Raised voices, walk-outs, calls for resignations, even a few tears – it was a hairy day over in parliament on Wednesday and not the usual scenes expected from an opposition day debate.
So what rattled Westminster and its MPs? And how did the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, find himself at the centre of the furore?
As the third largest party in the Commons, the SNP is entitled to three opposition days in parliament every session – letting them pick the topic to be debated on the floor of the chamber.
Wednesday was one of those days, and the party chose the Israel-Hamas war, laying down a motion calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in the Middle East.
More on Conservatives
Related Topics:
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.
This has been a long-held position of the SNP, so the proposal came as no surprise.
But it did lead to mounting pressure on the Labour Party to shift its position – which had, until this point, echoed the government’s calls for a “pause” – as the last time a ceasefire vote took place, there was a raft of resignations from their frontbench.
There were still caveats in place, including ensuring both sides laid down their weapons and that all the Israeli hostages were released, but it was seen as a big shift for Labour.
Come Wednesday, the stage was set for the debate – but little did we know about the chaos that was coming.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:19
Labour’s David Lammy calls for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”
Why is the Speaker in trouble?
At the start of a debate on a motion, it is down to the Speaker to decide if any amendments to it can be debated and voted on.
But parliamentary convention says that if the motion has been put forward by an opposition party, like the SNP, it cannot be amended by another opposition party, like Labour – only by the government.
Despite anger from his clerk, and feathers being spat by a number of MPs, Sir Lindsay decided both the government and Labour’s amendments to the SNP’s motion could and would be voted on, claiming he wanted to give the House as many options as possible when debating such an emotive topic.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:53
Speaker angers SNP and Tories
Conservative MPs accused the Speaker – a Labour MP before taking on the role – of making an “overtly political decision” to help Sir Keir Starmer fend off a rebellion from his own MPs, who could back the SNP motion without a Labour alternative to support.
Then came a curve ball from the Tory Leader of the House, Penny Mordaunt, who decided to pull the government’s amendment from the floor.
She announced her party would “play no further part” in proceedings in protest at the actions of Sir Lindsay – something she claimed “undermined the confidence” of MPs in the House’s procedures.
Image: Penny Mordaunt made a surprise move by pulling the government’s amendment. Pic: Sky News
And with that amendment gone – and Tories abstaining from any votes – Labour’s amendment was able to pass without a vote.
But that meant the original SNP motion had been changed to Labour’s form of words, and the Scottish MPs never got a chance to vote on their own proposal, leading to fury from their benches.
How has he responded?
MPs from the SNP and the Conservatives staged a walkout in protest to what had played out and demanded Sir Lindsay come to the Commons to explain himself.
And eventually, he did, apologising to all sides over what had happened.
The Speaker 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.
“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,” he said.
“I do take responsibility for my actions.”
But Tory MPs were heard shouting “resign” throughout his apology, and SNP leader Stephen Flynn said he would “take significant convincing” that his position was “not now intolerable”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:01
SNP leader says Speaker’s position may be ‘intolerable’
Could Sir Lindsay be replaced?
After all the drama had come to a close in the chamber, there were more parliamentary shenanigans to be had.
A group of 33 MPs from both the Tories and the SNP signed up to a no-confidence motion in Sir Lindsay in the form of an early-day motion.
So-called EDMs are rarely debated, but they offer MPs a way of drawing attention to their views and stating them publicly.
So while it may highlight their unhappiness with the Speaker, it doesn’t push him out the door.
Yet there is a feeling in the air that Sir Lindsay is going to have to fight to keep his job now and win over his critics.
How would parliament choose a new speaker?
According to the Institute for Government, there’s no formal means of removing the Speaker from their role.
But MPs can hold a vote of no-confidence in him or her, making it extremely difficult for them to hold on – and perhaps pushing them towards resigning.
If Sir Lindsay did step down – either because of a vote or the threat of one coming his way – the chair would need to be filled.
Candidates would be put forward via written nominations, and if one secured more than 50% of the vote among MPs, a motion would be put to the Commons to confirm their appointment.
If the motion didn’t pass, selection and voting would start again.
