KEIR Starmer has broken his silence in the face of claims he threatened Speaker Lindsay Hoyle to select his party's amendment in the Gaza ceasefire debate.
The Labour leader “categorically” denied threatening the Commons Speaker after the amendment selection unleashed parliamentary chaos and avoided a Labour rebellion on Wednesday evening.
Hoyle is fighting for his job after being forced to apologise for breaking with “long-established convention” to allow a debate on a Labour amendment to an SNP opposition day motion
Both Tory and SNP MPs were left furious at the decision, with senior minister Penny Mordaunt giving a special statement in which she claimed Hoyle had “undermined” the House of Commons and said the Government would be boycotting the vote on a Gaza ceasefire as a result.
READ MORE: MPs sign no confidence motion in Speaker - see the full list
Labour’s amendment then passed without opposition, with the Speaker confirming he is to hold talks with party leaders to explain his decision.
Both Keir Starmer’s party and the deputy speaker Rosie Winterton refuted reports that Labour pressured Hoyle to allow their amendment to be debated, threatening to remove him from the Speaker’s chair after a General Election if he refused to do so.
Now, the Labour leader has said that he “simply urged” Hoyle to have “the broadest possible debate” by putting a number of options in front of MPs during the Gaza ceasefire debate.
Speaking at a train depot in Sussex he said: “I can categorically tell you that I did not threaten the Speaker in any way whatsoever. I simply urged to ensure that we have the broadest possible debate.
“So that actually the most important thing , which is what do we do about the situation in Gaza, could be properly discussed by MPs with a number of options in front of them.”
He added: “The Speaker did the right thing in making sure the debate was broad.
“But the tragedy is the SNP walked off the pitch because they wanted to divide the Labour Party and they couldn’t, and the Government walked off the pitch because it thought it was going to lose a vote.
“So we had one party that was simply seeking to divide on an important issue, the Government lost control of its own MPs and couldn’t control the votes.
“We should have had a proper debate and a proper resolution with all three propositions being put to a vote.”
On Thursday, the Commons Speaker offered the SNP the chance of an emergency debate amid calls for a vote of no confidence in him.
Responding to SNP leader Stephen Flynn, who said he had no confidence in the Speaker, Hoyle told the Commons: “I will reiterate I made a judgement call that didn’t end up in the position where I expected it to.
“I regret it. I apologise to the SNP… I apologise and I apologise to the House. I made a mistake. We do make mistakes. I own up to mine.
“I would say that we can have an SO24 (Standing Order 24) to get an immediate debate because the debate is so important to this House.
“I will defend every Member in this House. Every Member matters to me in this House.”
His voice faltering, Hoyle added: “And it has been said, both sides, I never ever want to go through a situation where I pick up a phone to find a friend, of whatever side, has been murdered by terrorists.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel