Afternoon summary
The SNP MP David Linden has claimed that Sir Lindsay Hoyle will have resigned by the weekend. He made the prediction in an interview with the PM programme, hours after Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, said his party, the third largest in the Commons, has collective lost confidence in the speaker. (See 12.43pm.) An early day motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle has now been signed by 67 MPs. But government ministers have been more eager to blame Labour for what happened last night, and Rishi Sunak has said that, while what happened was “very concerning”, Hoyle should get credit for his apology. Sunak implied he was not pushing for Hoyle’s removal. (See 4.28pm.)
"The position of the speaker is untenable... By the time we get to the weekend, he will be gone."
— BBC Radio 4 PM (@BBCPM) February 22, 2024
SNP MP David Linden tells #BBCPM that Sir Lindsay Hoyle turned the Commons into 'an absolute farce' and that 'he has got to go'. pic.twitter.com/DaT5ePWzu6
Updated
Gove refuses to criticise Hoyle over his Gaza vote decision, saying 'you've got to respect the ref'
Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, has refused to criticise Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, for his decision to allow a vote on Labour’s amendment in the Gaza ceasefire debate yesterday. Echoing the approach taken by his cabinet colleague Penny Mordaunt (see 11.48am), Gove instead claimed Labour was to blame for the events that led to the debate ending in chaos and acrimony.
In an interview with the Sun, Gove said:
I don’t think this issue is really about the speaker.
If you’re a government minister like me, you’ve got to respect the ref – even if you disagree with his decisions.
I like Lindsay …
The thing I regret is that Keir Starmer is allowing himself and the Labour party to be dictated by fear and intimidation.
Updated
Former government food tsar Henry Dimbleby calls for ban on advertising foods high in fat, salt and sugar
The government’s former food tsar has called for a ban on advertising foods high in fat, salt and sugar and warned that such products are now the dominant threat to public health.
Henry Dimbleby, who resigned from his post last year citing government inaction on obesity, told the Lords food, diet and obesity committee today that poor quality food had become “by far the biggest cause of avoidable illness.” He said:
This is going to be one of the increasing problems facing society over the next 10 years and if we don’t get a grip on it, because of that lack of productivity, it will not only make us sick as a society, it will make us poor as well, and we are behind the curve.
A pre-watershed ban on TV adverts for foods high in fat, salt and sugar was due to come into force in January 2023, but delays ordered by Boris Johnson and subsequently Rishi Sunak mean it will not be implemented until 2025 at the earliest.
“I would restrict advertising of all of this food,” Dimbleby told the committee, adding that a ban should apply after the 9pm watershed as well as before. “I would just say you can’t advertise it.”
The Lords inquiry is gathering evidence on the role of ultra-processed foods and foods high in fat, salt and sugar, in driving obesity and other medical conditions. Ultra-processed foods tend to contain artificial colours and flavours, and ingredients such as emulsifiers and sweeteners, and are formulated to make them extremely palatable.
“The purpose of ultra processed food is to drive excess consumption,” Dr Chris van Tulleken, a clinical research fellow at University College London and author of the book, Ultra-Processed People, told the inquiry. “It is very normal to eat 80% of your calories from ultra-processed food in this country,” he added.
Dimbleby was highly critical of advertising that targeted children, describing Coco Pops as “the breakfast cereal that’s a pudding”, and said ultra-processed foods and other foods high in fat, salt and sugar should be labelled as unhealthy using black octagon symbols adopted in other countries.
He also called for substantial support for people in poverty, including fruit and veg vouchers, to make healthy food more affordable, and a salt and sugar reformulation tax, adding that this would not increase the price of food. “You have to restrict the commercial incentives of companies,” he said. “There is no version of the future that looks good if that doesn’t happen.”
Gove's decision to close down funding for group promoting Muslim-Jewish dialogue condemned as 'extraordinarily stupid'
The government has been accused of shutting down the main forum for Muslim-Jewish dialogue in the UK at an “extraordinarily stupid” time, PA Media reports. PA says:
The Inter Faith Network, founded in 1987 with the aim of helping to promote good relations between people of different faiths across the UK, said it would confirm on Thursday whether the charity will close.
The government had previously said that, because a member of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) was appointed to the charity’s “core governance structure” last year, it had decided to withdraw the offer of new funding for the organisation.
Answering a Commons urgent question on the situation, Felicity Buchan, a levelling up minister, told MPs: “As this house will be aware, successive governments have had a longstanding policy of non-engagement with the MCB. The appointment of an MCB member to the core governance structure of a government-funded organisation therefore poses a reputational risk to government.”
She said Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, had “carefully considered” points raised by the IFN after the appointment but had concluded these were “outweighed by the need to maintain the government’s policy of non-engagement with the MCB and the risk of compromising the credibility and effectiveness of that policy”.
But Labour MP Sir Stephen Timms criticised the decision and the timing, especially in light of the chaotic scenes in the Commons just a day earlier over a vote on Gaza.
Timms said: “Is it not, given the debate in this chamber yesterday, extraordinarily stupid to be shutting down at this precise point our principal vehicle in the UK for Muslim-Jewish dialogue? Surely we need more, not to be shutting that down?”
He said the charity had made a “very important contribution” to the UK for almost four decades.
