Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Nadeem Badshah (now) Andrew Sparrow (earlier)

More than 30 MPs sign motion of no confidence in Commons speaker – as it happened

Henry Staunton Post Office Kemi Badenoch Sarah Munby United Kingdom the Post Office

A summary of today's developments

  • The Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has apologised to MPs following a fractious and chaotic debate over Gaza ceasefire votes after choosing to allow the government’s and Labour’s amendments to be voted on. He said he is “very, very concerned about the security of all members” but regrets how it manifested. Hoyle added: “I wanted all to ensure they could express their views and all sides of the House could vote.”

  • Some 33 MPs signed a motion of no confidence in the Commons Speaker on Wednesday night.

  • MPs eventually approved a Labour Party call for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” without any votes following hours of debate which saw SNP MPs and Tory MPs walk out of the Commons.

  • The call was an amendment to a motion put forward by the SNP seeking an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

Thursday’s Guardian.

The front page of the FT.

Thursday’s i.

A roundup of Thursday’s newspapers starting with The Times.

The speaker of the House of Commons issued an unprecedented apology after a fractious and occasionally chaotic parliamentary debate on Gaza.

MPs voted unanimously for a Labour motion calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza, but only after Lindsay Hoyle upended years of parliamentary precedent to allow the party to bring its motion to a vote.

Conservative and Scottish National party MPs reacted with fury to Hoyle’s decision, which the speaker said was designed to air a wide range of opinions but which also allowed the Labour leader to dodge the biggest rebellion of his leadership.

Some are now trying to unseat Hoyle while others are urging the Conservatives to ignore common practice and stand against him at the general election.

In the end Labour’s amendment passed unopposed after Tory and SNP MPs walked out of the chamber. Starmer afterwards accused them of “choosing political games over serious solutions”.

Updated

Helen McEachern, CEO of CARE International UK, said the charity is “dismayed by the political theatrics we are witnessing in the House of Commons”.

“Arguments over parliamentary procedure do nothing to assist the people of Gaza,” she said.

“As our staff and partners in Gaza have told me during a visit to the West Bank this week, with each passing day, death, disease, and hunger increase.”

She called on the foreign secretary Lord David Cameron to do “everything in his power to help stop the humanitarian catastrophe we are watching”.

From ITV’s Robert Peston.

A ceasefire in Gaza which leaves Hamas in power is “not going to last”, according to the UK’s foreign secretary Lord Cameron.

He told the BBC: “What we have said, the Prime Minister and I, is there are several things you need. You need the hostages to be released, you need Hamas leaders to leave Gaza, you need to take down the infrastructure of terrorism, you need the prospect of political reform for the Palestinians, you need new Palestinian government.

“That’s how you get the fighting to stop. Simply calling for a ceasefire doesn’t make it happen.

“Of course, if you had a ceasefire without those conditions, if Hamas are still there, if they are still firing rockets, if they have still got the ability to do another October 7, that is not going to last.

“Our way of doing it, pause, leading to sustainable ceasefire, without a return to fighting, that’s the best way.

“Just saying ‘let’s have a ceasefire now’ without any change in the behaviour of Hamas, it’s not going to last.”

Updated

Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle apologising to MPs.

33 MPs sign motion of no confidence in Commons Speaker

More than 30 MPs sign motion of no confidence in Commons Speaker

In protest over Sir Lindsay Hoyle’s handling of the Gaza ceasefire vote, 33 Tory and SNP MPs have tabled a motion of no confidence in his speakership.

The Early Day Motion was proposed by Tory MP William Wragg and Sir Graham Brady, the senior Tory MP in charge of the backbench 1922 Committee, is among the signatories.

Other signatories on the Tory benches include Lee Anderson, Brendan Clarke-Smith, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, and Sir James Duddridge.

On the SNP benches, the party’s home affairs spokesperson Alison Thewliss, senior MP Joanna Cherry and social justice spokesperson David Linden have signed.

Updated

Keir Starmer accuses the Tories and SNP of “choosing political games over serious solutions”.

The Labour leader said:

Today was a chance for parliament to unite and speak with one voice on the horrendous situation in Gaza and Israel.

It was in that spirit that Labour put forward an amendment calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. One that that will last, that would require both sides to observe it, that would demand hostages are returned, that aid gets into Gaza, that said Israel has a right to be protected against a repeat of 7 October and – crucially – that requires a road map for a two-state solution.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives and the SNP decided to walk out hand-in-hand, refusing to vote on this serious matter, yet again choosing political games over serious solutions.

Updated

Labour frontbencher John Healey says Sir Lindsay Hoyle was “doing the right thing”.

The shadow defence secretary told the PA news agency:

We’ve shown Westminster at its worst, a row about procedure with the Conservatives boycotting the votes, the SNP walking out.

This does nothing to help the Palestinians and nothing to advance the cause of peace.

The Speaker was trying to ensure the widest possible debate on something that matters to parliament, it matters to our communities, it matters around the world.

He was doing the right thing.

Addressing accusations that Labour had been playing political games with the issue, he said: “I have got no time for the SNP making those sorts of arguments when their sole purpose was to kick Labour.

“When they lost the arguments in the chamber, they walked out.”

The SNP’s Stephen Flynn claimed that a vote on his party’s Gaza ceasefire motion had been “blocked” by Labour and Sir Lindsay Hoyle.

SNP MP Pete Wishart says Sir Lindsay Hoyle should resign as Commons Speaker.

The MP for Perth and North Perthshire told the PA news agency:

I think it’s intolerable, and it’s really difficult to know how you could remain in the chair after what happened today.

I know he came down and took responsibility and said sorry, but quite frankly it’s not good enough.

Nearly all of my colleagues have signed the early day motion asking for him to go, and speaking to several Conservative colleagues this evening, I know that a great number of them have also signed that too.

Halima Begum, chief executive of the ActionAid UK charity, said: “We are extremely disappointed to see the utter paralysis in Parliament this evening.

“Democracy is a precious commodity and should be treated as such.

A great disservice has been done to the British people, who expected their political parties and elected representatives to conduct a meaningful debate concerning an issue on which depends the lives of over a hundred Israeli hostages, and hundreds of thousands of Gazans suffering one of the most acute humanitarian crises we have seen in recent times.

“MPs know that over two-thirds of their constituents want an end to the war, an increase in humanitarian aid, and the safe return of the hostages.

“It’s time they put people’s lives above politics.”

On Wednesday lunchtime Keir Starmer was facing the biggest crisis of his career.

Earlier in the week, he had been warned that as many as 100 of his MPs – including at least two of his shadow cabinet – were willing to rebel by voting for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza unless Labour brought forward its own amendment calling for one.

Having agreed to publish exactly such an amendment, the Labour leader now faced another hurdle: the Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, was being advised not to pick it and instead call a different one from the government.

Hours away from the biggest rebellion of his leadership, Starmer decided to intervene personally and visited Hoyle in his office behind the House of Commons chamber.

People hold placards and Palestinian flags during a rally calling for a ceasefire, outside Parliament in London.
People hold placards and Palestinian flags during a rally calling for a ceasefire, outside Parliament in London. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has reflected on how the vote unfolded.

The Labour MP John McDonnell told Sky News he is “ashamed” about today’s scenes in the Commons and calls on Sir Keir Starmer and the Speaker to disclose any conversations they may have had.

Updated

Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian Ambassador in the UK, has given his reaction to the chaotic scenes in the Commons on Channel 4 News.

The Guardian’s Kiran Stacey on the pandemonium on the Commons.

From The Times’ Aubrey Allegretti.

After his election as the Commons speaker on a promise of restoring calm after the rancorous final years of John Bercow, Sir Lindsay Hoyle finds himself facing the sort of bitter criticism often directed at his predecessor.

Such is the anger at his selection of both government and Labour amendments to the Scottish National party’s Gaza ceasefire motion – a decision that defused the scale of rebellion facing Keir Starmer – that the Conservatives are not ruling out running a candidate against him in his Chorley constituency at the next general election. The long-running convention is that speakers are not challenged by the main parties at elections.

