The Speaker set a terrible precedent. We must learn how

WHiLE all the parliamentary bluster this week has been focused on the Budget there is still other, unfinished, business to deal with.

With newly returned George Galloway already threatening to weaponise the tragedy of Gaza against certain Labour MPs, we must look again at the conduct of politics.

Once again, the issue of bullying and intimidation threatens the position of a speaker of the House of Commons. The difference this time is the speaker appears to be the victim and not the perpetrator.

Many are asking whether he was sufficiently robust in his response to threats from inside and outside the Commons and in defending the independence and conventions of Parliament in recent weeks.

The most important charge relates to sir Keir starmer and the Labour Party. When sir Keir was outmanoeuvred in the Commons by the sNP in their recent Gaza debate the Labour leader faced a widespread rebellion by the Left.

instead of dealing with his own party management issues he appears to have pressed the speaker into changing the rules of the Commons to suit the Labour Party.

Had the speaker genuinely wanted to have the ‘widest possible range of options’, as he has said, he could have allowed the Commons the chance to vote for the Lib Dem amendment as well as the Labour one. He chose not to do so.

Labour hope we have all forgotten about the incident and will quietly let it drop, though the climbing number of signatures on the Early Day motion about the speaker suggests that many MPs will not do so. But we must answer the question of not if, but how sir Keir pressurised the speaker into setting a terrible precedent. if allowed to stand it would mean that any official Opposition could hijack a minority party’s political time in the Commons.

it is not often i agree with the sNP, but they are right that their position as an independent party in the Commons has been severely damaged, as has that of the Lib Dems, the DUP and other minority parties – they all deserve to have their voices heard.

But we also need to know how the speaker’s ruling came about. Who did the speaker meet with, and when in the run-up to the debate on Gaza? Were all the rules followed equally for each party, with officials in attendance to keep a record? What, exactly, was said?

Only then can Parliament take a view on whether the matter needs to be examined more formally – possibly by the Commissioner for standards or the Privileges Committee.

The speaker may or may not survive the crisis. But a much more important issue is whether a party leader can put undue pressure on any speaker or House official to change the rules to their advantage. We owe it to Parliament and the voters we represent to ensure the whole truth comes out.