🚨 Point of Order

Commons Chamber

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

Victoria Atkins raised concerns about the lack of funding for food security checks at Dover Port, warning that without it, checks for diseased meats could stop. She criticized the Secretary of State for not responding to her urgent queries. Madam Deputy Speaker acknowledged the issue but noted it was not within her power to intervene directly. Meanwhile, Sir Christopher Chope introduced a new bill aimed at making arm’s-length bodies directly accountable to Parliament.

Summary

  • Point of Order: Victoria Atkins raised concerns about the lack of funding for food security checks at Dover Port. She mentioned that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not respond to her questions about securing funding for the new financial year, which is crucial for continuing checks on diseased meats.

  • Response from Madam Deputy Speaker: Nusrat Ghani acknowledged the point of order but stated it was not a matter for the Chair. She suggested that those on the Treasury Bench would have heard the concern and would likely pass it on.

  • Bill Presentation: Sir Christopher Chope presented the Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill. The Bill aims to make arm’s length bodies directly accountable to Parliament. It was read for the first time and is scheduled for its second reading on 28 March.

Divisiveness

The session shows a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the issue of funding for food security checks at the border. The disagreement is evident in the point of order raised by Victoria Atkins, who expresses frustration and concern over the lack of response from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the funding for these checks. This indicates a disagreement between the expectations of the Member of Parliament and the actions (or lack thereof) of the Secretary of State. However, the disagreement is not overtly confrontational or widespread across the session, as it is confined to a single point of order and does not involve a broader debate or multiple participants. The response from Madam Deputy Speaker also does not escalate the disagreement but rather acknowledges the issue and suggests that it be addressed by those on the Treasury Bench. The rest of the session, including the presentation of the Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill, does not show any further signs of disagreement. Therefore, the disagreement is present but not intense or pervasive, warranting a rating of 2 out of 5.