What happened in the Commons today – and can the Speaker be sacked?

Published

1 year ago

February 22, 2024

admin

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?

Politics live: Tens of MPs sign no-confidence motion in Speaker after Commons chaos

We take a look at how the saga played out.

What was supposed to happen?

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.

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.

So, on Tuesday – and after days of speculation – shadow foreign secretary David Lammy announced Labour would be putting forward an amendment to the SNP motion, calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

Could he 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.

UK

US-UK trade deal ‘done’, says Trump as he meets Starmer at G7

Published

5 hours ago

June 17, 2025

admin

US-UK trade deal 'done', says Trump as he meets Starmer at G7

The UK-US trade deal has been signed and is “done”, US President Donald Trump has said as he met Sir Keir Starmer at the G7 summit.

The US president told reporters in Canada: “We signed it, and it’s done. It’s a fair deal for both. It’ll produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income.”

Sir Keir said the document “implements” the deal to cut tariffs on cars and aerospace, describing it as a “really important agreement”.

“So this is a very good day for both of our countries – a real sign of strength,” the prime minister added.

Mr Trump added that the UK was “very well protected” against any future tariffs, saying: “You know why? Because I like them”.

However, he did not say whether levies on British steel exports to the US would be set to 0%, saying “we’re gonna let you have that information in a little while”.

What exactly does trade deal being ‘done’ mean?

The government says the US “has committed” to removing tariffs (taxes on imported goods) on UK aerospace goods, such as engines and aircraft parts, which currently stand at 10%.

That is “expected to come into force by the end of the month”.

Tariffs on car imports will drop from 27.5% to 10%, the government says, which “saves car manufacturers hundreds of millions a year, and protects tens of thousands of jobs”.

The White House says there will be a quote of 100,000 cars eligible for import at that level each year.

But on steel, the story is a little more complicated.

The UK is the only country exempted from the global 50% tariff rate on steel – which means the UK rate remains at the original level of 25%.

That tariff was expected to be lifted entirely, but the government now says it will “continue to go further and make progress towards 0% tariffs on core steel products as agreed”.

The White House says the US will “promptly construct a quota at most-favoured-nation rates for steel and aluminium articles”.

Other key parts of the deal include import and export quotas for beef – and the government is keen to emphasise that “any US imports will need to meet UK food safety standards”.

There is no change to tariffs on pharmaceuticals for the moment, and the government says “work will continue to protect industry from any further tariffs imposed”.

The White House says they “committed to negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes”.

Mr Trump also praised Sir Keir as a “great” prime minister, adding: “We’ve been talking about this deal for six years, and he’s done what they haven’t been able to do.”

He added: “We’re very longtime partners and allies and friends and we’ve become friends in a short period of time.

“He’s slightly more liberal than me to put it mildly… but we get along.”

Sir Keir added that “we make it work”.

As the pair exited a mountain lodge in the Canadian Rockies where the summit is being held, Mr Trump held up a physical copy of the trade agreement to show reporters.

Several leaves of paper fell from the binding, and Sir Keir quickly stooped to pick them up, saying: “A very important document.”

The US president also appeared to mistakenly refer to a “trade agreement with the European Union” at one point as he stood alongside the British prime minister.

Mr Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on countries in April. At the time, he announced 10% “reciprocal” rates on all UK exports – as well as separately announced 25% levies on cars and steel.

In a joint televised phone call in May, Sir Keir and Mr Trump announced the UK and US had agreed on a trade deal – but added the details were being finalised.

Ahead of the G7 summit, the prime minister said he would meet Mr Trump for “one-on-one” talks, and added the agreement “really matters for the vital sectors that are safeguarded under our deal, and we’ve got to implement that”.

UK

Whitehall officials tried to cover up grooming scandal in 2011, Dominic Cummings says

Published

11 hours ago

June 16, 2025

admin

Whitehall officials tried to cover up grooming scandal in 2011, Dominic Cummings says

Whitehall officials tried to convince Michael Gove to go to court to cover up the grooming scandal in 2011, Sky News can reveal.