Conservative former minister Theresa Villiers described the current situation as “regrettable”. She said: “I completely understand the importance of not engaging with organisations which have hardline views but surely we can find a compromise to keep the IFN in business? Because they do do some incredibly valuable work in fostering respect and mutual understanding between different faith groups.”
Labour MP Barry Sheerman said of the funding withdrawal: “It’s the wrong time, and the wrong move.”
A spokesperson for the department said: “Interfaith work is hugely important but that does not require us to use taxpayer money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB. The Inter Faith Network cannot rely on continuous taxpayer funding. We regularly remind our partners, including the IFN, of the importance of developing sustainable funding arrangements, rather than relying on taxpayers’ money, which can never be guaranteed.”
Updated
The number of MPs signing the early day motion expressing no confidence in Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, reach 65 this afternoon – 10% of the parliamentary total. But it has now fallen back to 64, because the Conservative MP Philip Dunne has withdrawn his name.
Sunak says Hoyle's decision to change Commons rules 'very concerning' - but gives credit to speaker for his apology
Rishi Sunak has thrown a partial lifeline to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, giving him credit for his apology for the decision he took last night.
In a clip for broadcasters in Angelsey this afternoon, asked if Hoyle had his backing, Sunak replied:
What happened in the House of Commons last night is very concerning.
It seems that the usual processes and the way that the House of Commons works were changed. Now my understanding is that the speaker has apologised for that and is going to reflect on what happened.
This morning No 10 refused to say Sunak had confidence in Hoyle. In his clip this afternoon, Sunak did not give the speaker his full-throated backing, but he implied he was willing to draw a line under the matter.
But Sunak also said he was concerned about the notion the extremists could parliamentary procedure. He said:
The important point here is that we should never let extremists intimidate us into changing the way in which parliament works.
Parliament is an important place for us to have these debates. And just because some people may want to stifle that with intimidation or aggressive behaviour, we should not bend to that and change how parliament works. That’s a very slippery slope.
A reader asks:
I am hoping you may be able to clarify something on yesterdays events, Am I correct in thinking that if the Tories had used their majority to vote down the Labour amendment then the voting procedure would have proceeded exactly as the SNP had wanted original (vote on the motion then government amendment)? Was there really a danger of the Labour amendment passing or were the Tories just concerned about a sizeable rebellion?
Yes, you are exactly right.
As for why the Tories did not just vote down the Labour amendment and the SNP proposition, this morning Maria Caulfield, a minister, was denying claims that it was because they would lose. (See 10.27am.)
If that were true, why did they not just vote down the two opposition propositions, and vote in theirs? In her statement to MPs last night, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, implied the Tories were doing this as a protest against the speaker trampling over the procedural rights of the SNP. But if the Tories had been able to vote down the Labour amendment, the SNP would have been happy – because they would have got a vote on their motion.
Colleagues have been looking into this more closely than I have believe the Tories were worried about losing the vote, and that this is the reason for what they did.
Caulfield was right when she said this morning that Tory MPs were united in voting down an SNP ceasefire amendment in November.
But circumstance have changed considerably since then. And while most Tory MPs would have been happy to vote against the SNP motion, I think, because it accused Israel of engaging in the collective punishment of the Palestinian people, it is likely that a chunk of them would have refused to vote against the Labour one, which contained almost nothing in it that couldn’t have been written by David Cameron.
Conservative voters would rather have Rishi Sunak as party leader than any of the main candidates seen as rival leaders, according to polling by Savanta. This contradicts the claims being made by some rightwingers about a rightwing alternative being more popular with the party’s core vote.
But, amongst all voters, Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, would make a more popular Tory leader than Sunak, the poll suggests.
Eleanor Langford from the i has posted the chart on X.
🔴 EXC New polling from @Savanta_UK shows that Sunak is still the preferred choice among Tory voters, while Badenoch would lose out to nearly every potential rival
— Eleanor Langford (@eleanormia) February 22, 2024
Braverman is the least likely to be chosen out of all candidates
Read the full story here: https://t.co/zQZgGcPW1f pic.twitter.com/dO2OkDR4aS
Bill to clear victims of Horizon scandal will assume Post Office was 'discredited' as prosecuting authority, minister says
At PMQs yesterday Rishi Sunak said that the legislation to exonerate post office operators whose convictions are regarded as unsafe because of the Horizon scandal will be published “very, very soon”. In a Commons written statement today, Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister, has set out at some length details of the cases that will be covered.
One factor applied by the legislation will be an assumption that prosecutions that were brought by the Post Office were inherently unreliable. He says:
The legislation will specify who the prosecutor was in the relevant case. The Horizon inquiry has heard evidence of the egregious behaviour of the Post Office’s investigatory practices. It is therefore proportionate that the government legislates to quash these prosecutions where the prosecutor is, in effect, discredited.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, has now signed the Commons early day motion expressing no confidence in Sir Lindsay Hoyle. There are now 61 MPs backing it.
At first minister’s questions in the Scottish parliament the Commons chaos was ignored entirely as opposition leaders tore into the SNP on domestic challenges.
Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross led on a “damning” report published this morning by Audit Scotland that said the increased pressure on the NHS was now having a direct impact on patient safety, as the service found itself unable to meet growth in demand.
Ross quoted the report stating there was no “overall vision” for the future of the health service.
But Humza Yousaf, the first minister, insisted that, while he took the report “very seriously”, there was record investment and staffing in the NHS in Scotland.
The Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar clashed with Yousaf on Labour’s proposed windfall tax, which the first minister attacked as putting thousands of jobs at risk earlier in the week. Sarwar accused Yousaf of siding with the energy giants over working people and made the comparison that is likely to feature heavily in forthcoming election leaflets: that Yousaf appears to be defending big energy companies from paying more tax on their profits, while anyone earning over £28,000 in Scotland pays more income tax.
This is what the Conservative MP Derek Thomas told the World at One about why he has signed the EDM expressing no confidence in Sir Lindsay Hoyle.
I am an MP who lived through the Brexit years where parliament just was not functioning, we weren’t able to represent or serve our constituents as we should have been, and so much of that was because the speaker at the time [John Bercow] just tended to veer away from what would have been described as the normal way of running things in the House of Commons.
And, unfortunately for me, yesterday was just a return to that, and I immediately felt deeply uncomfortable about what was being done, what the speaker had proposed, how he had taken away the right of the SNP to hold their debate as they normally would. It does not work for anyone, or serve any of our constituents.
Thomas said that “this close to an election” the Common could not afford to have a speaker lacking judgment in that way.
But, when asked if the EDM would make a difference, he replied:
If Lindsay survives, it will certainly help maybe just for him to realise that to do anything that goes against his own clerk’s advice is not wise counsel. Maybe it will just help to correct things, and be a warning shot across the bow to make sure that parliament generally works.
Here is Guardian video of Penny Mordaunt’s intervention in the Commons earlier, where she defended Sir Lindsay Hoyle and accused Labour of undermining him.
Hoyle's appeal to MPs - snap verdict
Business questions is now over. The highlight came towards the end, when Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, responded to a question from Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, in which Flynn said that the SNP has decided collectively it no longer has confidence in Hoyle. He called for a no confidence vote. (See 12.43pm.)
In response, Hoyle in essence pleaded for his job. He said that he had made a judgment call that turned out to be wrong and he apologised almost grovellingly to the SNP. But then, quite movingly, he talked about the “absolutely frightening” material he has been shown about the threat to MPs, and he stressed his commitment to keeping people safe. I’ve beefed up the post at 12.45pm about his words with direct quotes. (You may need to refresh the page to get the update to appear.)
Was it enough? No 10 refused to express confidence in Hoyle earlier, which suggests Rishi Sunak is still sitting on the fence (one of his less edifying habits – remember how he avoided taking a stance on the standards committee report into Boris Johnson). Sunak may be waiting to see where the consensus view in the Conservative party settles before expressing a view in public.
But at this point it looks as if the threat to Hoyle’s future may be receding. During business questions there was no Tory anti-Hoyle feeding frenzy, and instead he received support from government backbenchers, including some who have not been shy of picking fights with previous speakers. (See 12.45pm and 12.22pm.) Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, praised Hoyle repeatedly as a “decent man” and played down prospects of allowing a no confidence vote. (See 12.43pm.) Within the past two hours only two new signatures have been added to the no confidence early day motion, where numbers are now stuck at 59. And one of those Tories who did sign it, Derek Thomas, suggested on the World at One only a few minutes ago that, if the EDM were to result not in Hoyle’s resignation, but in the speaker just being a bit more careful about making anti-Tory rulings next time, he would regard that as an acceptable outcome.
Updated
The speaker is offering to allow an emergency debate on Gaza, not an emergency no confidence vote in himself, sources have confirmed. (See 1.07pm.)
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, offered to let the SNP hold an emergency debate. (See 12.45pm.) I interpreted that that as his offering an emergency no confidence debate, but colleagues who were in the chamber have interpreted that as a reference to an emergency Gaza debate. We are seeking clarification, but I have amended the headline in the meantime.
Starmer defends lobbying Hoyle over Gaza vote, but insists he never threatened him 'in any way whatsoever'
Keir Starmer has defended his decision to lobby Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, yesterday over the Gaza debate. Starmer met Hoyle in person, hours before the vote, arguing that the speaker should ignore precedent and allow a vote on the Labour motion.
But Starmer denied threatening the speaker. Speaking to journalists on a visit in Sussex, he said:
I can categorically tell you that I did not threaten the speaker in any way whatsoever.
I simply urged to ensure that we have the broadest possible debate.
So that actually the most important thing , which is what do we do about the situation in Gaza, could be properly discussed by MPs with a number of options in front of them.
The allegation that Starmer may have threatened Hoyle with the prospect of Labour not voting to reappoint him after the election if he did not back them yesterday was prompted by tweets posted by Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt yesterday. But, as Watt explained on the Today programme this morning, he was never suggesting that this was something being said by Starmer; his tweets were about what other Labour figures have been saying in private in recent days. (See 10.45am.)
Updated
Hoyle apologises to SNP, offers to let them hold emergency debate, but defends wanting to protect MPs
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is responding to Flynn.
I will reiterate I made a judgment call that didn’t end up in the position where I expected it to.
I regret it. I apologise to the SNP … I apologise and I apologise to the house. I made a mistake. We do make mistakes. I own up to mine.
I would say that we can have an SO24 [standing order 24 – a procedure, normally used a handful of time a year, that allows a three-hour emergency debate to happen if an MP requests on and the speaker agrees it is necessary] to get an immediate debate because the debate is so important to this house.
I will defend every member in this House. Every member matters to me in this house.