Although Hoyle was expected to avoid a government-backed heave against him in parliament, there was an explicit rebuke of him from the dispatch box by the leader of the Commons, Penny Mordaunt.

Announcing the government would withdraw from the votes on Gaza, Mordaunt said he had “raised temperatures” on an issue where feelings were already running high and had “put MPs in a more difficult position”.

Lindsay Hoyle told the Commons: “I gotta say, I regret how it ended up. It was not my intention.

“I wanted all to ensure they could express their views and all sides of the House could vote.”

While Lindsay Hoyle was speaking, a Tory MP shout that the Speaker had met with Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff Sue Gray today which he denied.

Lindsay Hoyle said he is “very concerned” about the security of MPs and their families.

He apologies for how the situation has manifested and will meet with the leaders and chief whips on the best way forward.

Updated

Labour amendment passes

The Labour amendment has been approved, and gone through without a division. And the main motion as amended (the Labour text – the SNP version was wiped out by the Labout amendment) also went through unopposed.

Updated

Sir Lindsay Hoyle has returned to the Speaker’s chair and is defending his earlier decision.

Motion to sit in private rejected

On whether the Commons should sit in private, MPs have voted overwhelmingly no.

The ayes was 20, the noes was 212. A majority of 192.

MPs vote over House of Commons sitting in private

MPs are now voting if the House of Commons should sit in private.

If successful, the public galleries will be emptied and the cameras for broadcasting will be turned off.

Updated

SNP and Conservative MPs walk out of Commons chamber in protest

Conservative and SNP MPs have walked out of the Commons in protest at the Speaker earlier selecting both Labour and government amendments.

The current situation in the Commons remains extremely chaotic and unedifying.

Updated

King Charles meets with Rishi Sunak and Privy Council

The King has held his first face-to-face official duties – an audience with prime minister Rishi Sunak and a Privy Council – since being diagnosed with cancer.

Charles met Sunak at Buckingham Palace late on Wednesday afternoon, marking the restart of their weekly encounters to discuss matters of government.

Updated

Kate McCann, from Times Radio, on deputy speaker Rosie Winterton’s handling of the tensions in the Commons.

Stephen Flynn, from the SNP, repeats his question about where the Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle is and calls for the Commons to be suspended.

MPs are now raising questions of procedure.

Stephen Flynn, from the SNP, is absolutely furious that the Speaker is absent. He also calls for the SNP motion to be voted on first.

Lucy Powell, shadow leader of the House, says Labour support what the Speaker said earlier resulting in much shouting from the other side of the House.

The atmosphere is very fraught and tetchy now.

Mordaunt appears to be trying to claim the moral high ground by saying it will not divide the house.

But also criticise the Speaker and suggest bias.

She also told MPs: “Long-established conventions that should not be impaired by the current view of a weak leader of the Opposition and a divided party.

“I would ask that the Speaker take the opportunity to reassure all honourable and right honourable members that their Speaker, our Speaker, will not seek to undermine those rights in order to protect the interests of particular members and that future Opposition Day debates will not be hijacked in this way.

“I say this for the benefit of all members.”

Updated

Penny Mordaunt criticises speaker over amendments decision

Mordaunt also criticises the speaker for having “inserted himself into that row, and undermined the confidence in this House”.

She also calls for “our speaker” to assure MPs that future debates “will not be hijacked in this way”.

Mordaunt added: “I fear that this most grave matter that we’re discussing today and this afternoon has become a political row within the Labour party and that regrettably Mr Speaker has inserted himself into that row with today’s decision and undermined the confidence of this House in being able to rely on its long-established standing orders to govern its debates.”

Updated

Penny Mordaunt says government will withdraw amendment, apparently in response to row over Lindsay Hoyle's decision

Mordaunt said as a result the government will play no further part in the decision in today’s proceedings in the Commons.

This seemingly means the Labour motion will pass and there is no vote on the SNP motion.

Updated

Penny Mordaunt, leader of the House, is speaking now about the Speaker’s earlier amendment decision.

She said on the government’s side of the Commons “we have never asked procedures of this house are upturned..even when we have faced extreme abuse.”

Updated

Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, is planning to use a point of order to criticise Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, for his decision to allow a vote on the Labour amendment, Jon Craig from Sky News reports.

The debate had been expected to run until 7pm, but now it is due to end earlier.

Nadeem Badshah is now taking over the coverage.

Updated

Pro-Palestinian protesters outside parliament this afternoon.
Pro-Palestinian protesters outside parliament this afternoon. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/AFP/Getty Images

Top Whitehall official releases memo saying ex-Post Office chair wrong to claim she told him to slow compensation payments

Turning away from the debate for a moment, the Department for Business and Trade has published a six-page note from Sarah Munby, who was permanent secretary at the department a year ago, about the conversation she had in January 2023 with Henry Staunton, then Post Office chair.

Staunton has published his own account of the conversation which he says backs up his claim that in the conversation he was told to slow down compensation payments to vicitims of the Post Office Horizon scandal. (See 9.21am.)

Munby, who is now permanent secretary at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, says that Staunton has placed the wrong interpretation on his memo about what was said and that she never suggested he should delay compensation payments. She says:

It is not true that I made any instruction, either explicitly or implicitly, to Mr Staunton to in any way delay compensation payments. I did not. Neither Mr Staunton’s note, nor the contemporaneous note that my office made, suggest otherwise. In fact, no mention of delaying compensation appears in either note. I have attached both notes to this letter. I note that Mr Staunton originally said that there had been a direct instruction. Since he located the file note this seems to have moved to a suggestion of some sort of implied instruction. Such a claim is also not in any way supported by the notes and did not take place.

As the notes record, we discussed Post Office operational funding, not compensation funding. These two areas of spend were separately ringfenced, and it is factually wrong to suggest that cuts to compensation would have improved the Post Office’s financial position. The two notes do not indicate I made an implied suggestion that delays should be made, or that Mr Staunton understood me to be making one.

The department says the new memo refutes the claims made by Staunton about the conversation. A government spokesperson said:

Sarah Munby’s letter sets the record straight on her exchange with Mr Staunton.

Neither of the records taken at the time suggest the government – either at official or ministerial level – wanted to slow down or delay compensation payments to postmasters, as the secretary of state said on Monday.

Funding for compensation is separately ringfenced expenditure, and is not accessible to the Post Office for any purpose other than compensation payments.

This is a distraction from the important work to continue to deliver for postmasters, which the Business Secretary is focused on.

Updated

The SNP will sign the early day motion tabled by the Conservative MP William Wragg expressing no confidence in the speaker, Kieran Andrews from the Times reports.

An early day motion on its own has no impact. MPs tabled them all the time, but they don’t get debated and so, by itself, an EDM expressing no confidence in the speaker doesn’t matter. Both of Sir Lindsay Hoyle’s predecessors, John Bercow and Michael Martin, had EDMs tabled against them.

Only five Tories signed the anti-Bercow one, and he stood down at a time of his own choosing.

But Martin was forced out. That was not a direct result of the fact that 23 MPs had signed an EDM saying he should go. But those signatures were evidence of fact that Martin was losing the confidence of many MPs, because of his cack-handed response to the expenses scandal, and the EDM prompted David Cameron to hint that the opposition might schedule a vote on Martin’s future. What finally persuaded Martin to resign was when Gordon Brown, then PM, let him know the government no longer thought he should stay.

As PA Media reports, the Labour MP Rosena Allin-Khan recalled in the debate meeting humanitarian workers who had worked on the ground in Gaza, saying: “It was truly obvious to me that there has not been adequate protection of civilians, as it is obvious to all of us.”

She described accounts of the suffering, including descriptions of children under five “talking of wanting to take their own lives because they have watched their siblings hanging from buildings, dead; they have watched their parents exsanguinating in front of them, and are now left alone to face this world”. She went on:

Yes we need a peace process, yes the hostages must be freed, yes the wheels of international humanitarian law must turn, and yes, the Palestinian people must have a recognised state, but first, today, this minute, now, we must have an immediate ceasefire to save tens of thousands of lives.

