Points of Order, the Right of Reply and Suspension of Standing Orders
One of the most difficult parts of a chair’s work is dealing with points of order. Most interjections which are made are not points of order, whatever the persons making them may think. For example, the fact that a speaker may make a statement which some other member does not consider correct does not constitute a breach of order on the speaker’s part, and does not entitle another member to intervene. They may answer that later (if they have not already spoken) in the ordinary course of the debate.
What is a point of order?
Points of order must deal with the conduct or procedure of the debate. The member rising to put the point of order must prove one or more of the following: (a) that the speaker is travelling outside the scope of the question; (b) that they are using ‘unparliamentary’ language, for example by making remarks of a personal nature, particularly if they are abusive, or by using obscene language; (c) that they are transgressing some rule of the society; (d) that they are infringing the standing orders or, in the absence of standing orders, is acting contrary to the general custom of debate; or (e) that they may be acting unlawfully, for example by inciting racial hatred or provoking violence.
When to put a point?
A point of order may be put to the chair at any time, even when a member is not speaking. For instance, the interjector may wish to ask the effect of a motion under discussion on some other motion which is to come forward later. Or they may want to know the order in which an amendment will be taken or, indeed, anything connected with the routine of the order. All these are points of order. Even when the vote is being taken, a point may be submitted, but it must be on something arising out of the taking of the vote. At that late stage it cannot be of a merely general character. When a member is speaking on a subject, the member who interrupts them by raising a point of order must prove that an irregularity has been committed. Points of correction are not points of order, and should not be allowed except in extreme circumstances. If the chair finds a member continually rising on frivolous points, they should check it firmly; points of order are sometimes raised with the deliberate object of disturbing the speaker’s train of thought, and of depriving them of the opportunity of properly presenting their case.
How to put a point of order
Members who want to raise a point of order must do so immediately once the alleged breach has occurred, and must address the chair directly and not the member who has been interrupted. In putting a point of order, the interjector must not make anything like a speech. The point of order must be put briefly and directly in the form of a question, and prefaced by ‘Chair, is it in order to –’ (here follows the point of order).
Points of explanation
Sometimes debaters may distort or misquote remarks of a previous speaker. Or there may be a genuine misapprehension about what a speaker actually said. In such cases, the misquoted or misunderstood speaker would rise with, ‘May I make a point of explanation, Chair?’ This can be done even though there is no motion before the meeting. The chair may, at their discretion, allow the misquoted speaker to explain in a few words what they actually said or meant. Such points of explanation should be permitted only in extreme cases and must not be developed into a second speech. Controversial matter must not be introduced, and members may not explain the remarks of a previous speaker.
Points of information
Someone seeking the chair’s permission to make a point of explanation may interrupt a speaker to do so. However, if a member simply wants to know something about the procedure or the subject under discussion, they can raise a point of information, but they must wait until the speaker has finished and then catch the chair’s eye.
Rights as to speaking
In open meeting a member has one speech only on any question, unless the standing orders say otherwise. The only exception is the mover of an original motion who is generally allowed to reply. Length of speeches should be strictly limited by the standing orders. An amendment raises a separate question, and any member may speak on it, even though they have already spoken on the original motion or on a previous amendment. As already stated, a member may rise on a point of explanation with the chair’s permission, but must not develop a second speech.
Going ‘into committee’
There are very rare occasions, particularly when a technical subject is being discussed, when it would be impossible to adhere strictly to the rule of one speech only. There are two ways of getting over this difficulty: by suspending the standing order which limits the number of speeches; or by moving: ‘That the meeting conduct the business in committee.’ The latter method is adopted in the House of Commons on certain occasions when a Bill is being considered. In such cases a speaker is not restricted to one speech only. They may speak as often as they can get the floor, but nevertheless the chair should take care that the discussion is not monopolised by voluble individual members.
Speaking in opposition
When a speaker rises to address the meeting, they should preface their remarks by saying: ‘I rise to speak in support of the motion’, or ‘I rise to speak against the motion’ – or amendment – as the case may be. This gives a clear indication to the members of their point of view, and helps them to follow the remainder of their remarks better. A member who does not agree with a proposition which is before the meeting may adopt several courses: (a) they may speak directly against it, (b) they may move an amendment, or (c) try to get rid of it by moving ‘next business’, the ‘previous question’, the ‘adjournment of the debate’, or the ‘adjournment of the meeting’. A member moving any of these motions must not have taken part in the discussion previously.
Relevance of speeches
All speeches must be relevant to the subject. If the chair considers the speaker is straying from the point, or indulging in tiresome repetition, they should call the speaker’s attention to this. If the speaker still persists in wandering, the chair should again warn them and, if necessary, should rule them out of order and make them resume their seat. It is not always easy to judge when a speaker is straying from the point, and the chair must be careful to avoid injustice; certainly, they should always make clear the precise reasons for their ruling.
Challenging the chair’s ruling
The chair needs sufficient authority to run the meeting without having continually to face flippant challenges. At the same time, however, there needs to be some mechanism to prevent them acting autocratically or unreasonably. The following standing order aims at striking the right balance. ‘The ruling of the chair on any question under the standing orders or on points of order or explanation shall be final, unless challenged by at least four members, and unless two thirds of the members present vote against such ruling’. (The number could, of course, be varied according to the size of the meeting.) Under this procedure, the member who wants to dispute the ruling says ‘I challenge your ruling, Madam Chair’. The chair then asks ‘Are there three other members present who challenge my decision?’ If not, the matter is at an end. If three additional members rise, the chair temporarily vacates the chair. The secretary then reads the motion as ‘That the chair’s ruling be upheld’, and the motion is put to the vote by the secretary without any speeches. Unless two-thirds of the members present vote against the motion, the chair’s ruling must stand. Even if the motion is lost, it does not mean that the chair’s decisions for the whole meeting have been rejected, but just the one under dispute.