If nobody secured 50% in the first place, the candidate with the lowest vote share would be removed from the ballot and the vote would be repeated until someone hit the threshold and a winner emerged.
CCTV and police bodycam footage allegedly showing three police officers being assaulted at Manchester Airport has been played to jurors.
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, and his brother, Muhammad Amaad, 26, are said to have struck out after police were called to the airport on 23 July last year, following Amaaz allegedly headbutting a customer at a Starbucks in Terminal 2.
Minutes later, three police officers approached the defendants at the paystation in the terminal’s car park.
A jury at Liverpool Crown Court today watched CCTV footage from opposite angles, which captured what the prosecution says was a “high level of violence” being used by the siblings.
The prosecution says Amaaz resisted as officers tried to move him to arrest him, and Amaad then intervened.
Junior counsel Adam Birkby suggested Amaaz threw 10 punches, including one to the face of PC Lydia Ward, which knocked her to the floor.
His brother Amaad is then said to have aimed six punches at firearms officer PC Zachary Marsden.
Amaaz also allegedly kicked PC Marsden and struck firearms officer PC Ellie Cook twice with his elbow.
He is said to have punched PC Marsden from behind and had a hold of him, before PC Cook discharged her Taser.
Image: Mohammed Fahir Amaaz (left) and Muhammed Amaad (right) arrive at the court with their lawyer. Pic: PA
The bodycam and CCTV footage, submitted as evidence by the prosecution, allegedly shows the officers’ arrival in the Terminal 2 car park and their attempts to arrest the siblings, as well as their exchanges with them.
PC Ward can be heard saying “Oi, you b*****d” in footage from her bodycam, the prosecution evidence appears to show.
She then appears to fall to the floor and screams.
PC Cook, who is pointing her Taser at one of the defendants, then allegedly says: “Stay on the floor, stay on the floor whatever you do.”
“Get back, get back,” PC Ward appears to say.
The bodycam footage, shown to the jury by the prosecution, shows PC Marsden, who is also pointing his Taser, appear to approach the defendant who is lying on the ground and kick out at him.
Mr Birkby said: “Mr Amaaz, while prone, lifts his head towards the officers. PC Marsden kicks Mr Amaaz around the head area.
“PC Marsden stamps his foot towards the crown of Mr Amaaz’s head area but doesn’t appear to connect with Mr Amaaz.”
Amaaz denies three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the three police officers and one count of assault to Abdulkareem Ismaeil, the customer at Starbucks.
Amaad denies one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to PC Marsden.
A paramedic who secretly gave a pregnant woman an abortion drug during sex has been jailed for more than 10 years.
Stephen Doohan, 33, was married when he met the woman on holiday in Spain in 2021 and began a long-distance relationship.
The High Court in Glasgow heard how the victim travelled to Edinburgh in March 2023 to visit Doohan after learning she was pregnant.
During consensual sex, Doohan twice secretly administered the tablets which led to the woman suffering a miscarriage.
In May, Doohan pleaded guilty to sexual assault and causing the woman to have an abortion. He returned to the dock on Monday where he was jailed for 10 years and six months.
Lord Colbeck said Doohan caused “long-term psychological injury” to his victim.
The judge said: “You put her through considerable pain over a number of days and left her facing a lifetime of pain and loss.”
More on Edinburgh
Related Topics:
The court heard how the woman found tablets hidden under the mattress after she became suspicious over Doohan’s behaviour in bed.
Lord Colbeck said: “The complainer then carried out an internet search for abortion tablets and confronted you over your actions.”
After the woman fell ill, Doohan convinced her to lie to medics at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh amid fears he would be arrested if she told the truth.
The victim later attended another hospital with her sister and was told she was having a miscarriage.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) said Doohan sent the woman gifts including perfume, socks, facial cleansing oil, money to get her hair done and bought tickets for them to attend a football match.
The woman complained to the Scottish Ambulance Service in May 2023, sparking an investigation.
The court heard that on 14 March 2023, the day the woman told Doohan she was pregnant, the paramedic used a work intranet to search for abortion drugs.
Lord Colbeck said: “You planned out what you did to your victim using resources available to you as a paramedic.”
