Connect with us

Published

on

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.

Politics live: Speaker sparks fury with amendments decision

More on Sir Lindsay Hoyle

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.

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

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.

Tap here for more

A fresh row erupted on Wednesday after Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle broke with convention to put Labour’s amendment to a vote – as opposition parties cannot usually amend opposition motions, only the government.

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

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.

Leader of the House of Commons Penny Mordaunt delivers a speech during the Conservative Party annual conference at the Manchester Central convention complex.  Picture date: Wednesday October 4, 2023. PA Photo. See PA story POLITICS Tories. Photo credit should read: Peter Byrne/PA Wire
Image:
Leader of the House of Commons Penny Mordaunt. Pic: PA

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

SNP and Tories walk out in protest

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

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.”

Continue Reading

UK

US accuses UK of ‘significant human rights issues’ and restricting free speech

Published

on

By

US accuses UK of 'significant human rights issues' and restricting free speech

The US State Department has accused the UK of having “significant human rights issues”, including restrictions on free speech.

The unflattering assessment comes via a new version of an annual Human Rights Practices report, with its publication coinciding with Vice President JD Vance’s holiday in the Cotswolds.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates and analysis

It says human rights in the UK “worsened” in 2024, with “credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression”, as well as “crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism” since the 7 October Hamas attack against Israel.

On free speech, while “generally provided” for, the report cites “specific areas of concern” around limits on “political speech deemed ‘hateful’ or ‘offensive'”.

Sir Keir Starmer has previously defended the UK’s record on free speech after concerns were raised by Mr Vance.

In response to the report, a UK government spokesperson said: “Free speech is vital for democracy around the world including here in the UK, and we are proud to uphold freedoms whilst keeping our citizens safe.”

Keir Starmer and JD Vance have clashed in the past over free speech in the UK. Pics: PA
Image:
Keir Starmer and JD Vance have clashed in the past over free speech in the UK. Pics: PA

The US report highlights Britain’s public space protection orders, which allow councils to restrict certain activities in some public places to prevent antisocial behaviour.

It also references “safe access zones” around abortion clinics, which the Home Office says are designed to protect women from harassment or distress.

They have been criticised by Mr Vance before, notably back in February during a headline-grabbing speech at the Munich Security Conference.

The report also criticises the Online Safety Act and accuses ministers of intervening to “chill speech” about last summer’s murders in Southport, highlighting arrests made in the wake of the subsequent riots.

Ministers have said the Online Safety Act is about protecting children, and repeatedly gone so far as to suggest people who are opposed to it are on the side of predators.

Read more politics news:
Is Keir Starmer falling into booby trap?
What is ex-minister Tulip Siddiq on trial for?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why do people want to repeal the Online Safety Act?

The report comes months after Sir Keir bit back at Mr Vance during a summit at the White House, cutting in when Donald Trump’s VP claimed there are “infringements on free speech” in the UK.

“We’ve had free speech for a very long time, it will last a long time, and we are very proud of that,” the PM said.

But Mr Vance again raised concerns during a meeting with Foreign Secretary David Lammy at his country estate in Kent last week, saying he didn’t want the UK to go down a “very dark path” of losing free speech.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Lammy-Vance bromance: Will it last?

The US State Department’s report echoes similar accusations made by the likes of Nigel Farage and Elon Musk.

The Trump administration itself has been accused of trying to curtail free speech and stifle criticism, most notably by targeting universities – Harvard chief among them.

Continue Reading

UK

US woman Aimee Betro found guilty of conspiracy to murder Birmingham shop owner

Published

on

By

US woman Aimee Betro found guilty of conspiracy to murder Birmingham shop owner

A would-be assassin who flew from the US to kill a Birmingham shop owner as part of a violent feud has been found guilty of conspiracy to murder.

Birmingham Crown Court heard how Aimee Betro, 45, flew from the US to murder shopkeeper Sikander Ali at point-blank range outside his home in the Yardley area of the city in September 2019.

Prosecutors alleged that Betro hid her identity using a niqab when she tried to shoot Mr Ali – but the gun jammed, allowing him to flee.

Betro – originally from Wisconsin – was part of a plot orchestrated by co-conspirators Mohammed Nabil Nazir, 31, and his father, Mohammed Aslam, 56, who were in a violent feud with Mr Ali’s family.

