merely states the first reading and planned second reading.
   • Example: ‘Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow…’ indicates a procedural step without any contention.

Overall, the session is characterized by minimal disagreement and focuses on procedural inquiries and clarifications, which maintains a low conflict level. The instances of disagreement are brief and do not escalate into significant debate or opposition.