📝 Points of Order

• Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op) corrected a statement made during business questions regarding Tom Farr, the former leader of Harlow council. It was clarified that Tom Farr was a social worker who worked with young people with disabilities, not a secondary school teacher.

• Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con) raised concerns about delays in receiving responses from His Majesty’s Treasury to his correspondence on behalf of constituents. He mentioned a case from December 2024 that remains unanswered despite follow-ups.

• Mr Speaker acknowledged the correction made by Chris Vince. Regarding Paul Holmes’ issue, the Speaker expressed disappointment in the delay of responses from Departments and promised to address the matter with the Leader of the House and party Whips to ensure timely replies in the future.

The session primarily consists of points of order, which are procedural remarks rather than instances of substantive disagreement. Chris Vince corrects a factual inaccuracy about Tom Farr’s profession, which is accepted and noted by the Speaker. There is no disagreement here; rather, it’s a correction acknowledged by the Speaker. Paul Holmes raises a concern about ministerial correspondence, expressing frustration about delays from the Treasury, but this does not constitute a disagreement per se. The Speaker sympathizes with Holmes and promises to take action, but the interaction remains within the procedural framework rather than a debate on policy. There is no direct confrontation or disagreement between members; the concerns raised are more about administrative efficiency than substantive policy disputes. Therefore, the level of disagreement is minimal, warranting a rating of 1 on a scale of 1 to 5.