And it has been said, both sides, I never ever want to go through a situation where I pick up a phone to find a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists.
I also don’t want another attack on this House. I was in the chair on that day.
I have seen, I have witnessed, I won’t share the details, but the details of the things that have been brought to me are absolutely frightening on all members of this house, on all sides.
I have a duty of care, and I say that, and if my mistake is looking after members I am guilty.
All MPs are at risk, he says. He had serious meetings with the police yesterday. Heading into the election, there are threats.
He repeats the point that he is offering an SO24 debate.
There are cheers as he sits down.
UPDATE: Hoyle, the speaker, offered to let the SNP hold an emergency debate. I interpreted that that as his offering an emergency no confidence debate, but colleagues who were in the chamber have interpreted that as a reference to an emergency Gaza debate. We are seeking clarification, but I have amended the headline in the meantime.
FURTHER UPDATE: Hoyle was offering an emergency debate on Gaza, not on his future, sources say.
Updated
Mordaunt says MPs should 'take time to reflect' before deciding whether to hold no confidence vote in speaker
Penny Mordaunt, the Commons leader, says she will protect the rights of all minority parties in the house. MPs create the rules of the house. Given the range of views expressed today, and the many supportive ones, they should “take time to reflect”, she says.
The government will listen to the house, she says.
Stephen Flynn says SNP no longer has confidence in speaker and calls for no confidence vote
In the Commons Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, said the best and worst of the place was on display yesterday.
Things “descended into farce” because of the decision taken by the speaker, he says, addressing Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who is in the charge.
The debate turned into a Labour debate. That is not acceptable.
He says as a result the SNP does not believe Hoyle should remain as speaker. They do not have confidence in him.
He asks what can be done to schedule a confidence vote in the chamber.
Mark Francois (Con) said last night was not good for the Commons. But he said that Sir Lindsay Hoyle had apologised, and expressed contrition, and he said MPs should respect that.
He praised Hoyle for the support he offered following the murder of Sir David Amess, Francois’ close friend. Hoyle was “a decent man”, he said, and “not the villain here”.
He said the Commons should re-run the debate, with Hoyle in the chair. “We are lucky to have him,” he said.
The Conservative MP William Wragg, who has tabled the early day motion expressing no confidence in Sir Lindsay Hoyle, asked Mordaunt how he could secure a vote on this.
Mordaunt gave a non-committal answer. She said the government would always listen to requests for a debate, but insisted other routes to getting something debated were available too.
Asked by Debbie Abrahams (Lab) if she could assure MPs that they would get the chance to have another vote on Gaza, Mordaunt said there would be “ample opportunities in the future” for such a debate.
Sir Edward Leigh (Con) told the Commons that the speaker has admitted he made a mistake. The Commons should now “move on”, he said. He said he was opposed to a no confidence motion.
He also called for a government debate on Gaza, to allow all amendments to be considered.
Mordaunt said the speaker was meeting all the parties. She said she hoped all sides would reflect on their actions, as the speaker has done.
UPDATE: Leigh said:
Those who put pressure on the speaker to break with convention should reflect on their actions and if it was because members of parliament could be intimidated or at risk for how they voted that is even worse and actually quite frightening.
Having said that I think the speaker has said he made a mistake and the house relies on us having confidence in the speaker, I think we should move on now and would recommend that we don’t put in motions of no confidence but actually we restore our reputation as soon as possible by having a proper debate on a government motion where all amendments can be considered.
Updated
Back in the Commons Vicky Ford (Con) says she has faced hostility because of the way she has voted on issues, with her votes being misinterpreted. She says that in the European parliament there is a mechanism allowing MEPs, after a vote, to post an explanation of what they voted as they did, and what they did then. She urges Penny Mordaunt to allow the same thing to happen in the Commons.
Mordaunt she will consider this proposal.
No 10 refuses to say whether Rishi Sunak has confidence in Lindsay Hoyle as Commons speaker
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson repeatedly refused to say whether Rishi Sunak has confidence in Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, Kevin Schofield from HuffPost UK reports.
NEW: Prime minister’s spokesman repeatedly refuses to say whether Rishi Sunak has confidence in Lindsay Hoyle.
— Kevin Schofield (@KevinASchofield) February 22, 2024
“The prime minister’s focus is on addressing the situation in the Middle East,” he says.
NEW: Prime minister’s spokesman repeatedly refuses to say whether Rishi Sunak has confidence in Lindsay Hoyle.
“The prime minister’s focus is on addressing the situation in the Middle East,” he says.
UPDATE: Here is the full quote from the PM’s spokesperson when asked if Sunak had confidence in Hoyle.
The prime minister’s focus is on addressing the situation in the Middle East. And as I say, that is what he’s spending his time focused on. Matters for the house, as I say, are matters for the house.
Updated
In the Commons Barry Sheerman (Lab) asks for a proper review of what went wrong yesterday. MPs should learn from the experience, he says.
Penny Mordaunt, leader of the Commons, says there is no doubt what happened. It was “completely shameful”, she says.
But she claims she wants to “take the heat out of this”.
Owen Thompson, the SNP chief whip, says yesterday was one of only three opposition days the SNP gets in a parliamentary session.
He says in practice the SNP did not get an opposition day yesterday. He says his party should be compensated for this. And he asks what protection will be offered for the smaller parties in Commons procedure.
