Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has apologised to MPs after the chamber descended into chaos around a motion calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Wednesday was designated as an opposition day for the SNP, which chose to debate the Israel-Hamas war – and sought to persuade MPs to back its calls for an immediate halt to the fighting.
But a controversial decision from Sir Lindsay to allow a Labour amendment to be put to the House led to an uproar from Tory MPs – and eventually saw the government pledging to “play no further part” in proceedings, as well as the SNP not even getting to vote on its original proposal.
After Conservative and SNP politicians stormed out of the chamber in protest, Sir Lindsay returned to the Commons to face his critics, apologising for “how it all ended up” and saying he took “responsibility” for his actions.
But SNP leader Stephen Flynn said he would “take significant convincing” that the Speaker’s position was “not now intolerable”.
And 33 MPs from both his party and the Tories have now signed a no-confidence motion in Sir Lindsay – not enough to oust him yet, but a motion that could gain traction in the coming days.
Today’s debate was set to be the conclusion of days of drama over whether Labour would change its position on the conflict in the Middle East.
The party initially supported the government’s stance, calling for a pause in the fighting rather than a ceasefire, as it did not believe the latter would be sustainable.
Advertisement
However, after the SNP decided to force the issue to a vote in the Commons, Labour went further – putting forward an amendment calling instead for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, albeit still with its initial caveats that both sides would need to lay down their arms and Israeli hostages would have to be released.
Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge
Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm.
Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.
Labour sources told Sky News Sir Lindsay – who was a Labour MP before taking on the role of Speaker – had been pressured by party whips to select it, but a party spokesman denied the claim.
However, Tory MPs accused him of making an “overtly political decision” to select the amendment in order to prevent Sir Keir Starmer facing a rebellion from his backbenchers – who could have supported the SNP’s motion without a Labour option.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
Speaker angers SNP and tories
In a surprise move, Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt announced the government would be withdrawing its own amendment to the SNP’s motion – which reiterated the government’s existing position – saying the Conservatives would “play no further part in the decision this House takes on today’s proceedings”.
She said the decision of Sir Lindsay to select the Labour amendment had “undermined the confidence” of MPs in procedures, “raised temperatures in this House on an issue where feelings are already running high” and “put honourable and right honourable members in a more difficult position”.
But due to parliamentary rules, the decision to walk away meant Labour’s amendment passed and MPs could only vote on the altered motion – stopping the SNP’s original proposal even being voted on.
Instead of the aftermath being about the significance of the UK parliament officially backing an immediate ceasefire in Gaza for the first time, the focus returned to the impact of Sir Lindsay’s earlier decisions – with some Tory and SNP MPs leaving the chamber in protest.
The SNP’s Mr Flynn called for the Speaker to come to the Commons, asking deputy speaker Dame Rosie Winterton: “How do we bring him to this House now to explain to the Scottish National Party why our views and our votes in this House are irrelevant to him?”
And after some delaying tactics by MPs, the Speaker appeared to offer his apologies to MPs on all sides.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:15
Amid chaos in parliament, SNP and Conservative MPs have walked out of the chamber in protest at the Speaker’s handling of the Gaza ceasefire debate
As some MPs called out “resign”, Sir Lindsay reiterated his earlier justifications for selecting the Labour amendment, saying he had been trying to ensure all options were on the table for MPs to vote on – as well as protecting MPs’ safety.
He added: “I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up.
“I do take responsibility for my actions.”
But while Mr Flynn accepted the intention of the apology, he said the result of the Speaker’s actions saw “an SNP opposition day turn into a Labour Party opposition day”.
“I’m afraid that is treating myself and my colleagues in the Scottish National Party with complete and utter contempt,” he said.
“I will take significant convincing that your position is not now intolerable.”
How do you oust a Speaker?
On a chaotic night, the Speaker of the House of Commons appears to be fighting for his future in the role.
Our deputy political editor Sam Coates says he probably has as little as 24 hours to save his political life.
But how would he end up leaving the role?
According to the Institute for Government, there’s no formal means of removing the House Speaker from office.
However, they can fall victim to a vote of no confidence – making it extremely difficult, and likely untenable, for them to stick around.
One famous example was during the expenses scandal in 2009, when speaker Michael Martin resigned in anticipation of losing such a vote.
There has been speculation today that the government may look to make Sir Lindsay Hoyle subject to one too.
Given his apology to MPs tonight, he clearly recognises the strength of feeling and sheer anger at his handling of the Gaza votes
Were he to resign, it would kick off a vote to select his successor.
