Official Report 168KB pdf
At our meeting on 2 October last year, we agreed that an inquiry into points of order in the chamber should be included in our work programme. The paper that has been circulated provides an analysis of points of order in the four-month periods at the beginning of two sessions. It also refers to the various methods that other legislatures use to deal with points of order. SPICe has provided a research paper, which is included as annex B to the paper, that gives detailed information on other legislatures.
The time that members are allowed to make a point of order—three minutes—is perfectly correct, because some points of order are quite complicated. I do not know how members of the European Parliament manage to do it in one minute, given that their point has to be translated about six times. Apparently, they are allowed only one minute to make a point of order. I am staggered by that.
I think that that is why we are here discussing the matter; it has been identified as an issue. I do not want to speak for the Presiding Officer—we have received a letter from him and we can hear from him again—but I do not think that he feels that he has sufficient sanctions under the standing orders. We are not looking to reach conclusions at this stage, because we will hear from those who are more closely involved.
My view is that it is not a very big problem; points of order do not seem to take up that much time. If you make hard and fast rules about it, people will be discouraged from making points of order that might be relevant. There is the suggestion that members have to know every bit of the standing orders, but if a point of order occurs to them during a debate, how on earth are they supposed to know off the top of their head to which part of the standing orders it relates? They cannot do that unless they know the standing orders backwards, which I think is too much to expect.
Although that gives rise to the question how members know something is a point of order if they do not know what part of the standing orders has been breached.
Members might think that the standing orders have been breached, in which case they are right to raise a point of order.
The clerks have done a remarkable job of analysis. It is interesting that there is not a huge difference between the number of points of order made in 2003 and the number made in 2007—in percentage terms at least. I get the sense that the people who are most aggrieved in both instances are the Government of the day.
It is certainly true that the time allowed for points of order is less of an issue than we had thought.
Yes.
The time when they are made is probably more galling to people.
I was surprised by the analysis of what happened in May to October 2003 and May to October 2007. Some people's perception was that there was a huge increase, but there has been a considerable fall. I am sure that members agree that there has been disquiet among members about this issue. We cannot expect members to walk about with a copy of the standing orders under their arm so that they can refer to them all the time, but there is a perception that members are breaching the standing orders and that back benchers in particular should be protected by the standing orders better than they are at the moment.
Perhaps it is just my imagination, but I thought that the situation with the use of points of order was worse in November and December than it was until October. However, I am not asking for an analysis of November and December.
It is interesting to read about the draconian systems in which members are suspended and their wages docked.
We could try keel-hauling them through the ponds—although they are a bit shallow.
What about yellow cards and red cards?
It is often business managers' responsibility to raise points of order on behalf of their group. It would be a bit unfair to punish them individually.
Why? [Laughter.]
If there are no other points, let us take a decision.
Previous
Code of Conduct