He also calls for an investigation into claims that Sir Lindsay Hoyle was pressurised by Keir Starmer into allowing a vote on the Labour amendment.
He said he had been assured in advance he would get the chance to vote on the SNP motion. That did not happen because the advice of the clerks was over-ruled to dig Labour out of a hole, he says.
Updated
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Con) urges the government to schedule a debate in government time on Gaza, so all amendments can be put to a vote.
Mordaunt says she will speak to business managers about this.
Penny Mordaunt describes Hoyle as 'decent man' and accuses Labour of undermining his office
Penny Mordaunt, leader of the Commons, is now responding to Lucy Powell.
She says “this house will never bow to extremists, threats or intimidation”.
She says to suggest that the “shameful events” that took place yesterday were anything other than party politics is to do a disservice to the house.
She says it fell to the government to defend the rights of a minority party (the SNP) in the house. She says Powell should rise above defending the needs of her “weak” leader. Labour should reflect on the damage it has done to the office of the speaker, she says.
And she says this episode has illustrated that nothing is more important to the Labour party than its own interests. It has put its own priorities above the interests of the “decent man” who serves as speaker.
She claims that at least Jeremy Corbyn, the previous Labour leader, genuinely believed in his positon on Gaza. She claims Keir Starmer was not sincere in his position, and that this shows he is not fit to lead.
UPDATE: Mordaunt said:
This House will never bow to extremists, threats, or intimidation. It has not, it will not, it must not.
And I would ask all honourable members not to do this house a further disservice by suggesting that the shameful events that took place yesterday were anything other than party politics on behalf of the Labour party …
It fell to the government benches to defend the rights of a minority party in this House.
If the [Lucy Powell] cannot bring herself to reflect on the appalling consequences of her party’s actions yesterday, if she cannot rise above the narrow and immediate needs of her weak and fickle leader to fulfil her duties to this house as its shadow leader, perhaps she might like to reflect on the damage her party has done to the office of the speaker.
I would never have done to him what the Labour party have done to him.
We have seen into the heart of Labour’s leadership. Nothing is more important than the interests of the Labour party. The Labour party before principle, the Labour party before individual rights, the Labour party before the reputation and honour of the decent man that sits in speaker’s chair. The Labour party before fairness, integrity and democracy …
We often on this side of this house rightly criticise the former leader of the Labour party [Jeremy Corbyn] for the things he stood for being wrong on those matters.
But I will tell you one thing about the former leader of the Labour party, at least he thought he was right on those matters. The current leader of the Labour party is quite happy to do what he knows to be wrong.
Updated
Labour's Lucy Powell urges government to do more to protect MPs from intimidation
In the Commons Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, has just read out the business for the next two weeks. She did not mention the speaker, or last night’s debate.
Lucy Powell, the shadow leader, is speaking now. She says Sir Lindsay Hoyle acted with good intentions, and wanted MPs to have a wide choice when it came to the votes.
She says, given the SNP supported Labour’s motion, it was right that it was put to a vote.
The government’s decision to boycott the vote was “extraordinary”, she says.
But she says that it is “with regret” that parliament did not show itself at its best.
The Commons should have more time to discuss these matters. It should not be up to the opposition to schedule debates on Gaza.
Powell turns to the security of MPs. Legitimate lobbying of MPs, including robust lobbying, is to be expected.
But increasingly a line is being crossed, she says. She condemns the protest outside Tobias Ellwood’s home. She asks if the government agree that the police should take a firmer line on these protests.
And does the government agree that it should look at the causes of this. People should be careful about the language they used, she says. And more should be done to stop social media companies spreading hate, she says.
Tory MP Danny Kruger says Hoyle should go because he was willing to change democratic procedure in response to threat
One Tory argument against Sir Lindsay Hoyle is the claim that his decision yesterday was biased in favour of Labour. Another is that in deciding which amendments would and would not be put to a vote, partly in response to people issuing threats to MPs, he was setting a dangerous precedent. The Conservative MP Danny Kruger has made this case in posts on X this morning explaining he has signed the no confidence motion.
I've signed the motion of no confidence in Mr Speaker. This isn't personal: he's a decent man and I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing yesterday. But Sir Lindsay allowed Labour to use the Islamist threat to change the way our democracy works. This is unacceptable. 1/
— Danny Kruger (@danny__kruger) February 22, 2024
I’ve signed the motion of no confidence in Mr Speaker. This isn’t personal: he’s a decent man and I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing yesterday. But Sir Lindsay allowed Labour to use the Islamist threat to change the way our democracy works. This is unacceptable. 1/
Starmer is even more culpable. He should be standing for democracy and against mob rule. Instead he used the threat of violence for party political ends, to wriggle out of a crisis created by Labour’s unbridgeable division over Israel. 2/
Like the Speaker, I daresay Starmer wants to do the right thing. But like the Speaker he showed weakness and partisanship yesterday. This was a harbinger of what a Labour government would bring: extremists de facto in charge, and the subversion of democracy. 3/
(And for those shouting ‘prorogation’ remember: in 2019 we sought to restore Parly sovereignty and to ensure that proper procedure - that the Govt controls the order paper except on opposition days - was followed. We had a rogue Speaker then. We can’t have another one now.) 4/4
Daniel Finkelstein, the Times columnist and Conservative peer, gave a fuller version of this argument earlier today in his own post on X.