Today, let us say clearly that an immediate ceasefire must come, justice must be done, and peace must be won.

Mark Logan, the Conservative MP for Bolton North East, used his speech in the debate a few minutes ago, to say that he was now going to say in public what he has been saying in private. He said:

I want, my constituents want, and Gaza needs, an immediate ceasefire.

It’s not a sustainable ceasefire, it’s not a long-lasting ceasefire, which is basically just sustainably by other means …. With 28,000 now dead in Gaza, 11,500 children, playing around with words is just playing around with people’s lives.

Israel has gone too far. It’s disproportionate. It’s not gone too far just today. It’s gone too far already for months.

And I’m concerned about Rafah, because time and time again we have heard about innocent people’s lives in Gaza. Time and time again we have reached the figure of 30,000 [deaths]. How can we have any trust that the 1.5 million people in Rafah will also be left untouched?

Logan also criticised fellow Tories arguing that a vote for a ceasefire would just be symbolic. He said:

Members on my own side of the house have talked about how this is merely symbolic or it is virtue signalling, but at the end of the day we are MPs not to fix potholes, we are MPs not to follow up with our next door neighbour ‘the hedge has grown into my garden’. That is not what we are here for. We are here to protect lives, and this is the opportunity today to call for an immediate ceasefire.

Yes, it may just be signalling to an extent, but that signal has to be given to what we see as one of our close allies, Israel, in the region.

That has to happen today because in times gone by, with the United States back 20 years ago with Iraq, we thought we were doing the ‘good friend thing’ to go along with the United States. No, the better friend says no, this must stop now, this must stop today.

So a ceasefire must happen now, and so I no longer in good conscience can continue on backing in public the line that we have taken on this side of the house, regrettably.

Although all the focus media focus has been on splits in the Labour party over Gaza, it is worth remembering that there are Conservative rebels on this topic too.

Mark Logan speaking in the debate
Mark Logan speaking in the debate Photograph: HoC

Updated

More on the Tory backlash against Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker. This is from the Sun’s Noa Hoffman.

Minister messages: “The mood in the Commons is alarmed and aghast. The speaker is probably finished.”

Here are extracts from speeches delivered in the debate, taken from the PA Media feed.

Robert Jenrick, the Conservative former immigration minister, said that there was a danger that those pushing for an immediate ceasefire were backing a policy that might allow Hamas to survive. He said:

There is a very real danger that our emerging position, and certainly that of other parties, will leave Hamas’ terrorist organisation partially intact. That is an intolerable situation for Israel, it sends a very clear message that using human shields works, and we will not allow Israel to fully defend itself.

Mhairi Black, the SNP’s deputy leader at Westminster, claimed that MPs who did not vote for a ceasefire would be complicit in the killing of civilians in Gaza. She said:

Given the International Court of Justice has found there’s a plausible risk that Israel is committing genocide, it is upon the UK to revoke all arms licences and military equipment to Israel, otherwise we break our own treaties we’ve signed up to.

The least we can do is call for a ceasefire, because if we don’t we will be morally and directly complicit in every single life lost and every single family destroyed in Gaza.

The Lib Dem MP Layla Moran said a ceasefire was needed – whatever it was called. She said:

I believe sincerely that this house is moving towards a right decision … Can we please try and send a message to the Palestinian people perishing in their tens of thousands on the ground, and to those hostage families, that fundamentally we need this to stop now and I don’t care what we call it.

Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative former chair of the defence committee, said parliament should have been able to unite behind a singe motion. He said:

I very much welcome this debate on supporting a ceasefire in Gaza and the steps required to get us there, but let me be clear – as the nation and beyond watches on, it’s been a very sad day for parliament.

Rather than offer clarity on parliament’s position, speaking with one voice as we seek to end the fighting, there are not one but three separate motions as this debate turns into a political football.

Shame on us for failing to find common ground. What a wasted opportunity to exhibit UK leadership and resolve in seeking to get closer to the very objective that we came here to debate.

Sir Michael Ellis, the Conservative former attorney general, said the SNP motion could help Hamas. He said:

Israel has been through multiple rounds of conflict, initiated by the genocidal Hamas terror groups in Gaza and this motion – should it achieve its objective – would cement the prospects of many more such incursions or attacks in the future, and that is of course exactly what Hamas wants, to secure endless opportunities to destroy Israel granted by the confused logic of that motion.

But his fellow Conservative, Rehman Chishti, said he would back any motion proposing an immediate ceasefire. He said:

I will be voting for motions which call for immediate humanitarian ceasefire, or which call for immediate ceasefire, because the time has come, if not now then when?

You might expect Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Tory traditionalist and a former leader of the Commons, to be among those Conservatives criticising the speaker for his decision to allow a vote on the Labour amendment today. But, as Jon Craig from Sky reports, he isn’t.

Former Commons Leader Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg tells me that unlike many Tory MPs he supports Sir Lindsay Hoyle’s ruling selecting Labour & govt amendments. Says Speaker is reflecting “the will of the House”. Says John Bercow would have made same ruling reflecting will of the House.

One of the cliches that can be used about a parliamentary debate is that it shows the House of Commons at its best. Some commentators believe that the events in the chamber this afternoon show the opposite. The three biggest parties have been engaged in procedural manoeuvreing motivated, at least in part, by concerns about party advantage. Gaza hasn’t been forgotten, by any stretch. Speeches have been moving and sincere. But the general election hasn’t been forgotten either.

This is from the Sunday Times’ Tim Shipman.

I love Parliament. Debate is important. But the amount of hot air being produced today on a motion/amendments which will make LITERALLY NO DIFFERENCE to any of the people in Gaza or Israel is quite staggeringly pointless and evidence of disturbing levels of self-regard

And these are from my colleague Peter Walker.

I know some people take Commons conventions very seriously, and opinions differ. But if we have ended up at a point where fewer MPs get death threats or demos outside their homes over a series of votes that won’t change a thing in Gaza, that doesn’t seem all bad.

Again, I accept opinions differ, but I personally find the outrage about a Speaker supposedly defying Commons conventions a bit arcane and pompous, and I’m paid to be interested in the minutiae of politics.

To make a point seemingly missed by a couple of reply-guys: none of this is to minimise the horror of what is happening in Gaza, or of what happened on 7 October. I’m just not convinced that arguably performative opposition day motion traps for rival parties help much.

Pro-Palestinian campaigners queueing to try to get into parliament this afternoon.
Pro-Palestinian campaigners queueing to try to get into parliament this afternoon. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt says he has been told by Labour figures that Sir Lindsay Hoyle was told, if he did not allow the party’s amendment, he could be voted out of office by Labour MPs after the election.

Senior Labour figures tell me @CommonsSpeaker was left in no doubt that Labour would bring him down after the general election unless he called Labour’s Gaza amendment

The message was: you will need our votes to be re-elected as speaker after election with strong indications this would not be forthcoming if he failed to call the Labour amendment

Kate McCann from Times Radio says Labour says these claims are rubbish.

Labour says claims senior party figures made it clear to Speaker that he wouldn’t have their support in future if he didn’t select their amendment today are “rubbish... completely untrue”

Tory MPs angry with Commons speaker over his decision to allow vote on Labour amendment

Some Conservative MPs are furious with the speaker over his decision to allow a vote on the Labour amendment and one of them, William Wragg, has tabled an early day motion saying the Commons has no confidence in him, Nicholas Watt from Newsnight reports.

Repercussions from @CommonsSpeaker decision to call Labour Gaza amendment: Conservative MP William Wragg has just tabled an Early Day Motion saying: This member has no confidence in Mr Speaker

Tory MP tells me of William Wragg EDM: we don’t muck around at a time like this. We act

Another Tory MP tells me: this is the moment Lyndsay Hoyle goes from being Lyndsay Hoyle to being John Bercow

And these are from Christopher Hope from GB News.

Tories are furious that speaker Lindsay Hoyle has allowed the Labour Gaza amendment. A minister tells me for @GBNEWS: “Any last semblance of impartiality from the speakers chair is now gone. The speaker has buckled to Labour. This is a bad day for democracy and Parliament.”

