Gaza vote: What happened in the Commons yesterday – and can the Speaker Lindsay Hoyle be sacked?
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.
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.
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
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
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.
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
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.
Victims of grooming gangs and modern slavery are being denied compensation by a government scheme because of their criminal records, Sky News has learned.
Analysis of official figures by Sky News’ Data & Forensics team shows more than 11,000 victims of crime over the last decade have been denied payouts because of their unspent convictions, including children.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority can award money to victims of violent crime, including sexual abuse.
It is the only government compensation scheme for victims – for those unable to work due to injuries, the money can be vital.
But, if an applicant has a criminal record, they are automatically refused compensation with limited exceptions.
Those with unspent convictions sometimes receive reduced sums.
Sky News has found that at least 130 children with criminal records have received reduced awards over the last 10 years, including 50 victims of sex abuse, four victims of brain damage, and one child who lost sight in an eye.
This rule on unspent convictions is based on the idea that public funds should only compensate blameless victims of crime and not, for example, a gang member who was injured in a fight.
But many argue the policy punishes those who have been forced to offend by exploiters, as well as victims of child sexual abuse.
‘I was frustrated that I wasn’t being believed’
Arthur Sherry, 43, from Perranporth in Cornwall was regularly abused by his babysitter from the age of five, including suffering rape.
In 2008, he reported it to Devon and Cornwall Police, alongside two other victims. He alleges the police did not believe him, and charges were not brought against his abuser.
Arthur Sherry, who was abused as a child, says he was denied compensation because of his criminal record
Arthur became angry and descended into addiction as a “coping mechanism”, becoming suicidal, and was repeatedly arrested for minor offences, such as making false calls to the emergency services.
“I wasn’t getting support from any agencies, and no one asked me, ‘Why is this man ringing the emergency services all the time?'”
“It was a cry for help. I was frustrated that I wasn’t being believed.”
Eventually, Arthur’s abuser, Shaun Burton, was convicted of multiple offences against children, including 11 counts of indecency with a child in relation to Mr Sherry.
But when Arthur, who suffers from complex PTSD, subsequently tried to make a claim through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in 2013, it was rejected because of his criminal record and because he submitted his application beyond CICA’s time limit.
He was not allowed to appeal the decision.
Arthur, aged 12 in the picture, was regularly abused by his babysitter, Shaun Burton, from the age of five
Many survivors of grooming gangs have criminal records due to being exploited and coerced.
While the government recently announced plans to disregard child prostitution convictions for these victims, many are urging authorities to go further and pardon all related offences.
Former victims’ commissioner Dame Vera Baird said: “They were not exercising their own free will and voluntarily committing crime, so there should be a discretion to look at that and say, ‘No, that wasn’t their fault’.
“They should get compensation for all the evil that was done to them by that gang.”
In 2022, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse recommended that the government amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme so that “applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are likely to be linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child”.
The government has refused to act on this recommendation.
However, Labour MP Sarah Champion has tabled an amendment to the upcoming Victims and Courts Bill, hoping to implement it, as well as widen eligibility to the scheme.
“Victims are seen as running a cannabis farm and get a conviction, before it actually turns out that they were a victim of modern slavery.
“These people, who are very clearly recognised as victims and survivors, aren’t getting the money that’s owed to them. The system is broken and the ministers need to get rid of it.”
‘I was frustrated that I wasn’t being believed,’ Arthur tells Sky News’ Alice Porter
Read more from Sky News:
Wintry blast ‘could be a dry run for a cold December’
What does Trump’s Gaza peace plan look like?
A government spokesperson said: “Last year, more than £164m was paid out under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to victims, and we are going further by removing the time limit for civil personal injury claims and doubling Home Office funding for services supporting adult victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.
“Changes to the way we compensate victims have been considered by successive governments, and our priority must always be to treat all victims of violence equally.”
Devon and Cornwall Police said: “Tackling sexual offending is a key priority for Devon & Cornwall Police and we are working hard to bring offenders to justice.
“We take reports of all sexual offences seriously and will carry out thorough investigations into reports, looking at all viable lines of enquiry.”
Nathan Gill was at Manchester airport, about to board a flight to Russia, when accepting bribes finally caught up with him.
Gill, the former leader of Reform UK Wales and a one-time member of the European Parliament, who on Friday was jailed for 10-a-half-years, was stopped by police before boarding and had his phone seized in 2021.