This idea, common overnight among commentators, that last night was just embarrassing games and pomposity is quite wrong. If violent threat prompted the change in motion selection it could hardly be more serious.
Yet if it didn’t, it means the Speaker isn’t telling the truth and it might mean he was pressured by the opposition. Both of which are extremely serious.
I can quite see why allowing Labour’s amendment (albeit an incoherent one) expanded choice but this isn’t the point at all. The point is the parliamentary procedure matters as does precedent and resistance to violent threat and the competence of the Speaker. These are not just sort of pomposity.
I can’t believe some Labour centrists and media commentators argue this after all the discussion during the Johnson years about the importance of institutions and process. It’s like they didn’t mean their earlier critique at all. Which (and I am not being arch here) would be very disappointing and worrying.
Updated
Sir Lindsay Hoyle will not be taking any rash, early decisons about his future, Steven Swinford from the Times reports.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle is not planning to resign today and will conduct 'business as usual' in the face of mounting pressure from ministers and backbenchers
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) February 22, 2024
The Speaker will meet senior leaders but has been advised by allies against doing anything rash.
All eyes on the no confidence…
Sir Lindsay Hoyle is not planning to resign today and will conduct ‘business as usual’ in the face of mounting pressure from ministers and backbenchers
The Speaker will meet senior leaders but has been advised by allies against doing anything rash.
All eyes on the no confidence motion - more than 50 MPs have now put their name to it
Ministers and PPSs now publicly saying they have lost confidence in him
Hoyle 'head and shoulders' better than last two speaker, says former Tory defence secretary Ben Wallace
An influential Conservative has spoken up for Sir Lindsay Hoyle this morning. At one point Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary, was a favourite for party leader. In posts on X this morning, he has described Hoyle as the best speaker he’s known since he was elected in 2005.
I have served under three speakers. Lindsay Hoyle is head and shoulders above the rest. He is fair, kind and a protector of back benchers. He is not a bully nor a grandstander nor pompous. He has my full support.
— Rt. Hon Ben Wallace MP (@BWallaceMP) February 22, 2024
I have served under three speakers. Lindsay Hoyle is head and shoulders above the rest. He is fair, kind and a protector of back benchers. He is not a bully nor a grandstander nor pompous. He has my full support.
The real question we should ask ourselves is why Keir Starmer, the lawyer, seems to think Commons rules should not be followed. Is it one rule for Starmer and one for the rest of us?
Labour always knew it was an SNP opposition day so why did Labour seek to override standing orders?
There are now 57 signatures on the Commons early day motion expressing no confidence in Sir Lindsay Hoyle. That suggests it won’t be long before the tally reaches 65, which would represent 10% of the house.
On the plus side for Hoyle, he has the support of Labour, and the Labour leadership. Michael Martin was forced to resign as Commons speaker after both the government and oppostion leadership decided it was time for him to go.
What is not clear, yet, is whether or not No 10 is going to decide that it wants him out. It has not indicated that so far, but if enough Tory MPs were to declare that they had lost confidence in Hoyle, Rishi Sunak could be persuaded to allow the Commons to put this matter to a vote. It must be a relief for Sunak to have Conservative MPs for once gunning for someone else, not him.
If the number of signatures on the EDM were to reach 100, a formal confidence vote would become much more likely. Nicholas Watt from Newsnight says there are some Conservatives who have not signed it yet but who will if Hoyle does not indicate he is going.
Senior Tory MP tells me: A lot of us agree with Will Wragg’s EDM [Early Day Motion] but are reluctant to sign it. If the speaker doesn’t indicate by next week that he is going then lots of us will then sign it.”
Senior Tory MP tells me: A lot of us agree with Will Wragg’s EDM [Early Day Motion] but are reluctant to sign it. If the speaker doesn’t indicate by next week that he is going then lots of us will then sign it.”
— Nicholas Watt (@nicholaswatt) February 22, 2024
Hoyle was elected speaker just before the 2019 election. Aged 66, he is currently expected to stand at the election and serve for another term as speaker. The last four speakers all stayed in office for roughly a decade. But if Hoyle were at risk of losing a confidence vote, he could decide to stand down this year, to allow MPs to chose a new speaker before the election.
Speaking on BBC Newsnight last night, the SNP’s culture spokesperson John Nicolson denied that the group had purposefully walked out of the chamber together with Tory MPs as the debate ended yesterday.
Nicolson said:
SNP MPs thought the whole procedure was absurd. What SNP MPs did was they went to the lobby, that’s the rooms beside the main parliamentary debating chamber, ready to vote, they were anticipating and expecting a vote.
A number of MPs cross-party said they wanted their constituents to know where they stood on this and the problem with staged shenanigans was that MPs weren’t allowed to express their views in the lobbies and vote.
Other MPs have told the Guardian that they went into the aye lobby to protest against the point that they weren’t getting the chance to vote on their original motion. This morning Westminster group sources say MPs feel frustrated and angry that the focus has now moved so far from Gaza and at the way Westminster conventions can be broken “when it suits”.
In his interview on the Today programme this morning Pat McFadden, Labour’s national campaign coordinator, rejected claims that Keir Starmer told Sir Lindsay Hoyle that Labour MPs would not support his re-election as speaker after the next election if he did not allow a vote on the Labour amendment. McFadden said he had checked this out and the claim was “categorically untrue”.