The chair should not be over-sensitive and regard it as a resigning issue. They should accept the vote democratically, resume the chair, abide by the will of the majority and carry on.
Motion of ‘no confidence’
However, if things have got to the stage when the motion ‘That this meeting has no confidence in the chair’ is carried by a two thirds majority, then the chair has no choice but to resign. Again, the voting on this should be conducted by the secretary, but in such an unlikely circumstance it would be right for the mover to explain precisely why they are moving the motion and for the chair to reply.
Right of reply
There is often misapprehension about the ‘right of reply’. Strictly speaking, this is not a right but a privilege, which by custom is usually allowed to the mover of an original motion who is given the opportunity of replying to the discussion on the proposition they have put forward. Unless the standing orders provide that the mover of an original motion shall be entitled to reply, the chair has discretion to withhold this privilege. For example, in cases where everyone appears to be in favour of a motion, it would be a waste of time to insist on the right of reply, and the chair should close the debate by saying they consider further discussion unnecessary. They should then put the motion to the vote.
Under no circumstances should the right of reply be allowed to the mover of an amendment, the previous question, the adjournment of the debate or any formal motion.
No new matter allowed in reply
In exercising the right of reply, the mover must confine themselves to answering the arguments which have been advanced. But, although new matter is forbidden, many debators contrive to bring in new facts and fresh arguments, sometimes to such an extent as to make out practically a new case. If the chair is puzzled about whether to intervene or not, it is best to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt. If the speaker goes too far it is almost certain that some of the members will call the chair’s attention to the fact, and it is much easier for the chair to intervene in that event.
Replying to an amendment
Where an amendment is moved, the correct time for the mover of the original motion to reply is at the end of the discussion on the first amendment. The reply closes the discussion on the amendment only, and even when the vote has been taken it is still in order for other amendments to be moved to the surviving proposition. If the mover of the original motion does not take this opportunity to reply they lose the opportunity altogether, because if the amendment carried their motion ceases to exist. Where an amendment has been moved to an amendment, the original motion retired for the time being. Consequently its mover should not reply until the quarrel between these amendments is settled, and the debate on the surviving amendment has been concluded.
Suspension of standing orders
Standing orders are literally the rules which govern the meeting. It is therefore desirable that they should be interfered with as little as possible, but (for example) there are occasions when a subject, although not on the agenda, is of such urgency and importance that it must be discussed. Usually a matter which is not on the agenda should be raised on ‘Any Other Business’, but an issue may be so urgent that it should be considered at once. Or it may not be possible for a subject which is legitimately on the agenda to be adequately discussed by the usual method of one speech only per member. Again, it may be desirable for certain speakers to be allowed more time to put forward their case than the standing orders propose. In all such cases the easiest method of getting over the difficulty is to suspend the standing orders.
The chair should examine each claim for suspension of the standing orders with great care, and refuse to accept the suspension unless it relates to some matter of great urgency or importance. Certainly the suspension of standing orders should not be allowed to become a practice – this would defeat the point of having standing orders at all. This particularly applies to the standing order governing when the meeting is to end. If the suspension of this standing order is moved, the chair should insist that another time is specified: otherwise, the meeting might drag on all night and members could be discouraged from attending in future. It is most unusual to suspend the standing orders in committee, but it is permissible in an emergency.
The chair should always require the member moving the suspension to state the exact standing orders (or order) which they want to be suspended. (For this reason, each standing order should be numbered.) Some speakers simply rise and say: ‘I move that the standing orders be suspended to hear the case’. Literally interpreted, this would mean that the whole of the standing orders would be suspended and the debate would then proceed without any rules at all. This would be an impossible position. The correct method is for the member, after having decided which standing order they desire suspended, to move: ‘That the standing orders numbers so-and-so be suspended in order to discuss this subject’. The member should also state the length of time the proposed suspension should last.
A suspension of standing orders should require at least a two thirds majority of those present to vote in its favour. If the suspension of several standing orders has been moved, the chair can accept an amendment to delete certain of these from the motion. A simple procedure is for them to put the individual standing orders separately to the vote, and thus make sure there is a two thirds majority on each.
The chair is entitled to refuse a motion for the suspension of standing orders, if they are of the opinion that the suspension is moved purely for the purpose of obstruction. If, under the standing orders, their decision is final on points of order, their position is impregnable. They should, however, try to carry the members with them in their rulings. This is infinitely better than to act against the feeling of the meeting. The chair themselves should never suggest the suspension of standing orders, but should wait for a motion from the floor.
Standing orders committee
On any occasion where there is likely to be a multiplicity of motions and amendments for consideration by a meeting or conference, it is advisable for a standing orders committee to be appointed to save the time of the meeting by eliminating discussions on overlapping motions, and by reducing the agenda to a practicable minimum. The size of such a standing orders committee will of course depend on the size of the conference itself, and is a matter for the discretion of the body organising the conference. Any recommendations that the standing orders committee may make must, however, be brought before the conference for confirmation, and its report should be moved in the form of a motion in the ordinary way. Usually this is done by the chair of the standing orders committee, and, where contentious points are involved, discussion and amendment to refer back may be allowed.