Dominic Cummings, who was working for Lord Gove at the time, has told Sky News that officials in the Department for Education (DfE) wanted to help efforts by Rotherham Council to stop a national newspaper from exposing the scandal.

In an interview with Sky News, Mr Cummings said that officials wanted a “total cover-up”.

Politics latest: Grooming gangs findings unveiled

The revelation shines a light on the institutional reluctance of some key officials in central government to publicly highlight the grooming gang scandal.

In 2011, Rotherham Council approached the Department for Education asking for help following inquiries by The Times. The paper’s then chief reporter, the late Andrew Norfolk, was asking about sexual abuse and trafficking of children in Rotherham.

The council went to Lord Gove’s Department for Education for help. Officials considered the request and then recommended to Lord Gove’s office that the minister back a judicial review which might, if successful, stop The Times publishing the story.

Lord Gove rejected the request on the advice of Mr Cummings. Sources have independently confirmed Mr Cummings’ account.

Mr Cummings told Sky News: “Officials came to me in the Department of Education and said: ‘There’s this Times journalist who wants to write the story about these gangs. The local authority wants to judicially review it and stop The Times publishing the story’.

“So I went to Michael Gove and said: ‘This council is trying to actually stop this and they’re going to use judicial review. You should tell the council that far from siding with the council to stop The Times you will write to the judge and hand over a whole bunch of documents and actually blow up the council’s JR (judicial review).’

“Some officials wanted a total cover-up and were on the side of the council…

“They wanted to help the local council do the cover-up and stop The Times’ reporting, but other officials, including in the DfE private office, said this is completely outrageous and we should blow it up. Gove did, the judicial review got blown up, Norfolk stories ran.”

The judicial review wanted by officials would have asked a judge to decide about the lawfulness of The Times’ publication plans and the consequences that would flow from this information entering the public domain.

A second source told Sky News that the advice from officials was to side with Rotherham Council and its attempts to stop publication of details it did not want in the public domain.

One of the motivations cited for stopping publication would be to prevent the identities of abused children entering the public domain.

There was also a fear that publication could set back the existing attempts to halt the scandal, although incidents of abuse continued for many years after these cases.

Sources suggested that there is also a natural risk aversion amongst officials to publicity of this sort.

Read more on grooming gangs:
What we do and don’t know from the data
A timeline of the scandal

Mr Cummings, who ran the Vote Leave Brexit campaign and was Boris Johnson’s right-hand man in Downing Street, has long pushed for a national inquiry into grooming gangs to expose failures at the heart of government.

He said the inquiry, announced today, “will be a total s**tshow for Whitehall because it will reveal how much Whitehall worked to try and cover up the whole thing.”

He also described Mr Johnson, with whom he has a long-standing animus, as a “moron’ for saying that money spent on inquiries into historic child sexual abuse had been “spaffed up the wall”.

Asked by Sky News political correspondent Liz Bates why he had not pushed for a public inquiry himself when he worked in Number 10 in 2019-20, Mr Cummings said Brexit and then COVID had taken precedence.

“There are a million things that I wanted to do but in 2019 we were dealing with the constitutional crisis,” he said.

The Department for Education and Rotherham Council have been approached for comment.

UK

Flawed data used repeatedly to dismiss claims about ‘Asian grooming gangs’, Baroness Casey finds

Published

14 hours ago

June 16, 2025

admin

Flawed data used repeatedly to dismiss claims about 'Asian grooming gangs', Baroness Casey finds

Flawed data has been used repeatedly to dismiss claims about “Asian grooming gangs”, Baroness Louise Casey has said in a new report, as she called for a new national inquiry.

The government has accepted her recommendations to introduce compulsory collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all suspects in grooming cases, and for a review of police records to launch new criminal investigations into historic child sexual exploitation cases.