The question was prompted by posts on X from Nicholas Watt, Newsnight’s political editor. But Watt told Today that his posts did not say that these threats had come from Starmer himself. Watt said that he had been talking in private to many Labour MPs in the days running up to the vote and that he was reporting the message that he was hearing from some of them.
These are the posts Watt put on X yesterday.
Senior Labour figures tell me @CommonsSpeaker was left in no doubt that Labour would bring him down after the general election unless he called Labour’s Gaza amendment
The message was: you will need our votes to be re-elected as speaker after election with strong indications this would not be forthcoming if he failed to call the Labour amendment
Updated
Hoyle 'acted in good faith', says Labour's Pat McFadden
Pat McFadden, Labour’s national campaign coordinator, was on TV and radio duty for the opposition this morning. In his interviews, he defended Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, saying that he “acted in good faith” and that he took a decision he did “to have the widest possible set of options before parliament”.
He also said it was unfair for the Tories to blame Hoyle for the fact that they did not get a vote on the government motion. He said:
It’s not his fault that Maria [Caulfield]’s party puts forward a proposition then before the vote says, ‘we’re not going to vote on it, even though we’re the government, even though we’ve got a majority’ and the Speaker is taking the rap for that. And he shouldn’t have to.
There are two urgent questions in the Commons at 10.30am before Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the house, takes business questions. Both have been tabled by Labour MPs, and the first is on compensation to victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal, and the second is on the closure of the Inter Faith Network following the removal of government funding.
Minister rejects claim Conservative party ducked vote on Gaza ceasefire last night because it feared it would lose
In an interview with LBC this morning Maria Caulfield, the health minister, rejected suggestions that the Conservative party ducked the vote last night because it was worried that it might lose.
This is what Natasha Clark from LBC posted on X last night.
Multiple Tory MPs say Penny Mordaunt pulled tonight's amendment because govt did not have votes to support Israel 'humanitarian pause' motion.
— Natasha Clark (@NatashaC) February 21, 2024
Rumour is that too many Tories had told Whips they were minded to back the Labour motion in favour of full fat ceasefire...
Multiple Tory MPs say Penny Mordaunt pulled tonight’s amendment because govt did not have votes to support Israel ‘humanitarian pause’ motion.
Rumour is that too many Tories had told Whips they were minded to back the Labour motion in favour of full fat ceasefire...
When this was put to her this morning, Caulfield replied:
No, that’s definitely not true. We just felt, as you saw the scenes unfolding, that we just couldn’t take part in this. That it wasn’t fair on the SNP and I’m not the SNPs biggest supporter, but to be fair to them, they had a right to have a vote on their debate.
Until Penny Mordaunt, leader of the Commons, announced at the end of the debate that the Tories would not be participating, it had been expected that they would vote down the Labour amendment, vote down the SNP amendment, and then use their Commons majority to vote through their own amendment.
When asked if she was sure Tories could have won the vote, Caulfield replied:
Yes, I think we’ve been pretty clear on that. We had a similar vote a few weeks ago, and the party, we were pretty united on that. So that was not the reason that we pulled out of it.
Caulfield was referring to the vote in November on an SNP amendment to the king’s speech calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. At the time no Tory voted with the SNP.
More than 50 MPs, including more than half of all SNP MPs, have signed Commons motion of no confidence in speaker
More than 50 MPs have now signed the Commons early day motion expressing no confidence in the speaker. 30 of them are Conservatives, 22 of them are from the SNP and one is an ex-Tory now sitting as an independent.
In some respects, the SNP signatories are more of a worry for Sir Lindsay Hoyle. Fewer than 10% of Conservative MPs have signed, but more than half of the SNP’s parliamentary party has now lost confidence in him.
Labour MPs are supporting Lindsay Hoyle. Here are posts from two of them on X.
From Barry Sheerman
Lindsay Hoyle has been an exemplary Speaker the best I have known he is always fair & even-handed & has taken the most active role in the care & support of all Members he should be thanked & supported.
— Barry Sheerman MP (@BarrySheerman) February 21, 2024
Lindsay Hoyle has been an exemplary Speaker the best I have known he is always fair & even-handed & has taken the most active role in the care & support of all Members he should be thanked & supported.
From Jim McMahon
Honestly, they need to grow up.
— Jim McMahon MP (@JimfromOldham) February 21, 2024
Sir Hoyle is a good Speaker, a decent man and deserves better than this.
Parliament needs to reflect on the division and anger too often exploited for political gain. We should be coming together to lead the nation through these difficult issues. https://t.co/OE8Kg2YgMH
Honestly, they need to grow up.
Sir Hoyle is a good Speaker, a decent man and deserves better than this.
Parliament needs to reflect on the division and anger too often exploited for political gain. We should be coming together to lead the nation through these difficult issues.
Lindsay Hoyle has 48 hours to persuade MPs he deserves to stay on as speaker, says minister
In another interview this morning Maria Caulfield, the health minister, said that Sir Lindsay Hoyle had 48 hours to persuade MPs he should remain as Commons speaker.
Asked if his position was now untenable, she told TalkTV:
I voted for Lindsay as speaker of the House of Commons, so I was a big Lindsay Hoyle fan but his actions yesterday I’m very disappointed in.
