Points of Order

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, the Leader of the Opposition called the Secretary of State for Education a “spiteful class warrior”, and previously she has compared her to a Gestapo officer. I started working in Parliament when I was a teenager, and in 25 years of being involved in politics, I have never seen the atmosphere here in Parliament and outside to be quite so hostile and intimidatory, especially towards female elected representatives.

Words matter, and inflammatory language contributes to this hostility towards politicians, especially women. Could I ask your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether the language used by the Leader of the Opposition today towards the Secretary of State for Education—a woman who grew up in poverty on a council estate, was raised by a single mother and was on free school meals, and worked her way up to the Cabinet—is appropriate to be used in the Chamber? I ask because not only does this language contribute to hostility, it puts off women from coming into this important profession.

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Hon. Members are responsible for what they say in the Chamber, and we do not write the scripts for colleagues. “Erskine May” states: “Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”

I remind all Members that that is the way they should be conducting themselves inside the Chamber.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on how to ensure that named day written parliamentary questions are answered by the Department on time. My written questions 10935 to 10940 to the Foreign Office about a company called Siren Associates Ltd had not been answered by 22 June. They are of great personal and national importance, and we want to know when they will be answered.

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It is important that Members who are sent here by their constituents receive timely answers to their questions. This is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted the hon. Member’s remarks and contacted the right Department so that he gets a response as soon as he can.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House may be interested in this following the earlier point of order. Earlier today, the Minister for Women and Equalities accused me of “racism” in reference to comments I made about the mass Muslim prayer in Trafalgar Square.

Although the Minister did not inform me that she would mention me in the Chamber, I gave her advance notice of this point of order, but she has chosen not to come to the House to withdraw her remarks. Given past precedent, I would like your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether that is acceptable language for one Member to use about another. I also seek your guidance about the free speech of Members and those we represent. The Government’s Islamophobia definition is already being used to shut down legitimate debate over questions of religion, belief and public policy, as we warned it would be, and it falsely equates racial identity with religious belief. It is an Orwellian outrage. How do I ensure that the Minister for Women and Equalities withdraws her remarks, explains how she confused racial identity and religious belief, and apologises?

The hon. Member has got his point on the record. As I have already said, Members must take responsibility for what they say in the Chamber—

On both sides.

Of course, Mr Snowden, on both sides: “Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”

The hon. Member has got his point on the record; let us see what happens next.

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026. The Ayes were 323 and the Noes were 160, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]