The arcane rules of the House of Commons are a hot topic after a row over a debate on Gaza on Wednesday that threatens to separate Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, from his Pugin wallpaper. This rumpus, which has undermined trust in Sir Lindsay, previously regarded as a model of Lancastrian solidity, concerned an opposition day debate, one of 20 occasions in a parliamentary year when opposition parties control the agenda. The ostensible purpose of these is to allow the main opposition party (17 slots) and smaller parties (three slots) to air topics of choice. The real aim is to embarrass the government on a contentious issue.
Wednesday’s theatrics in the chamber resulted from Labour hijacking a Scottish National Party debate calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The SNP motion accused Israel of collective punishment, a war crime. Labour’s amendment called for a ceasefire but was softer on Israel. The procedural hijacking was supported by Sir Lindsay who in allowing this unprecedented move appeared to favour his old party, a mortal sin. But the reason he cited in his defence was far worse: fear of terrorist attacks on MPs forced by politics not to explicitly back a ceasefire. This is even more disturbing than the mixing of party manoeuvring with life and death. Fear is now a factor in British democracy.
Both main opposition parties have something to answer for. First on the charge sheet is the SNP which clearly inserted wording accusing Israel of collective punishment of Palestinians to make it impossible for Labour to back its motion. Faced with the SNP wording or nothing, Labour MPs sympathetic to Palestine, especially those with substantial Muslim communities, could have renounced the whip and rebelled. The collective punishment reference was clearly a poison pill designed to split Labour in a repeat of a vote in November when 56 Labour front and backbenchers rebelled and backed an SNP call for a ceasefire. This was political cynicism of a high order by the nationalists, using the incendiary language of war crimes to embarrass a rival party.
Opposition day debates are indicative: nothing in government changes if a motion is passed. But for Sir Keir a repeat of November was an unacceptable challenge to his authority. Faced with as many as 100 Labour MPs backing the SNP and declaring the Israeli government war criminals he turned to the Speaker. In what some critics might term emotional blackmail, Labour’s leader warned Sir Lindsay that some of his MPs might be at risk of attack if they were not allowed to vote for a softer “humanitarian” ceasefire option.
Sir Keir may have been genuine in his concern for his MPs’ safety — the murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess show how real is the risk to legislators — but the political benefit of subverting parliamentary procedure was clear: Labour’s amendment allowed its MPs to escape the binary choice of backing the SNP motion or abstaining. Abstaining would have left Labour in the invidious position of being silent on a ceasefire. The SNP was cynical in inserting its poison pill and Labour was equally cynical in neutralising it. Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, pompously chided Sir Lindsay for breaking the rules but if he and his party truly cared about the tormented people of Gaza they would have come up with a motion acceptable to Labour. In the end both main opposition leaders were playing politics over a gesture of little relevance to people suffering in Gaza.
Advertisement
Sir Lindsay cut a sad figure. He has built his reputation as Speaker on stability after the volatile tenure of John Bercow. Clearly, the safety of members played a major role in his ill-advised decision to rip up the Commons rulebook. Ill-advised not only because rules should be followed but because the threat of terrorist retribution should never govern the deliberations of parliament. This country should not be ruled by fear.