Another senior Tory source says Lindsay Hoyle “has amended the constitution on a whim in a totally partisan way. It is difficult to see how he can continue (as speaker).”

While David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, was speaking in the debate, Colum Eastwood, leader of the SDLP, said what happened in Northern Ireland showed the danger of insisting that a ceasefire would have to be permanent. He said:

I think there is more cohesion in this house today than we’re actually showing the public.

There are still some people in this house though who are demanding that a ceasefire has to be permanent.

I don’t like making the comparison to our own peace process but the basic principles are the same: you cannot guarantee the permanence of a ceasefire. You should work for a ceasefire and you work to make it permanent, so the bar is too high for some people.

Lammy replied:

The honourable gentleman reminds this House of the seriousness of the issue before us, he reminds us not just of the ceasefire but the long yards and roads to peace.

This is from my colleague Libby Brooks on why Gaza has become such a key issue in the contest between the SNP and Labour in Scotland.

And here is an extract.

As [Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster], writing for Guardian Opinion on Wednesday morning, says: “No one is pretending that one vote at Westminster will magically result in a ceasefire overnight. But a ceasefire is more likely to happen if the UK parliament and government join international pressure.”

The party says this is entirely consistent with the position it has taken from those early days after the Hamas attacks – unlike Labour and the UK government. They believe that voters have appreciated the leadership [Humza] Yousaf has shown – he has garnered praise from some of his most ardent critics for what they have described as his dignity and moral courage.

But in an election year as high stakes as this for the SNP, with Scottish Labour toe to toe in the polls, this motion could have significance well beyond the machinations of Commons process.

In his first campaign speech of the new year, Yousaf insisted that Starmer “doesn’t need Scotland” to win the general election, arguing that voting in more SNP MPs would “keep him honest”, and offering to “work constructively” with a Labour government to prevent backsliding on green investment or the creeping privatisation of the NHS. Regardless of the outcome of this afternoon’s vote, the SNP will use it to strengthen that argument.

Updated

Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, intervenes. He asks Mitchell to say how the government responds to the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Gaza case.

Mitchell says the government respects the ICJ, but thought it was a mistake for this case to go to court.

Updated

Mitchell says the government is deeply concerned about the prospect of an offensive in Rafah.

It is impossible to see where civilians can go.

He condemns Hamas for fighting amongst civilians.

But the consequence of this is that Israel can only reach Hamas at an “incredible cost” in civilian lives. He says Israel should reflect on whether an offensive would be in their long-term interests.

Andrew Mitchell, the development minister, is speaking now on behalf of the government. He says David Lammy urged MPs to come together, and he says the best way for this to happen would be for the the Commons to support the government.

He says the government intends to move its amendment (implying it will vote against Labour’s, although he does not say that explicitly.)

Here is the text of the government one. It says the house:

supports Israel’s right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.

He says the Commons as a whole should support this.

Lammy says MPs used to division 'because our trade is politics', but urges them to rise above it on Gaza

Lammy says MPs are used to division, because their trade relies upon it.

But he says, on this, MPs should rise above it.

He urges the Commons to come together for the sake of peace.

UPDATE: Lammy ended his speech saying:

The UK cannot advance this agenda on its own, but it can’t also sit this one out.

It is time for international community to stand up, achieve an end to the fighting and a path to peace, and the UK must play its part.

That’s why our amendment makes it explicit that we will not give up on a two-state solution, it makes it clear that we will work with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to, rather than an outcome to, a two-state solution.

In this house we are used to division because our trade is politics, but on this matter we must rise above it.

A united parliament today can show we’re rolling up our sleeves, committing to the long, hard road to peace so that we will have made the voice of our nation heard, to influence this war, to help these tragic children of the same land to find peace in the beautiful Palestine of tomorrow and in Israel without tears, where the stones of Jerusalem shall finally be a city of peace.

Updated

Lammy says the Labour amendment makes it explicit that the party would not give up a on a two-state solution.

In the Commons the SNP’s Dave Doogan intervenes and says Labour had had its own opposition day debate recently. It tabled a motion on ministerial severance pay. If it feels so strongly about a ceasefire, why didn’t it table an motion calling for one then?

Lammy says that the Labour party has been calling for an end to the fighting for weeks.

In the Commons David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, is speaking, proposing the Labour amendment.

It says that the House of Commons:

believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.

This is from Sky’s Beth Rigby on one of the factors that persuaded Sir Lindsay Hoyle to allow a vote on the Labour amendement.

On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs’ have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

Hoyle calls for review of procedural rules for opposition debates, saying current ones 'outdated'

In his statement at the start of the debate Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, also said the Commons should review the rules governing what amendments are allowed when MPs are debating oppositon day motions. He said:

I should tell the house that in my opinion the operation of standing order 31, which governs the way amendments to opposition day motions are dealt with, reflects an outdated approach which restricts the options [which can be put to the house]. It is my intention to ask the procedure committee to consider the operation [of the standing order].

Updated

Here is the text of a note from Tom Goldsmith, clerk of the house, commenting on the decision taken by the speaker to allow the Labour amendment to the SNP motion to be put to the vote.

SNP says right to self-defence has been 'ruthlessly exploited' by Israel 'in order to legitimise slaughter of innocent civilians'

Brendan O’Hara, the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesperson, opened the debate telling MPs that Israel has “ruthlessly exploited and manipulated” the principle of self-defence to “legitimise the slaughter of innocent civilians”. He said:

No one would deny that Israel has the right to defend itself. Every country has that right.

What no country has the right to do, however, is to lay siege to a civilian population, carpet bomb densely inhabited areas, drive people from their homes, erase an entire civilian infrastructure, and impose a collective punishment involving the cutting off of water, electricity, food and medicine, from civilians.

And no country, regardless of who they are, in the name of self-defence can kill civilians at such a pace and on such a scale that in just 16 weeks almost 30,000 are known to have died, with a further 80,000 injured.

We cannot allow the core principle of self-defence to be so ruthlessly exploited and manipulated in order to legitimise the slaughter of innocent civilians.

O’Hara said the international rule-based order was “created to protect people from atrocities, not to be used as a smokescreen to hide the execution of them”, adding: “We cannot accept that what is happening now is self-defence.”

An earlier post (see 1.43pm) said the Labour motion was likely to pass. I have removed that line from it now because, looking closely at what Sir Lindsay Hoyle said (see 1.54pm), it is clear that the government motion will only be put to a vote if the Labour one has been voted down. That means the government has a clear incentive to vote against Labour’s wording.

Also, if the government can knock out the Labour amendment, that would lead to a vote on the original SNP motion – which will trigger a Labour revolt (because some MPs would support it). That is a second reason why the Tory whips have a reason for voting against the Labour wording – even though in practice it is hard to detect much difference between the government’s position and Labour’s.

What Hoyle said about his decision on amendments, and how voting will work

This is what the speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, about his decision on amendments, and how the voting will work.

I think it is important on this occasion that the house is able to consider the widest possible range of options. I have therefore decided to select the amendments both in the name of the prime minister and in the name of the leader of the opposition, because the operation of standing order 31 will prevent another amendment being moved after the government has moved its amendment.

I will exceptionally call the opposition frontbench spokesperson to move their amendment at the beginning of the debate.

At the end of the debate the house will have an opportunity to take a decision on the official opposition amendment.

If that is agreed to, there is a final question on the main motion as amended [which would be the Labour text].

If the official opposition amended is not agreed to, I will call the minister to move the government amendment forward. That will engage the provisions of standing order 31, so the next vote would be on the original words in the SNP motion.

If that is not agreed to, then the house will have the opportunity to vote on the government amendment.

Proceeding this way will allow a vote to take place potentially on all proposals from each of the three main parties.

Updated

Christopher Hope from GB News says No 10 is not happy about the speaker’s ruling.

Figures in Number 10 are upset about speaker Lyndsay Hoyle selecting Labour’s Opposition Day debate amendment on the Gaza ceasefire.
One tells me “it’s without precedent”. A minister says selecting Labour’s amendment is “Bercowesque”.

