The Speaker is not the villain. We know who is, let us focus on them

FEBRUARY 21 2024 was not the House of Commons’ finest hour. After chaotic scenes in the Chamber, members of the SNP walked out, followed in turn by a large number of Conservatives.

The public, many of whom were expecting crucial votes at the end of an important debate, must have been looking on with a mixture of bemusement and growing anger.

Following on from this, a number of MPS, including some of my fellow Conservatives have signed an Early Day Motion expressing no confidence in Sir Lindsay Hoyle as Speaker and effectively seeking his removal. I understand why many MPS were angry with him but they are shooting at the wrong target (much to Labour’s relief).

Despite the confusion surrounding the events there are two things we can be sure of. Firstly, the SNP only get three “opposition days” a year on which they are allowed to pick the subject for debate, on a motion of their choosing. It is not unusual for the Government to table an amendment, to give their side of the story. But to then allow an opposition amendment on top was not only contrary to most precedent but also had the effect of “stealing” the SNP’S debate, in order to avoid a massive Labour rebellion, of potentially over 100 MPS.

Secondly, as attested to by many MPS, before announcing which amendments to select for debate the Speaker and Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, disappeared into the reasons room, a small room just behind the Speaker’s Chair, and were locked in conversation for some time.

It seems this is when Sir Keir put his case for Labour’s amendment. If there is any suggestion Sir Keir threatened the Speaker’s position in a new Parliament were he not to do his bidding, that would be serious. A more benign suggestion is that Sir Keir stressed the potential threat to Labour MPS and their families from Islamist extremists if they did not have the “safety valve” of a vote for Labour’s amendment. If true, this raises the question: what about all the other MPS?

In any event, the Speaker selected the Labour amendment, which led to uproar. It is not easy to face the House of Commons at the best of times but Sir Lindsay came back to the House and apologised. It was clear that he was contrite – almost tearful in fact.

As I said in the Commons, if we were in the Chamber and apologised to the Speaker we would expect him to take that apology at face value, so we should offer him the same courtesy.

My greatest friend in Parliament, Sir David Amess, was murdered by an Islamist terrorist who told his trial he had done it “because of the way he had voted”. I cannot tell you how supportive Sir Lindsay was, not just to me but also to Sir David’s family, his staff and other MPS. Those were the actions of an honourable man and one we would be very unwise to turf out, because he made a genuine mistake.

I understand why some of my colleagues, including friends, put their names to a no confidence motion. However, I would ask them to reflect before going further. As MPS said, we should atone for what happened by rescheduling the debate, if necessary, in Government time, so we can debate these issues in a calmer atmosphere and with genuine votes at the end.

If anyone was at fault, it seems to have been Sir Keir, for placing the Speaker in such an invidious position. I say to my colleagues, be careful what you wish for: Sir Lindsay is not the villain here. We all know who is and we should concentrate on them instead.

‘Those were the actions of an honourable man and one we would be very unwise to turf out’