As I am sure many readers will have seen in the national news, Wednesday in the House of Commons descended into chaos. Even the most experienced journalists were struggling to explain how and why events unfolded as they did. I will try my best!
On Wednesday, after PMQ’s, it was an ‘Opposition Day’ debate – these are shared between all opposition parties, with Labour as the largest opposition party getting the most days, and in Wednesday’s case, it was the turn of the SNP. They then choose either one or two debates of their liking. These are normally topical issues, aimed at putting pressure on the Government - an important part of the democratic process. At the end of the debates, there is often a vote. An example would be the SNP would choose a debate on Scottish Independence, they would then trigger a vote allowing them to say the Conservative and Labour MPs didn’t vote for Scottish Independence.
The SNP selected a debate on Gaza, an understandably emotive and important issue. There isn’t a single MP who doesn’t want the violence in Gaza to end, with the Israeli hostages returned to their families and a long-term, sustainable peace secured – on this we are united. However there is a disagreement on quite how that can be achieved – arguably semantics on the exact wording.
On highly emotive and important issues, it can be hard for MPs within their own Parties to agree a common position. It became clear that potentially up to 100 of the Labour MPs wanted to vote for the SNP motion, whilst Sir Kier Starmer wished them to vote against it. So, to avoid a public split, Labour took the unusual move to push their own set of words, in effect taking over the SNP’s Opposition Day. The SNP MPs were furious and rightly so.
Ultimately the Speaker had to decide whether to allow this. Labour MPs sought to buy time, firstly raising spurious Points of Order, then bizarrely opposing the 10 Minute Rule Bill (where I was drafted in as a Teller) aimed to help community charities recruit volunteer drivers. They not only triggered a vote as a delaying tactic, which took 15 minutes, but accidently defeated the Bill – a bad look for MPs like Rachel Reeves who were not paying attention.
The Speaker was then able to return and give his ruling, saying he would allow Labour’s amendment despite it not being their Opposition Day. This was breaking parliamentary procedure and understandably infuriated the SNP. The anger rose further when the advice of the Clerks was published, showing they didn’t support this break with procedure, as it seemed that it was simply giving Labour a way of avoiding a tricky situation.
Angry exchanges continued through to the end of the debate. With the feeling the Speaker was too easily influenced by Sir Kier Starmer to bend the rules, the SNP led calls for his removal.
The Speaker returned to the Chair to apologise, it was genuine and sincere. I accept that fully. He is human, he has made a mistake – who hasn’t?
Lessons need to be learnt, Parliament could and should do better. This was an opportunity for us to present a united voice message on such an important subject. This should be rectified quickly.