Owen Thompson, the SNP chief whip, rises to make a point of order. He complains that this is unfair on the SNP.

That is because the vote on the Labour amendment will come first. If it is passed, the SNP motion as originally drafted will not be put to a vote.

Hoyle says he will be publishing a statement explaining his position.

UPDATE: This post originally said the Labour amendment was likely to pass. But looking closely at what Hoyle said (see 1.54pm), it is clear that the government motion will only be put to a vote if the Labour one has been voted down. That means the government has a clear incentive to vote against Labour’s wording.

Also, if the government can knock out the Labour amendment, that would lead to a vote on the original SNP motion – which will trigger a Labour revolt (because some MPs would support it). That is a second reason why the Tory whips have a reason for voting against the Labour wording – even though in practice it is hard to detect much difference between the government’s position and Labour’s.

Updated

Hoyle says he will publish a note explaning his reasoning.

And he says current rules are too restrictive.

As he concludes his statement, there are loud protests from MPs.

Boost for Starmer as Commons speaker says he will allow vote on Labour's amendment on Gaza motion

The 10-minute rule bill motion has been defeated, by 81 votes to 63.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle says he second motion on the order paper will not be moved (ie, the SNP motion on green investment).

He says he has selected both the Labour and the government amendments, because this is an issue where MPs want to consider a wide range of options.

This is very good news for Keir Starmer, who was otherwise facing a huge revolt.

Updated

From Kiran Stacey

These are from the SNP MP Alison Thewliss on the delays in the chamber.

Labour now delaying the Gaza debate with fifteen minutes of spurious points of order. Utterly pathetic.

And now Labour moving an opposing speech to a Ten Minute Rule Bill. And presumably a vote.

All to eat up time and delay us getting to a debate on people dying in Gaza.

This place is an absolute nonsense.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, has now taken the chair in the Commons.

The result of the division on the 10-minute rule bill motion is about to be announced.

No 10 won't say when UK last had successful Trident missile test

At the post-PMQs lobby briefing Downing Street would not say when the last successful Trident missile test occurred, PA Media reports. PA says:

The prime minister’s spokesperson told reporters that the UK government had “complete confidence” in Britain’s nuclear deterrent despite reports of a Trident missile test failure on 30 January.

He repeated the Ministry of Defence’s explanation that there had been an “anomaly” but said, for national security reasons, he was unable to expand on what that meant. Asked how the government could offer such assurances given the last test in 2016 also resulted in a misfire, the spokesperson said: “There really isn’t much more I can add on the technical issues. The purpose of this operation was a full two-month period of exercises which successfully validated the submarine and the crew. There was this specific anomaly but we are confident that the anomaly was specific to the test and that there are no wider implications.”

Asked when the last successful Trident missile test was, the spokesperson said: “I can’t provide any more commentary on matters of national security.”

He said he would not comment on whether Mr Sunak wanted to see a follow-up test after last month’s failed attempt.

Nicholas Watt from Newsnight suggests Labour MPs are spinning out proceedings in the chamber for a reason; they are still trying to get the speaker to agree to their party’s amendment on Gaza.

Negotiations with @CommonsSpeaker on Labour Gaza amendment taking time, according to one senior source familiar with discussions, because advice from clerks is clear: precedent would suggest calling SNP motion and government amendment. So not calling Labour amendment

Watt also says, if the Labour amendment is accepted, there will be a row.

A cabinet minister tells me there will be a whole host of problems if the commons speaker calls the Labour amendment. They believe it will break with precedent

We will have to wait another 15 mintues for the speaker’s decision on amendments to the Gaza motion. There has been a ten-minute rule motion first, on a bill proposed by Thérèse Coffey to do with driving regulations and Labour’s Chris Bryant have just finished a speech saying he opposes it. He has called for a vote.

Normally MPs don’t vote on 10-minute rule bill motions because there is no point. They don’t become law.

It does feel as if MPs are playing for time, for some reasons. There were numerous points of order after PMQs, which is unusual, and now we’ve got a vote. Maybe something’s up.

The SNP was due to have debates on two motions it has tabled today – on Gaza, and on the proposal for a £28bn a year green investment programme – but it has abandoned the second debate, Dan Bloom from Politico reports.

This means the voting on the Gaza bill won’t start until 7pm.

PMQs - snap verdict

Some of the pre-PMQs commentary suggested that we were in for particularly lively exchanges this afternoon. During recess last week, the UK went into recession, the Tories lost two safe seats in byelections, and Keir Starmer had to abandon another byelection candidate. Both leaders had plenty of material to hand with which they could taunt each other.

But instead we got a much more narrowly focused exchange, covering the Post Office Horizon scandal and Kemi Badenoch’s provocative response to allegations made against the government by Henry Staunton, the Post Office chair she sacked. Starmer’s script was more restrained, and less rhetorical or condemnatory, than usual, but it was effective nonetheless, because he sought to establish whether Sunak was willing to give an unequivocal defence of what Badenoch has been saying in the row, and it turned out he wasn’t. Sunak did not quite cut her loose. But he said about the bare minimum necessary to defend her without his lack of enthusiasm becoming too obvious.

Badenoch is favourite to be the next Tory leader after the next election and she probably does not care very much what Sunak thinks about her. But, as the subsequent exchanges made clear (see 12.33pm, 12.45pm and 12.48pm), she is collecting enemies at an extraordinary rate. This does not seem to worry those Tories who admire here, but at some point they may start to wonder whether this is a positive trait in a party leader.

Bob Blackman (Con) says when Sir Lindsay Hoyle was elected speaker, he said that when he made controversial decisions, he would publish the advice he had been given by clerks. Will he do it this afternoon in relation to the selection of amendments on the Gaza motion.

Winterton says the speaker will have heard this point.

Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the business committee, raises another point of order. He asks about Canada saying Badenoch was wrong to say trade talks with the UK were still happening. (See 9.21am.) How can MPs find out if these talks are happening, or just going on “in the business secretary’s mind”.

Winterton says she cannot speak for the minister, but Byrne will have other opportunities to pursue this, she says.

Lucy Powell, the shadow leader of the Commons, raises a point of order. She asks what MPs can do to get clarification from Kemi Badenoch over why her comments to the house on Monday about the Post Office dispute were misleading.

Dame Rosie Winterton, the deputy speaker, says this is not a matter for her, but the government will have heard the point.

Updated

Graham Stringer (Lab) asks if Sunak realised, when he cancelled phase 2 of HS2, that trains to Manchester would end up going more slowly as a result because they would have to use unsuitable track.

Sunak ignores the point, but says that all the money saved from the HS2 cancellation will stay in the north, and that says that Labour does not have a position on HS2 phase 2.

Updated

Chris Elmore (Lab) accuses Sunak of failing to protect steel jobs in south Wales.

Sunak says the government has worked hard to secure a long-term, sustainable solution for the steel industry in south Wales. He says a £500m grant to Tata Steel will safeguard 5,000 jobs. The Welsh Labour government did not put a penny in to help, he says.

Sunak says bill to exonerate post office operators unfairly convicted will be published 'very, very soon'

Kate Osborne (Lab) says what Sunak said about the Post Office Horizon victims was disrespectful. Without the ITV drama, the government would not be doing what it is doing now. Will the PM commit to ensuring the law to exonerate post office operators will come before the election?

Sunak says the legislation will be brought forward '“very, very soon”.

Ben Bradshaw (Lab) says Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, told MPs that she had engaged extensively with LGBT groups. But an answer this week shows she has only met two groups hostile to trans people. Why does the government have a problem with trans people, and Badenoch have a problem with truth?

Sunak says the government is committed to LGBT rights, but that biological sex matters too.

UPDATE: Jim Pickard from the FT has more on that here.

FURTHER UPDATE: Badenoch’s team have given Pickard a call.

Updated

Sir John Hayes (Con) says the erection of electricity pylons in the countryside is a threat to food security, because it is taking up land that could be used for growing.

Sunak stresses his love of the countryside, but ducks the point about pylons.