There is a notice calling for a confidence vote on the speaker. He did apologise last night which I am giving him credit for doing that. He will be meeting with the leader of the house. It will depend on what he says over the next 24, 48 hours.
She said Hoyle might now be regareded as biased.
There can be no question that a speaker of the House of Commons is influenced by their own political party, and we need to be absolutely clear on that. We can’t function if there’s bias in the chair of the House of Commons.
Kiran Stacey has written a good backgrounder on how Keir Starmer managed to persuade Sir Lindsay Hoyle yesterday to ignore established procedural rules and to allow a vote on the Labour amendment. This is how it starts.
On Wednesday lunchtime Keir Starmer was facing the biggest crisis of his career.
Earlier in the week, he had been warned that as many as 100 of his MPs – including at least two of his shadow cabinet – were willing to rebel by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza unless Labour brought forward its own amendment calling for one.
Having agreed to publish exactly such an amendment, the Labour leader now faced another hurdle: the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was being advised not to pick it and instead call a different one from the government.
Hours away from the biggest rebellion of his leadership, Starmer decided to intervene personally and visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber.
Those briefed on the meeting said the Labour leader warned Hoyle that Labour MPs’ security was at risk. Many had been deluged by criticisms, threats and abuse since abstaining on a similar SNP motion in November. With hundreds of protesters congregating outside parliament, they worried worse might be to come.
And here is the full article.
Minister says Lindsay Hoyle's position as speaker now 'difficult' after last night's Gaza vote debacle
Good morning. Greg Power, who was an adviser to the late Robin Cook when he was leader of the Commons and who has spent the last two decades giving advice on strengthening parliamentary governance in developing countries around the world, has just published an unusual and insightful book on behaviour and political reform (Inside the Political Mind) and it starts with this observation that goes a long way to explain why parliament went into meltdown so dramatically last night.
The vast majority of parliamentary fights start with differences over policy. But what makes them combustible is when they turn into arguments about process. It is the belief that the rules are being abused, distorted or ignored in order to gain political advantage that creates such anger.
With that in mind, the events of last night, described here in Kiran Stacey’s overnight story, are easier to comprehend.
Today it is Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, who is under most pressure. He is due to hold talks with the parties to clear the air, but 33 MPs (22 Tories, 11 SNP) have signed a Commons early day motion expressing no confidence in him. The Telegraph has splashed on the line that he is fighting to save his job.
TELEGRAPH: Speaker on brink after walkout #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/1TO93rJlas
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) February 21, 2024
Both Hoyle’s predecessors had EDMs tabled expressing no confidence in them, and precedent suggests that EDMs on their own don’t matter. Speakers end up going when the government or opposition leadership turns against them, and this can happen if it becomes clear that they enjoy the broad support of the house as a whole.
And that is why Maria Caulfield’s interviews this morning were interesting. Caulfield is a health minister. She was not explicitly delivering a government line on Hoyle (No 10, when asked questions about the speaker’s future, normally says that’s a matter for the Commons, not the government), but she did not give him her support.
As Aubrey Allegretti from the Times reported, on a Tory WhatsApp group last night Caulfield said Hoyle had been “completely irresponsible” in doing hat he did.
Tory WhatsApp groups are still alive with rage at the Speaker’s decision tonight.
Another minister - Maria Caulfield - breaks cover to claim Lindsay Hoyle knew “all the fire from protesters would be against us” by letting Labour motion be voted on - as Tories would oppose.
She says it was “completely irresponsible” for MPs’ safety.
Tory WhatsApp groups are still alive with rage at the Speaker’s decision tonight.
— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) February 21, 2024
Another minister - Maria Caulfield - breaks cover to claim Lindsay Hoyle knew “all the fire from protesters would be against us” by letting Labour motion be voted on - as Tories would oppose.…
This morning Caulfield told Sky News that Hoyle’s position was now “difficult” and that she would struggle to support him.
And she said his ruling was biased against the Conservatives. On the Today programme she said that Hoyle had arranged the votes to take place in such a way as to reduce the risk of Labour MPs having to make a choice that would expose them to threats, but to increase the risk of Conservative MPs having to make a choice that would expose them to threats. She explained:
My concern was that, because [Hoyle] came under undue pressure from the Labour leader, because Labour were worried about losing that vote, for whatever reason … that meant that we will be the only party who would not be supporting the SNP motion, and that all the fire would come on Conservative MPs.
I just felt that you know, he was putting party politics above the impartiality of the speaker. He took the threat to Labour MPs seriously, but took no consideration of what would happen to Conservative MPs.
Caulfield was referring to the fact that, if the votes had taken place yesterday in line with the established rules, Labour MPs would not have been able to vote on their own motion, but would have had to take a view on the SNP one. The last time this happened, many received threats for not voting with for the SNP ceasefire proposal.
As a result of the Hoyle ruling, the Tories would have had to vote down two immediate ceasefire motions – Labour’s and the SNP’s – if they wanted to vote for their own immediate humanitarian pause one. (Under the conventional rules, they would have only had to vote down the SNP one to get a vote on their own.)
We’ve got business questions coming up in the Commons later, and that should give some indication as to how much opposition there is to Hoyle. Judging by social media, Labour MPs are already running an operation to back him.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10.30am: Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, takes questions on next week’s Commons business.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Afternoon: Rishi Sunak is on a visit in north Wales.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