In addition to his prison sentence, Doohan was also added to the sex offenders’ register and banned from contacting his victim.
Fiona Kirkby, procurator fiscal for high court sexual offences, said: “Stephen Doohan’s calculated and heinous actions caused the loss of the victim’s pregnancy, robbing her of plans she had for the future.
“He has now been held accountable for this fundamental breach of trust.
“While offences like this are thankfully rare, I hope this prosecution sends a clear message to all those who seek to inflict sexual harm towards women.
“Our thoughts remain with the victim, who must be commended for reporting her experience and seeking justice.
“We recognise that reporting sexual offending can be difficult but would urge anyone affected to come forward and seek support when they feel ready to do so.”
The Scottish Ambulance Service branded it an “appalling case”.
A spokesperson added: “We recognise the courage it must have taken for the victim to come forward and speak out.
“As soon as we learned of these very serious allegations and charges, we immediately took action, providing ongoing support to her whilst liaising with Police Scotland throughout the investigation.
“We know nothing will change what has happened to the victim and all we can hope is this sentence provides some comfort to them.”
UK farmers have “nothing more to give” as they fear the government will use agriculture to further reduce US tariffs in a trade deal with the White House.
The UK is trying to reduce steel tariffs to zero, from a current reduced rate of 25%, but Downing Street refused to confirm if it was confident ahead of Donald Trump’s deadline of 9 July.
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), said UK agriculture had already been used to reduce Trump-imposed tariffs on cars but any other concessions would have serious repercussions for farmers, food security and the UK’s high animal welfare standards.
He told Sky News: “It just feels like we, as the agricultural sector, had to shoulder the responsibility to reduce the tariffs on cars from 25%.
“We can’t do it anymore, we have nothing more to give.
“It’s clear the steel quotas and tariffs aren’t sorted yet, so we just want to be very clear with the government: if they’re sitting around the negotiating table – which we understand they are – they can’t expect agriculture to give any more.”
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Image: Tom Bradshaw, the head of the NFU, said farmers cannot give any more
‘Massively undermine our standards’
Since 30 June, the US has been able to import 13,000 tonnes of hormone-free British beef without tariffs under a deal made earlier this year, which farmers feel was to reduce the car import levy Mr Trump imposed.
The UK was also given tariff-free access to 1.4bn litres of US ethanol, which farmers say will put the UK’s bioethanol and associated sectors under pressure.
Allowing lower US food standards would “massively undermine our standards” and would mean fewer sales to the European Union where food standards are also high, Mr Bradshaw said.
It would leave British farmers competing on a playing field that is “anything but fair”, he said, because US food can be produced – and sold – much cheaper due to low welfare which could see a big reduction in investment in UK farms, food security and the environment.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:08
Can the UK avoid steel tariffs?
‘The US will push hard for more access’
He said the US narrative has always suggested they want access to British agriculture products “as a start and they’ll negotiate for more”.
“The narrative from the White House on 8 May, when a US-UK trade deal was announced, was all about further access to our agriculture products – it was very different to what our government was saying,” he added.
“So far, the UK has stood firm and upheld our higher welfare standards, but the US will push very hard to have further access.
“No country in the world has proved they can reduce the 10% tariffs further.”
Image: US poultry welfare is lower than the UK, with much more intensive farming that means the meat has to be washed with antimicrobials. Pic: AP
US ‘will target poultry and pork’
The Essex farmer said he expects the US to push “very hard” to get the UK to lower its standards on poultry and pork, specifically.
US poultry is often washed with antimicrobials, including chlorine, in an attempt to wash off high levels of bacteria caused by poor hygiene, antibiotic use and low animal welfare conditions not allowed in UK farming.
US pig rearing methods are also quite different, with intensive farming and the use of feed additive ractopamine legal, with both banned in the UK.
A government spokesperson told Sky News: “We regularly speak to businesses across the UK to understand the impact of tariffs and will only ever act in the national interest.
“Our Plan for Change has delivered a deal which will open up exclusive access for UK beef farmers to the US market for the first time ever and all agricultural imports coming to the UK will have to meet our high SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) standards.”