Mohammed Nabil Nazir and Mohammed Aslam were jailed in November 2024.
Pic: West Midlands Police/PA
Image:
Mohammed Nabil Nazir and Mohammed Aslam were jailed in November 2024.
Pic: West Midlands Police/PA

During her trial, Betro said she had travelled to the UK on two previous occasions, having met Nazir on a dating app.

Asked why she had paid a third visit to the UK, arriving at Manchester Airport from Atlanta around two weeks before the shooting, Betro told jurors: “To celebrate my birthday, and I won tickets for another boat party in London.”

The court was shown CCTV of Betro waiting for 45 minutes outside Mr Ali’s house on the night of 7 September 2019.

As Mr Ali arrived home, Betro approached him with a firearm, but the gun failed to fire. Mr Ali is seen jumping back into his car and reversing away, clipping Betro’s driver’s side door in the process.

CCTV image said to show Aimee Betro in Birmingham following the attempted shooting of Sikander Ali in September 2019. Pic: PA
Image:
CCTV image said to show Aimee Betro in Birmingham following the attempted shooting of Sikander Ali in September 2019. Pic: PA

The court heard Betro then goaded Mr Ali’s father, Aslat Mahumad, with whom her co-conspirators had a feud, through text messages including: “Where are you hiding?”, “Stop playing hide and seek, you are lucky it jammed,” and asking him to meet her at a nearby Asda.

Jurors were told co-conspirators Nazir and Aslam had been injured during disorder at Mr Mahumad’s clothing boutique in Birmingham in July 2018, leading them to conspire to have someone kill him or a member of his family.

In the early hours of the next morning and just hours after the failed shooting, Betro booked a taxi and returned to Mr Ali’s home, where she fired three shots at the property, which was empty at the time.

She then fled back to the US the next day before becoming involved in another of Nazir’s plots to get revenge on a rival.

Read more from Sadiya Chowdhury:
Two terminally ill people give their views on assisted dying vote
Teen who murdered his family will not be given whole-life order

Prosecutors also said Betro sent three parcels full of ammunition and gun parts to the UK on 16 October 2019.

The court heard the parts, which were wrapped in foil and paper inside three cardboard boxes, were addressed to a man from Derby, with Nazir tipping off the police with the intent to frame him.

While the packages were intercepted and the man arrested as part of what the prosecution said was Nazir’s “devious scheme”, his involvement in the plan eventually came to light, and he was released without charge.

Betro, it said, was seen at a post office 100 miles away from her home address in the US posting the parcels under a fake name.

In the case of each of those three packages, Betro’s DNA has been found on the gun parts and ammunition inside them.

Betro had claimed it was all a coincidence, saying the woman on the CCTV was another American who looked, dressed and sounded like her.

It was alleged that Betro was in Armenia when Nazir and Aslam were jailed for 32 years and 10 years respectively in November 2024, but was extradited in January this year to face her own criminal proceedings.

Jurors deliberated for almost 21 hours before convicting Betro of conspiracy to murder, possessing a self-loading pistol with intent to cause fear of violence, and a charge of illegally importing ammunition.

She was found guilty by majority verdicts on the conspiracy to murder and firearm charges, and by a unanimous verdict on the ammunition charge.

Speaking to Sky News, Detective Chief Inspector Alastair Orencas, from West Midlands Police’s Major Crime Unit, called Betro’s crime “a brazen attempt,” adding that there “doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of effort to avoid detection”.

“I think she fell foul of a really slick, dynamic law enforcement operation over here,” he said.

“I don’t know whether that was her perspective from America, that that’s how we operate, but zero tolerance around firearms, criminality on these shores.”

Betro was remanded in custody and will be sentenced on 21 August.

Hannah Sidaway, specialist prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service in the West Midlands, said: “Only Betro knows what truly motivated her or what she sought to gain from becoming embroiled in a crime that meant she travelled hundreds of miles from Wisconsin to Birmingham to execute an attack on a man she did not know.”

Continue Reading

UK

Thames Water crisis: Ministers line up administrator for utility giant

Published

on

By

Thames Water crisis: Ministers line up administrator for utility giant

Ministers have lined up insolvency practitioners to prepare for the potential collapse of Thames Water, Britain’s biggest water utility.