Candidates are put forward via written nominations, and if one secures more than 50% of the vote among MPs then a motion is put to the Commons asking to confirm their appointment.
If it doesn’t pass, selection and voting starts again.
If nobody secures 50% in the first place, the candidate with the lowest vote share gets removed from the ballot and the vote is repeated until someone does hit the threshold and a winner emerges.
Speaking to Sky News after the drama had unfolded, Mr Flynn apologised to the public, saying today should have been about Palestinians in Gaza.
“But Westminster does this, doesn’t it?” he added. “It turns into a [debate] all about Westminster and what a circus this is.
“Because thanks to the actions of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the SNP has been stitched up to the point that the Labour Party were the only game in town today.”
He said there would be some “serious recriminations”, adding: “Today was about something much bigger than Westminster, and yet here we are debating Westminster is nonsense.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:01
SNP leader says Speaker’s position may be ‘intolerable’.
Labour’s shadow defence secretary, John Healey, defended Sir Lindsay, telling Sky News’s Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge: “The Speaker is there to protect the rights of all MPs and he was trying to do the right thing.
“He was trying to make sure [there was] the widest possible debate because he knows it matters in parliament, it matters in our communities and it matters beyond the shores of Britain.”
However, Mr Healey criticised other MPs, adding: “This was a chance when we could have shown the best of parliament in coming together to demand an end to the fighting in Gaza.
“But instead we’ve revealed the worst of Westminster, with this descending into a row about procedure, with a boycott from the Conservatives, a walkout from the SNP, and frankly, this does nothing to help the Palestinians and it does nothing to advance the cause of peace.”
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted the “vast majority of farmers” will not be affected by changes to Inheritance Tax (IHT) ahead of a protest outside parliament on Tuesday.
It follows Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing a 20% inheritance tax that will apply to farms worth more than £1m from April 2026, where they were previously exempt.
But the prime minister looked to quell fears as he resisted calls to change course.
Speaking from the G20 summit in Brazil, he said: “If you take a typical case of a couple wanting to pass a family farm down to one of their children, which would be a very typical example, with all of the thresholds in place, that’s £3m before any inheritance tax is paid.”
The comments come as thousands of farmers, including celebrity farmer Jeremy Clarkson, are due to descend on Whitehall on Tuesday to protest the change.
And 1,800 more will take part in a “mass lobby” where members of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) will meet their MPs in parliament to urge them to ask Ms Reeves to reconsider the policy.
Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir insisted the government is supportive of farmers, pointing to a £5bn investment announced for them in the budget.
Advertisement
He said: “I’m confident that the vast majority of farms and farmers will not be affected at all by that aspect of the budget.
“They will be affected by the £5bn that we’re putting into farming. And I’m very happy to work with farmers on that.”
Sir Keir’s spokesman made a similar argument earlier on Monday, saying the government expects 73% of farms to not be affected by the change.
Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs Secretary Steve Reed said only about 500 out of the UK’s 209,000 farms would be affected, according to Treasury calculations.
However, that number has been questioned by several farming groups and the Conservatives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:28
Farming industry is feeling ‘betrayed’ – NFU boss
Government figures ‘misleading’
The NFU said the real number is about two-thirds, with its president Tom Bradshaw calling the government’s figures “misleading” and accusing it of not understanding the sector.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) said the policy could affect 70,000 farms.
Conservative shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused the government last week of “regurgitating” figures that represent “past claimants of agricultural property relief, not combined with business property relief” because he said the Treasury does not have that data.
Agricultural property relief (APR) currently provides farmers 100% relief from paying inheritance tax on agricultural land or pasture used for rearing livestock or fish, and can include woodland and buildings, such as farmhouses, if they are necessary for that land to function.
Farmers can also claim business property relief (BPR), providing 50% or 100% relief on assets used by a trading business, which for farmers could include land, buildings, plant or machinery used by the business, farm shops and holiday cottages.
APR and BPR can often apply to the same asset, especially farmed land, but APR should be the priority, however BPR can be claimed in addition if APR does not cover the full value (e.g. if the land has development value above its agricultural value).
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Mr Moore said the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Treasury have disagreed on how many farms will be impacted “by as much as 40%” due to the lack of data on farmers using BPR.
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said last week1,400 farmers in Cumbria, where he is an MP, will be affected and will not be able to afford to pay the tax as many are on less than the minimum wage despite being asset rich.
A split is emerging in the cabinet, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson revealing she will join several of her colleagues and vote against the bill to legalise assisted dying.
Ms Phillipson told Sky News she will vote against the proposed legislation at the end of this month, which would give terminally ill people with six months to live the option to end their lives.
