When unauthorised turns in parliamentary debates are discussed, they are often associated with the notion of ‘interrupting’ (on interruptions, see Isosävi et al. 2025a; Isosävi et al. 2025b; on interruptive comments, see Zima et al. 2009). However, these so-called ‘interruptions’ rarely disrupt the flow of speech of an authorised speaker. In most cases, such ‘interruptions’ receive no reaction, whereby authorised speakers simply continue their speech (see Isosävi et al. 2025a). The framing of interruptions in this context often reflects a monological or simplified view of interactions in parliamentary debates, where ‘interruptions’ are not viewed as turns in their own right. This may stem from the influence of written language conventions, in which ‘interruptions’ break the linear flow of transcribed text. However, it can be argued that unofficial speaking turns constitute constructive contributions to parliamentary debates. By emphasising the interactional nature of these unofficial turns, we highlight their capacity to create micro-interactions that engage with what an authorised speaker has just said.