Updated

I have updated some of the earlier posts covering the Sunak/Starmer exchanges with direct quotes. You may need to refresh the page to get the updates to compare.

Andrew Rosindell (Con) says he has been able to spent a lot of time with the people of his constituency. (He stayed away from the Commons while rape allegations were being investigated. The Met has now dropped them.) He says his constituents want tougher immigration laws.

Sunak welcomes Rosindell back, and says he looks forward to visiting his constituency.

Pete Wishart (SNP) says he was in the Commons when it voted for the Iraq war in 2003. He voted against, and he claims it is the vote he is most proud of. He says the vote today for a ceasefire in Gaza will be of similar significance.

Sunak says no one wants to see civilians suffer. He says the government wants a sustainable ceasefire.

Updated

Andrew Selous (Con) says planning rules mean it takes too long for new GP surgeries to be built. Will the government let them operate from other premises?

Sunak says it may be possible for GP services to be provided at alternative locations. The Department of Health will look at this, he says.

Clive Betts (Lab) asks when the government will go ahead to set up an independent regulator for football.

Sunak says the independent regulator will put fans at the heart of football. He says plans were in the king’s speech. Discussions on how to do this are underway, he says.

Here are two commentators on what Rishi Sunak said about Kemi Badenoch.

From ITV’s Robert Peston

The PM repeated none of the specific charges levelled by @KemiBadenoch against the Post Office chair Henry Staunton who she sacked. He has devolved all responsibility for this conflict to her, which she may or may not relish #PMQs

From the Mirror’s Kevin Maguire

Sunak pointedly does not repeat Badenoch’s “full of lies” attack on the sacked Post Office chair.

She’s in political quicksand #PMQs

Rob Butler (Con) says money from the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2 is meant to be paying for better roads in Buckinghamshire. Will that happen?

Sunak confirms that that is the plan. He says two road plans Butler has been campaigning for should benefit.

Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, echoes what Sunak and Starmer said about the “heroic bravery” of Alexei Navalny.

He says 60% of buildings in Gaza are damaged. What the Israelis have done does not amount to self-defence, he says.

Sunak says the government has called for an immediate humanitarian pause. That is what he impressed on the Israeli PM last week when they spoke.

Flynn says the Commons should send a clear and united message that it backs an immediate ceasefire.

Sunak says of course he wants to see the fighting end, and to never again allow the attacks carried out by Hamas. But if there were a ceasefire now, it would collapse within weeks, he suggests. He says a ceasefire should be sustainable.

Starmer turns to the infected blood scandal, and asks what undertaking Sunak has made to ensure that the government is not “limping towards the election” delaying payments for this group.

Sunak says he gave evidence to this inquiry. He knows that thousands of people have suffered. This is an incredibly complicated issue, he says. The Cabinet Office is appointing experts so that it can make informed decisions to the inquiry’s recommendations on compensation when they are published. The government will respond within 25 days, he says.

Starmer refers to an postmaster waiting for justice. He asks if the government will publish all the relevant paperwork to this case.

Sunak says Starmer never raised the Post Office scandal with him previously. He says the inquiry is the proper place for this to be investigated. In the meantime, the government is paying compensation, he says.

Starmer asks Sunak if he has asked government colleagues about what they knew about the Post Office scandal in 2016.

Sunak says the government set up an inquiry. That is the right approach, he says.

Starmer asks about the BBC report this week suggesting the government knew there was a cover up in the Post Office in 2016.

Sunak says the government set up an inquiry.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

I do hope the prime minister will instigate that investigation into what was said on Monday because one of the features of this miscarriage is that where concerns have been raised they have been pushed to one side.

This week we also learned that a 2016 investigation into whether Post Office branch accounts could be altered was suddenly stopped before it was completed …

What did government ministers know about it at the time?

And Sunak replied:

[Starmer] has picked one particular date. But it is worth bearing in mind that this scandal … has unfolded over decades.

And it was actually following a landmark 2019 high court case that the previous government established a statutory inquiry …. which is uncovering exactly what went wrong. And it is right that that inquiry is allowed to do its work.

Updated

Sunak resists Starmer's call for investigation into row between Badenoch and Staunton over Horizon compensation payment instructions

Starmer says new evidence today appears to endorse Staunton’s claim. He asks if Sunak will order an investigation into what happened.

Sunak focuses on the victims, saying they are being paid compensation, and that an inquiry is under way.

He says he will make sure “the truth comes to light”. But he seems to be referring to the inquiry process, not to the truth about the Badenoch/Staunton row.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

On Monday the business secretary also confirmed categorically that the Post Office was, and I’ll quote this in fairness to the Prime Minister, ‘at no point told to delay compensation payments by either an official or a minister from any government department, and at no point was it suggested that a delay would be of benefit to the Treasury’, so that’s Monday.

A note released by the former Post Office chair this morning appears to directly contradict that … I appreciate the business secretary has put the prime minister in a tricky position, but will he commit to investigating this matter properly? Including whether that categorical statement was correct, and why rather than taking those accusation seriously she accused a whistleblower of lying?

And Sunak replied:

It is worth bearing in mind as the business secretary said on Monday, she asked Henry Staunton to step down after serious concerns were raised.

Updated

Sunak refuses to endorse Badenoch's claim that ex-Post Office chair was lying about conversation about compensation payments

Keir Starmer starts by welcoming the new Labour MPs for Wellingborough and Kingswood.

And he also pays tribute to Alexei Navalny.

He asks Sunak if he will repeat the claim made by Kemi Badenoch, that Henry Staunton was “lying’” when he said he was told to go slow on paying compensation.

Sunak says the government has taken unprecedented steps to make sure victims get compensation.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

Would the prime minister be prepared personally to repeat the allegations made by his business secretary, that the former chair of the Post Office is lying when he says he was told to go slow on compensation for postmasters and limp to the next election?

And Sunak replied:

As the business secretary said on Monday, she asked Henry Staunton to step down after serious concerns were raised, she set out the reasons for this and the full background in the house earlier this week, but importantly we have also taken unprecedented steps to ensure that victims of the Horizon scandal do receive compensation as swiftly as possible and in full.

Updated

Rishi Sunak starts by sending his condolences to the family of Alexei Navalny. He says that for Navalny to return to Russia when he knew the risk he was taking was one of the bravest acts of our time.

Updated

As many as 19,000 people have registered to come and lobby their MPs to support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, according to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).

About 100 of them have turned up in the past hour or so but parliamentary authorities have been keeping them in the Westminster Hall area rather than allowing them to come through to lobby MPs in Central Lobby, which members pass through on the way into the Commons chamber.

Overspill tables have been set up in Westminister Hall with ‘green cards’ on top of them which members of the public can use to lobby their MP.

Updated

Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.

HoC
HoC Photograph: PMQs

Sunak faces Starmer at PMQs

PMQs is starting soon.

Rishi Sunak leaving No 10 ahead of PMQs.
Rishi Sunak leaving No 10 ahead of PMQs. Photograph: Jordan Pettitt/PA

The Foreign Office has announced that it has sanctioned six people who run the penal colony where Alexei Navalny died last week. This means they could be subject to asset freezes or travel bans.

But it is not clear whether the six individuals, who have been named, have assets in the UK, or are likely to want to travel here.

20mph speed limits are cutting average driving speeds in Wales by 4mph, Welsh government says

New 20mph limits are helping cut speeds and will save lives, the Welsh government has insisted. PA Media says:

Drivers are travelling on average 4mph slower on main roads in Wales since the rollout of a new lower speed limit for built-up areas, data collected by Transport for Wales (TfW) shows.

The Welsh Labour government, which implemented the change in September last year, insists the lower speeds will lead to fewer collisions and people injured.

But the change has seen fierce opposition from the Conservatives in the Senedd, who have branded it a “waste of time and resources”.

The TfW data shows that average speeds have dropped from 28.9mph to 24.8mph since the measure was put in place.

Research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, a transport consultancy, in 2000 suggested there is an average 6% reduction in collisions with each 1mph reduction in average speed on urban roads.