Sky News can exclusively reveal that Steve Reed, the environment secretary, has signed off the appointment of FTI Consulting to advise on contingency plans for Thames Water to be placed into a Special Administration regime (SAR).

Sources said on Tuesday that the advisory role established FTI Consulting as the frontrunner to act as the company’s administrator if it fails to secure a private sector bailout – although approval of such an appointment would be decided in court.

Money latest: Supermarket coffee beats big brands in taste test

Thames Water, its largest group of creditors and Ofwat, the industry regulator, have been locked in talks for months about a deal that would see its lenders injecting about £5bn of new capital and writing off roughly £12bn of value across its capital structure.

The discussions are said to be progressing constructively, although they appear to rely in part on the prospect of the company being granted forbearance on hundreds of millions of pounds of regulatory fines.

Responding to an enquiry from Sky News on Tuesday, a government spokesperson said: “The government will always act in the national interest on these issues.

More on Thames Water

“The company remains financially stable, but we have stepped up our preparations and stand ready for all eventualities, including applying for a Special Administration Regime if that were to become necessary.”

Insiders stressed that FTI Consulting’s engagement by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) did not signal that Thames Water was about to collapse into insolvency proceedings.

A SAR would ensure that customers would continue to receive water and sewage services if Thames Water collapsed, while putting taxpayers on the hook for billions of pounds in bailout costs – a scenario the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is keen to avoid at a time when the public finances are already severely constrained.

The SAR process can only be instigated in the event that a company becomes insolvent, can no longer fulfil its statutory duties or breaches an enforcement order, according to insiders.

Mr Reed has repeatedly stressed the government’s desire to avoid taking Thames Water into temporary public ownership, but that it was ready to deal with “all eventualities”.

“Thames Water must meet its statutory and regulatory obligations to its customers and to the environment–it is only right that the company is subject to the same consequences as any other water company.

The company remains financially stable, but we have stepped up our preparations and stand ready for all eventualities,” he told the House of Commons in June.

Thames Water, which has about 16m customers, serves about a quarter of the UK’s population.

It is drowning under close to £20bn of debt, and was previously owned by Macquarie, the Australian infrastructure and banking behemoth.

Its most recent consortium of shareholders, which included the Universities Superannuation Scheme and an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, have written off the value of their investments in the company.

The government’s SAR process has only been tested once before, when the energy retailer Bulb failed in 2021.

Bulb was ultimately sold to Octopus Energy with the taxpayer funding used to save and run the company since having been repaid.

Thames Water is racing to secure a rescue plan involving funds such as Elliott Management and Silver Point Capital, with a deadline of late October to appeal to the Competition and Markets Authority against Ofwat’s final determination on its next five-year spending plan.

Ofwat has ruled that Thames Water can spend £20.5bn during the period from 2026, with the company arguing that it requires a further sum of approximately £4bn.

Mike McTighe, a veteran corporate troubleshooter who chairs BT Group’s Openreach division, has been parachuted in to work with the funds.

The company said in its accounts last month that there was “material uncertainty” over whether it could be solvently recapitalised.

Earlier this year, Thames Water was fined a record £123m over sewage leaks and the payment of dividends, with Ofwat lambasting the company over its performance and governance.

In recent weeks, Thames Water has been engulfed in a row over the legitimacy of bonuses paid to chief executive Chris Weston and other bosses, even as it attempts to secure its survival.

Under new laws, Thames Water is among half a dozen water companies which have been barred from paying bonuses this year because of their poor environmental records.

The creditor group was effectively left as the sole bidder for Thames Water after the private equity firm KKR withdrew from the process, citing political and reputational risks.

The Hong Kong-based investor CK Infrastructure Holdings (CKI), which already owns Northumbrian Water, has sought to re-engage in talks about a rescue deal but has gained little traction in doing so.

News of FTI Consulting’s appointment also comes on the same day as a “nationally significant” water shortfall was declared across swathes of the country.

Last week, Sky News revealed that David Black, the Ofwat chief executive, was to step down following the publication of a government-commissioned review which recommended the regulator’s abolition.

He has been replaced by Chris Walters, another Ofwat executive, on an interim basis.

Continue Reading

Trending