🗣️ Points of Order

• Chris Philp clarified that he intended to discuss the number of people who have illegally crossed the English Channel since the last election, stating the figure is 30,000, which represents a 31% increase from the previous period. He also noted that the number of crossings since January 1 is the highest ever recorded.

• Nick Timothy raised a concern about the Security Minister’s response to his question regarding the government’s interactions with certain organizations and individuals. Timothy claimed there is photographic evidence contradicting the minister’s statement that the government does not engage with these entities. He sought advice on how the minister could correct the record.

• Madam Deputy Speaker acknowledged both points of order, noting that Chris Philp’s clarification was now on record. In response to Nick Timothy, she stated that while the Chair does not control the content of questions and answers, Members should aim for accuracy and there is a procedure available for correcting any mistakes made in the House.

The session shows a moderate level of disagreement, primarily through points of order that raise issues of factual accuracy and governmental actions. Chris Philp’s point of order focuses on clarifying a statistic he provided during questioning, indicating a disagreement over the correct figures being used in discussions about immigration. This does not suggest direct conflict but a need for clarity and accuracy in parliamentary discourse. Nick Timothy’s point of order expresses a disagreement with the Security Minister’s response to his question about government interactions with certain individuals or organizations. This point of order directly challenges the minister’s statement and suggests a discrepancy between the minister’s claim and the evidence provided by Timothy. However, the disagreements are handled through formal procedures and do not escalate into overt conflict or heated exchanges. The Deputy Speaker’s responses are procedural and do not indicate any heightened tension or disagreement beyond the points raised by the members themselves. Therefore, the session is rated a 2 for disagreement, reflecting a moderate level of contention that is managed within the norms of parliamentary procedure.