Why MPs seem unlikely to get a vote this afternoon on Labour's Gaza amendment

The main event in the Commons this afternoon is a debate on an SNP motion calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza. Yesterday Labour tabled its own, longer amendment, calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, and then the government tabled its version, calling for an “immediate humanitarian pause”.

You can read the SNP motion, the Labour and government amendments, and a Lib Dem amendment, on the Commons order paper.

The Labour amendment was welcomed by MPs in the party who rebelled in November last year, when Keir Starmer ordered his MPs not to vote for an SNP ceasefire amendment, and it was welcomed by the SNP. It was also more or less in line with the government’s position on Gaza (but more the David Cameron government stance than the Rish Sunak one – there are differences of emphasis).

But it looks likely that the Labour amendment won’t be put to a vote. That is because the rules say, with opposition day debates like this, if there is a government amendment, MPs vote first on the opposition motion, and then on the government amendment. Daniel Gover, an academic specialising in parliamentary procedure, has given the best explanation of why in a thread on X.

Commons procedure on opposition days is different to usual. This makes selection of amdts especially tricky.

If Speaker selects Labour amendment, SNP almost certainly denied chance to vote on own motion.

If selects govt amendment, Labour very likely can’t vote on theirs.

Usually, amendments to the motion are taken first, followed by a decision on the (possibly amended) motion.

On opposition days, *if there is govt amendment* the order is usually reversed: opposition motion first, followed by government amendment

Selecting the Labour amendment would mean that the SNP would not get the chance to vote on its own motion until after Labour has (likely) amended it. This does occasionally happen, but it’s a little harsh given limited opposition time (esp for smaller parties like SNP).

Selecting the government motion, however, is likely to mean that Labour cannot vote on its amendment.

The standing order above states that, once a government amendment (meeting certain criteria) has been moved, the order is: (a) main question, and if rejected (b) govt amdt.

In the past, this has been interpreted as meaning that, if a government amendment is moved, ‘it is not possible for a second amendment... to be put’.

This was from 2015, when a Labour backbencher attempted to amend a Labour opposition day motion.

My main doubt is whether something could be done to schedule when amendments are ‘moved’, and thus avoid these provisions. I’m not sure on that.

There are some precedents for the Speaker selecting an opposition party amendment instead of the government amendment. As far as I can tell, these are (almost?) always because the government amendment was in some was defective - for example this one from 2000.

However, this exchange from 2008 implies that - at least in principle - the Speaker might choose not select a government amendment for other reasons.

So, if Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, follows precedent – and, unlike John Bercow, he has been a speaker who does follow precedent, and who is not minded to creatively reinterpret the rules to accommodate new circumstances – he will just allow votes on the SNP motion and the government amendment.

But, as Gover points out, you can never be 100% sure, because it is sometimes possible to find some wriggle room in the rules if the will is there.

Normally when the opposition tables an amendment only about six fronbenchers sign it. Today Labour has got more than 140 of its MPs to sign the amendment, making the point to the speaker that there is strong demand in the house for a vote on this.

Kate Ferguson from the Sun on Sunday she has been told the speaker is considering whether he can allow votes on both the Labour and the government motion.

Rumours the Speaker is looking at changing standing orders so he can call Labour amendment as well as the government amendment on todays Palestine ceasefire vote

If there is a vote on the Labour motion, the government may decide not to put its own motion to a vote. There is nothing very objectionable to the government in the Labour text, and sometimes the government is happy for the house to pass opposition motions on the grounds that they are not binding on the government, and hence don’t matter much anyway.

We will find out at the start of the debate what amendment or amendments the speaker will put to a vote.

Updated

Boris Johnson in row with Tucker Carlson after former PM pulls out of $1m TV interview

Boris Johnson has disputed Tucker Carlson’s claim that he demanded $1m (around £793,000) for agreeing to an interview with the former Fox News host, PA Media reports. PA says:

A spokesman for the former prime minister dismissed as “untrue” accusations levelled at him by Carlson in an extended attack during an appearance on right-wing news channel Blaze TV.

The US presenter said he had been “annoyed” after Johnson denounced him as a Kremlin stooge following his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

He claimed he asked the former Tory MP for a talk and a member of Johnson’s team said “it’s going to cost you $1m” and “then he will explain his position on Ukraine”.

Carlson denied supporting Putin’s regime, but added: “I’m not defending Putin, but Putin didn’t ask for one million dollars… This whole thing is a freaking shakedown.”

He said: “If you’re making money money off a war, you know, you can deal with God on that, because that’s really immoral.”

A spokesman for Johnson said: “This account is untrue.”

The former prime minister’s team said Carlson, an influential voice in right-wing US media known for having launched scathing attacks against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, had offered one million dollars for an interview on his channel.

Johnson initially accepted, provided the money went solely to Ukrainian veteran charities, but decided not to go ahead with it after the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, which has been widely blamed on the Kremlin, they said.

It is the latest flare-up in a row between the pair after Johnson used his Daily Mail column to brand Mr Carlson “a traitor to journalism” for his interview with the Russian President.

Johnson said the presenter had betrayed “viewers and listeners around the world” for not taking Putin to task for “the torture, the rapes, the blowing up of kindergartens” in Ukraine.

Tories, Labour and Lib Dems make their case to NFU conference

Mark Spencer, the Conservative farming minister, his opposite number Dan Zeichner and Liberal Democrat environment spokesperson Tim Farron have been setting out their stalls to farmers at the NFU conference.

Spencer mostly blamed the issues farmers have faced in recent years on the Ukraine war, rising inflation and extreme weather. Many farmers at the NFU conference have spoken of their heartbreak as their farms have been underwater for months. Spencer promised he would incentivise farmers to keep producing British meat, saying “lots of people try to frame this sector as the [environmental] problem” but that “we are the people who can deliver a lower carbon footprint and less methane by producing the great quality of meat we produce”.

He gave a swipe to Labour, who have sparked protests in Wales over their diktat to farmers making them put 10% of their land into habitat schemes and plant 10% more with trees.

Zeichner took a more mild mannered approach and promised Labour would stop trade deal with countries which undercut the standards of British farmers, as well as ending the checking hold-ups at Dover. He reiterated Labour promises to lower energy costs and reduce rural crime, as well as setting up a Cobra-style taskforce to tackle floods.

He said:

Jacob Rees Mogg’s comments welcoming hormone injected beef and chlorine-washed chicken were rightly called out by Minette [Batters, the NFU president], but they represent a strand of thinking that runs deep through parts of the Conservative party, parts that were in government all too recently, and could be again.

Farron slammed the Tories’ “botched transition” and said hill farmers in his constituency have been losing 41% of their income under the new environment schemes. He said the “lakeland clearances” have been going on, by which he means large landlords are turfing tenant farmers off the hills to enter into lucrative government nature schemes.

Farron also highlighted a Guardian story about how Defra officials have buried evidence showing the dire situaiton for hill farmers and promised £1bn extra a year in farming schemes under a Lib Dem government.

Spencer promised he would stop people “taking the mickey” by “taking action to stop” landowners turfing off tenants and planting large parts of their farm as wild bird food to receive payments of £800 an acre. However, this only appears to be in the form of “issuing very strong guidance”.

Delegates at the NFU conference in Birmingham yesterday, when Rishi Sunak was speaking.
Delegates at the NFU conference in Birmingham yesterday, when Rishi Sunak was speaking. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images

Victoria Atkins, the health secretary, was on the media round this morning, mostly to publicise the news that “Martha’s rule” is being adopted in 100 English hospitals from April at the start of a national rollout.

But Atkins was also asked about the Henry Staunton memo published by the Times this morning. (See 9.21am.) In an interview with Times Radio it was put to Atkins that the memo showed Kemi Badenoch was wrong to dismiss Staunton as a liar. Atkins replied:

From what I’ve seen in the papers, I would not say the note is as clear as that, but as I say, I can’t really be drawn into the detail of this.

The secretary of state set this out very, very clearly in the chamber. She cares deeply about this issue, as indeed does the minister, Kevin Hollinrake, who has done incredible work to try to secure justice and to get some answers for sub-postmasters. And I think really it is now for the Post Office, as a corporate body, to really get on with the job of helping deliver that justice for victims.