She voted against assisted dying in 2015 and said: “I haven’t changed my mind.
“I continue to think about this deeply. But my position hasn’t changed since 2015.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:41
Details of end of life bill released
MPs will be given a free vote on the bill, so they will not be told how to vote by their party.
The topic has seen a split in the cabinet – however, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has yet to reveal how he will vote on 29 November.
Ms Phillipson joins some other big names who have publicly said they are voting against the bill
These include Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds.
Advertisement
Border security minister Angela Eagle is also voting against the bill.
Senior cabinet members voting in favour of assisted dying include Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Science Secretary Peter Kyle, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn, Transport Secretary Louise Haigh and Welsh Secretary Jo Stevens.
The split over the issue is said to be causing friction within government, with Sir Keir rebuking the health secretary for repeatedly saying he is against the bill and for ordering officials to review the costs of implementing any changes in the law.
Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates has been told Morgan McSweeney, the PM’s chief of staff, is concerned about the politics of the bill passing.
He is understood to be worried the issue will dominate the agenda next year and, while he is not taking a view on the bill, he can see it taking over the national conversation and distracting from core government priorities like the economy and borders.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Details of the bill were published last week and include people wanting to end their life having to self-administer the medicine.
It would only be allowed for terminally ill people who have been given six months to live.
Two independent doctors would have to confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge would have to give their approval before it could go ahead.
Lord Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, has called on the British government to condemn the “sham” sentencing of 45 Hong Kong politicians and activists as Sir Keir Starmer holds talks with the Chinese president.
The former opposition pro-democracy politicians, social workers, activists and academics are due to be sentenced on Tuesday for conspiring to subvert power through an unofficial “primary” election four years ago.
Members of the public have been queuing to attend their sentencing, which will see them facing up to life in jail.
It is Hong Kong’s largest and longest-running prosecution under the national security law, which was enforced by Beijing and saw months of mass protests, police violence and arrests in 2020 and 2021.
Called the “Hong Kong 47” after 47 were charged in January 2021 with conspiracy to commit subversion, 45 of them are set to be sentenced this week after two were acquitted in May this year.
Lord Patten, a patron of British NGO Hong Kong Watch, said the sentences tomorrow will be a “sham” and he called on the prime minister to speak out against them.
Sir Keir met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Rio on Monday where he told him a “strong UK-China relationship is important for both of our countries”.
The UK PM told reporters on Sunday he intended to pursue a “serious, pragmatic” relationship with Beijing.
Advertisement
Lord Patten said: “The sentencing of 45 of the 47 Hong Kong democrats is not only an affront to the people of Hong Kong, but those who value rights and freedoms around the world.
“These brave individuals were an integral part of defining the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, and were peacefully supported by thousands through votes.
“I absolutely condemn these sham sentences, which resulted from a non-jury trial and point to the destruction of freedoms of assembly, expression, and the press in Hong Kong.
“The UK government must not allow the results of this case to go unnoticed or uncondemned.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:29
2020 Hong Kong protests: ‘We will never surrender’
Historic meeting between Starmer and Xi
Sir Keir’s meeting with President Xi in Rio is the first of any prime minister in more than six years.
The PM and his foreign secretary, David Lammy, have been critical of China in the past, particularly regarding allegations of human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Relations between the UK and China have become frosty over the last decade as the Conservative government spoke out against human rights abuses and concerns grew over national security risks from Chinese investment.
Sir Keir appears to be prioritising trade, with China being Britain’s sixth largest trading partner, accounting for 5% of goods and services trade worth £86.5bn.
The PM’s spokesman said Sir Keir told Mr Xi he wants to “engage honestly and frankly on those areas where we have different perspectives, including on Hong Kong, human rights and Russia’s war in Ukraine”.
Hong Kong 47 in jail for nearly four years
Most of the Hong Kong 47 have been in custody since they were arrested in early 2021.
One of the most famous members of the group is Nobel Peace Prize nominee Joshua Wong, a student protest leader who became leader of the now-disbanded political group Demosisto.
Sixteen of the group pleaded not guilty, with 14 of them convicted after a 118-day trial without a jury. Those found guilty will be sentenced along with 31 who pleaded guilty.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
They were arrested after organising a primary election in July 2020 aiming to help pro-democracy politicians seize a majority in the 2021 Legislative Council elections.
Prosecutors said had they won a majority in the chamber, the democrats were planning to “indiscriminately” veto bills, including the annual budget, which would force the chief executive’s resignation and a government shutdown.
National security judges ruled the move would have plunged Hong Kong into a “constitutional crisis”.