Order! Before we conclude the business, there were two points of order and we want to give rulings on them. Before I do so, I just want to point out that points of order are raised from time to time in order to assist in the House and also in the EPC, and they are quite useful instruments for the maintenance of the decorum and the dignity of the House, because sometimes members tend to lose their way and become unparliamentary in their language or undermine the very rules that govern us.
It is quite in order that, from time to time, such points of order are raised. Sometimes they are just aimed at being distracting and also entertaining at the same time, which is not wrong. That is why we allow heckling to happen within Parliament, as long as it is not overdone. Obviously the points of order that were raised, to some extent, did achieve that.
Mr Van Den Berg, you admitted that you'll never forget this maiden speech. [Laughter.] At one point you even lost your line on your written text. So, sometimes they are intended to achieve exactly that.
However, the following are my rulings: The fact that a question has been forwarded to the Minister does not prevent members from referring to the matter. The Rule of Anticipation applies in respect of matters that are on the Order Paper and that have a reasonable opportunity of coming before the House. In any case, this written question, unlike an oral question, will not be coming before the House. The member was therefore not out of order. We do this because it is an Extended Public Committee that may not meet until next year. Sometimes it doesn't even meet every year.
The second ruling is on the point of order regarding a remark by the hon Van Den Berg regarding state institutions. Mr Frolick contended that the member had cast aspersions on the integrity of Chapter 9 Institutions. My ruling is as follows: The Rule states that no member shall reflect upon the competency or honour of a judge of a superior court or of the holder of an office whose removal from such office is dependent upon a decision of this House except upon a substantive motion. The member didn't reflect on the competency or honour of the office bearers mentioned above. He made certain references to some of these institutions. While this is not necessarily out of order, I wish - and I think the Minister has also made an appeal now - to caution members that in their references to these institutions they must be mindful of the status of these bodies in terms of the Constitution. The member was therefore also not out of order on this point. Thank you. [Applause.]