Keir Starmer was beaten up as teenager trying to defend gay friend, book reveals

Keir Starmer was beaten up in a nightclub in Cornwall as a teenager after trying to defend one of his friends who was attacked for being gay, a new book reveals. Pippa Crerar has the story.

Shadow Scottish secretary Ian Murray issued a plea to SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn to accept their “more balanced” amendment to the Gaza motion this morning, warning that without this all attempts to gather cross-party support for a ceasefire were “doomed to fail” because of the government majority.

Otherwise, he warned:

We will sit here tonight after all the votes have been counted and everything will have failed but the government’s [amendment] because it’s a question of mathematics.

My plea to the SNP all of last week was if you truly want parliament to speak with one voice let’s have a balanced motion that allows everyone to get behind it.

He said that if the SNP accepted the Labour amendment to their motion, which Murray argued takes a broader view, recognising Israel’s position and making proposals for a pathway forward from the conflict, “then we can spend our time this morning trying to persuade government members to get behind it and perhaps there’s a better chance of something being passed rather than us just being defeated by the government”.

Updated

Labour’s Gaza amendment is chance to ‘speak with one voice’, says Nandy

Lisa Nandy, the shadow international development secretary, has said Labour’s amendment to the Scottish National party’s motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza is a moment to “lift our debate up” away from party politics and “speak with one voice”. Geneva Abdul has the story here.

Lib Dems urge PM's ethics adviser to launch inquiry into whether Badenoch misled parliament

The Liberal Democrats have written to Sir Laurie Magnus, the prime minister’s ethics adviser, asking for an investigation into whether Kemi Badenoch has broken the ministerial code by knowingly misleading parliament.

In her letter, Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader, said that Badenoch described Henry Staunton’s claims as “completely false” in the Commons on Monday. Referring to the new evidence published by the Times today (see 9.21am), Cooper says:

Given that Mr Staunton continues to stand by his allegations, there is a clear question as to who is telling the truth and whether Kemi Badenoch has knowingly misled parliament. It is clearly in the public interest for the facts of this important matter to be determined. In your role as ethics adviser, I urge you to open an investigation into this matter and accordingly determine whether or not a breach of the code has been committed by the secretary of state.

Subpostmasters who are at the heart of this whole scandal deserve justice, financial redress and the truth.

Normally the ethics advisers (technically known as the independent adviser on ministers’ interests) only launches an inquiry into a minister at the request of the PM. And yesterday Rishi Sunak defended Badenoch’s response to the Staunton allegations.

But under revised terms of reference published two years ago, the adviser can initiate an investigation himself. If that happens, the PM has the right to veto it, but in those circumstances the adviser can insist on reasons for this being made public (unless there is a good reason for keeping that decision private, such as national security).

UPDATE: Here is the text of Cooper’s letter.

Updated

Badenoch under pressure as ex-Post Office chair produces written memo to support claim that minister dismissed as lie

Good morning. After the former Post Office chair, Henry Staunton, gave an interview at the weekend making various allegations about the government’s response to the Horizon scandal, including claiming that he was told by a senior official to delay compensation payments, Kemi Badenoch, the businesss secretary, hit back. Whereas politicians in these circumstances normally only contest the parts of the negative story they can confidently refute, Badenoch went nuclear, and more or less dismissed everything Staunton was saying as a complete pack of lies.

Today that is not looking like such a wise strategy. Henry Staunton has now found a copy of the contemporaneous note he made of his conversation with the person he described to the Sunday Times as a senior civil servant and he has shown it to the Times. The official was Sarah Munby, who at the time was permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the memo does a lot to substantiate Staunton’s original claim.

In his story for the Times, Oliver Shah reports:

Staunton’s first meeting with Munby came a month after he took over from Tim Parker in December 2022. His memo says that he told Munby that he “had been on over a dozen public company boards and not seen one with so many challenges”. It says that the board had identified a financial shortfall of £160 million as of September 2022 and that “there was a likelihood of a significant reduction in post offices if funding [from the government] was not [requested]”.

“Sarah was sympathetic to all of the above,” the memo says. “She understood the ‘huge commercial challenge’ and the ‘seriousness’ of the financial position. She described ‘all the options as unattractive’. However, ‘politicians do not necessarily like to confront reality’. This particularly applied when there was no obvious ‘route to profitability’.

“She said we needed to know that in the run-up to the election there was no appetite to ‘rip off the band aid’. ‘Now was not the time for dealing with long-term issues.’ We needed a plan to ‘hobble’ up to the election.”

In his interview at the weekend Staunton said he was told to hold up spending so the Post Office could “limp” into the election. In one respect his memory was faulty, because the word he recorded in his contemporaneous record was “hobble”. But that is a minor detail. On the substance of what was said, the written evidence backs up what was claimed in the interview.

In response, a government source has told the Times that Staunton is misrepresenting what he was told, either deliberately or because he was confused. Munby was not talking about compensation payments, the source suggested. They said:

The long-standing issues around Post Offices finances are a matter of public record and do not include postmaster compensation, which is being fully funded by the government. Henry Staunton is either confused or deliberately mixing up the two issues.

On the record, the government is also denying that Staunton was told to delay the payment of compensation. “The government has sped up compensation to victims, and consistently encouraged postmasters to come forward with their claims. To suggest any actions or conversations happened to the contrary is incorrect,” a spokesperson said.

But, although his memo implies Munby was talking about overall Post Office finances, Staunton told the Times that by far the two biggest items where the Post Office was able to vary its spending were compensation payments and replacement of the Horizon system.

When it is hard to reconcile two conflicting accounts of a story, one reliable fallback is to consider which source is more reliable. And that is why it is particularly unfortunate for Badenoch that the new revelation coincides with the publication of a story in the Financial Times implying she has not been telling the truth about trade talks with Canada. In their story, George Parker, Lucy Fisher and Peter Campbell report:

Badenoch told MPs “explicitly” on January 29 that talks with Canada were “ongoing” to avoid a March 31 tariff cliff-edge for UK carmakers, even though she had earlier unilaterally paused wider trade talks with the Ottawa government

But the Canadian high commissioner to the UK, Ralph Goodale, has written to the House of Commons business select committee to insist Badenoch’s claimed talks, which also cover cheesemakers, have not happened.

With PMQs starting within the next three hours, both stories are likely to get referenced later in the Commons today. And that is before we even get started on the Gaza debate.

And at some point MPs will also want to address the story suggesting the UK no longer has a working nuclear deterrent. So it is going to be a busy day.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, gives evidence to the London assembly’s police and crime committee.

12pm: Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.

After 12.45pm: MPs begin their debate on the SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Voting should take place at around 4pm.

Afternoon: The Palestine Solidarity Campaign holds a rally outside parliament.

Also, in Wales, junior doctors have started a three-day strike.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
The Best Skin Care for Dry Skin in Winter Includes This Five Minute Moisturizer Hack
Dry skin? Never met her.
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
LeBron James Likens Cavs' Past Rivalry With Steph Curry, Warriors to 'Rap Beef'
The King had a fitting comparison for the defining rivalry of his career.
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated
Ryan Reynolds Sparks Buzz With Cryptic Post Amid Blake Lively And Justin Baldoni Drama
Ryan Reynolds left fans worried after suggesting he’s going through a difficult time in a video for charity. The clip comes right after his wife accused her It Ends With Us co-star, Justin Baldoni, of sexual harassment. The post Ryan Reynolds Sparks Buzz With Cryptic Post Amid Blake Lively And…
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
'A Simple Favor 2' Director and Co-Star Speak Out in Support of Blake Lively
"She truly did not deserve any of this smear campaign against her."
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
How Long is the Super Bowl on Average? Running the Numbers
For most NFL games, about three hours is all one needs to watch it. But the Super Bowl? That can be a different story.
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated
Ryan Reynolds Has Been Blake Lively’s “Rock” and Is “Very Proud of Her” Amid ‘It Ends With Us’ Ordeal
"They have such a special relationship."
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play