While they interrogated him, his home in Anglesey was raided, with detectives discovering more electronics and cash piles of €5,000 (£4,400) and $5,000 (£3,800) respectively.
Nathan Gill being questioned. Pic: Met Police
The evidence on Gill’s phone would damn him – he was in contact with a pro-Russian politician in Ukraine, Oleg Voloshyn, and had agreed to boost pro-Russia viewpoints in exchange for money.
Voloshyn would dictate the statement, and Gill would repeat it – in some cases, almost word for word – in the media or the European Parliament.
In one instance, Gill appeared on the now-banned Ukrainian TV channel, 112 Ukraine, which was known for its pro-Russian stance.
In the interview, he was critical of the Ukrainian decision to open criminal proceedings against Viktor Medvedchuk, the owner of the television channel and a personal friend of Vladimir Putin.
Nathan Gill. Pic: Met Police
Speaking to the outlet, he said he was “very concerned” about the investigation, and wondered whether it was meant to silence “opposition politicians”.
Prosecutors said messages on Gill’s phone showed that this was at his paymaster’s instruction, with Voloshyn offering a “reward” if he would say that it was unacceptable to persecute a person for their political convictions.
Read more:
Reform UK’s former Wales leader jailed
Trump’s 28-point Ukraine peace plan in full
Voloshyn also offered the MEP €2,000 (£1,750) if he would express concern that Mr Medvedchuk could no longer mediate with Russia on Ukraine’s behalf, the court heard.
He added that “V” – understood to be Mr Medvedchuk – did not believe Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had “true intentions to pursue a peace agenda”, prosecutors said.
Bundles of cash were recovered from Gill’s home. Pic: Met Police
Sure enough, Gill appeared on 112 Ukraine saying it was “very sad” that Mr Medvedchuk felt he no longer had Mr Zelensky’s backing to act as a mediator with Russia, and suggested that using him “would be a sensible thing to do”.
The messages traded in innuendo, referring to the exchange of “Xmas gifts” or “postcards” instead of money.
But as the pair grew more comfortable with each other, they bargained more explicitly, with the sum of “£5k” quoted for Gill’s work.
Dominic Murphy, head of Counter Terrorism Command at the Met Police, said Gill had also offered access to other MEPs.
“This is where we get into that slightly odd situation where it feels very much like a real effort to undermine democracy here,” he said.
“This is Nathan Gill reaching out to individuals that he knows, who are Brits, who might be willing to be paid to go and make speeches.”
Commander Murphy declined to name names, but said there was an ongoing investigation and that other people had been spoken to.
None of the pro-Brexit MEPs Gill allegedly approached have been interviewed under caution.
Pic: Met Police
Police confirmed there was no evidence to suggest Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was involved.
Gill was stopped at Manchester Airport on 13 September 2021, under schedule 3 of the Counter Terrorism and Borders Security Act 2019.
He offered police no explanation for his actions and answered no comment in a March 2022 police interview.
But the 52-year-old is believed to have had financial problems.
Mr Murphy added that while Gill appeared to have pro-Russian sympathies, he was primarily motivated by money.
The ex-MEP has been jailed for 10-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to eight counts of bribery between December 2018 and July 2019.
Following an investigation by counter-terrorism police, officers said they believe Gill likely took a minimum of £40,000 in cash and was offering to introduce other British MEPs so they could be bribed.
Voloshyn was picked up by the authorities on a trip to the US in 2021, which enabled the FBI to discover his end of the conversation.
He is now believed to be in Russia, but has been sanctioned by the UK government over allegations of trying to destabilise Ukraine.
Nathan Gill pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery over pro-Russian statements. Including to media outlet 112 Ukraine. Pic: Met Police
He remains wanted in both Britain and Ukraine.
A Reform UK spokesman said: “Mr Gill’s actions were reprehensible, treasonous and unforgivable.
“We are glad that justice has been served and fully welcome the sentence Nathan Gill has received.”
Mr Farage, the Reform UK leader, said: “An investigation into Russian and Chinese influence over British politics would be welcome.”
The MP for Clacton previously described his former colleague as a “bad apple” and said he was “shocked” after Gill pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery.
He said: “Any political party can find in their midst all sorts of terrible people.
“You can never, ever guarantee 100% that everyone you meet in your life, you shake hands with in the pub, is a good person.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024