Politics latest: Yvette Cooper reveals details of grooming gangs report

The crossbench peer has produced an audit of sexual abuse carried out by grooming gangs in England and Wales, after she was asked by the prime minister to review new and existing data, including the ethnicity and demographics of these gangs.

In her report, she has warned authorities that children need to be seen “as children” and called for a tightening of the laws around the age of consent so that any penetrative sexual activity with a child under 16 is classified as rape. This is “to reduce uncertainty which adults can exploit to avoid or reduce the punishments that should be imposed for their crimes”, she added.

Baroness Casey said: “Despite the age of consent being 16, we have found too many examples of child sexual exploitation criminal cases being dropped or downgraded from rape to lesser charges where a 13 to 15-year-old had been ‘in love with’ or ‘had consented to’ sex with the perpetrator.”

The peer has called for a nationwide probe into the exploitation of children by gangs of men.

She has not recommended another over-arching inquiry of the kind conducted by Professor Alexis Jay, and suggests the national probe should be time-limited.

The national inquiry will direct local investigations and hold institutions to account for past failures.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the inquiry’s “purpose is to challenge what the audit describes as continued denial, resistance and legal wrangling among local agencies”.

On the issue of ethnicity, Baroness Casey said police data was not sufficient to draw conclusions as it had been “shied away from”, and is still not recorded for two-thirds of perpetrators.

‘Flawed data’

However, having examined local data in three police force areas, she found “disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds amongst suspects for group-based child sexual exploitation, as well as in the significant number of perpetrators of Asian ethnicity identified in local reviews and high-profile child sexual exploitation prosecutions across the country, to at least warrant further examination”.

She added: “Despite reviews, reports and inquiries raising questions about men from Asian or Pakistani backgrounds grooming and sexually exploiting young white girls, the system has consistently failed to fully acknowledge this or collect accurate data so it can be examined effectively.

“Instead, flawed data is used repeatedly to dismiss claims about ‘Asian grooming gangs’ as sensationalised, biased or untrue.

“This does a disservice to victims and indeed all law-abiding people in Asian communities and plays into the hands of those who want to exploit it to sow division.”

The baroness hit out at the failure of policing data and intelligence for having multiple systems which do not communicate with each other.

She also criticised “an ambivalent attitude to adolescent girls both in society and in the culture of many organisations”, too often judging them as adults.

‘Deep-rooted failure’

Responding to Baroness Casey’s review, Ms Yvette Cooper told the House of Commons: “The findings of her audit are damning.

“At its heart, she identifies a deep-rooted failure to treat children as children. A continued failure to protect children and teenage girls from rape, from exploitation, and serious violence.

She added: “Baroness Casey found ‘blindness, ignorance, prejudice, defensiveness and even good but misdirected intentions’ all played a part in this collective failure.”

Ms Cooper said she will take immediate action on all 12 recommendations from the report, adding: “We cannot afford more wasted years repeating the same mistakes or shouting at each other across this House rather than delivering real change.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: “After months of pressure, the prime minister has finally accepted our calls for a full statutory national inquiry into the grooming gangs.

“We must remember that this is not a victory for politicians, especially the ones like the home secretary, who had to be dragged to this position, or the prime minister. This is a victory for the survivors who have been calling for this for years.”

Ms Badenoch added: “The prime minister’s handling of this scandal is an extraordinary failure of leadership. His judgement has once again been found wanting.

“Since he became prime minister, he and the home secretary dismissed calls for an inquiry because they did not want to cause a stir.

“They accused those of us demanding justice for the victims of this scandal as, and I quote, ‘jumping on a far right bandwagon’, a claim the prime minister’s official spokesman restated this weekend – shameful.”

The government has promised new laws to protect children and support victims so they “stop being blamed for the crimes committed against them”.

It is also launching new police operations and a new national inquiry to direct local investigations and hold institutions to account for past failures.

There will also be new ethnicity data and research “so we face up to the facts on exploitation and abuse,” the home secretary said.