Tory and SNP anger as speaker allows Labour’s amendment on Gaza ceasefire vote – UK politics live | Politics

Tory MPs angry with Commons speaker over his decision to allow vote on Labour amendment

While David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, was speaking in the debate, Colum Eastwood, leader of the SDLP, said what happened in Northern Ireland showed the danger of insisting that a ceasefire would have to be permanent. He said:

I think there is more cohesion in this house today than we’re actually showing the public.

There are still some people in this house though who are demanding that a ceasefire has to be permanent.

I don’t like making the comparison to our own peace process but the basic principles are the same: you cannot guarantee the permanence of a ceasefire. You should work for a ceasefire and you work to make it permanent, so the bar is too high for some people.

Lammy replied:

The honourable gentleman reminds this House of the seriousness of the issue before us, he reminds us not just of the ceasefire but the long yards and roads to peace.

This is from my colleague Libby Brooks on why Gaza has become such a key issue in the contest between the SNP and Labour in Scotland.

And here is an extract.

As [Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster], writing for Guardian Opinion on Wednesday morning, says: “No one is pretending that one vote at Westminster will magically result in a ceasefire overnight. But a ceasefire is more likely to happen if the UK parliament and government join international pressure.”

The party says this is entirely consistent with the position it has taken from those early days after the Hamas attacks – unlike Labour and the UK government. They believe that voters have appreciated the leadership [Humza] Yousaf has shown – he has garnered praise from some of his most ardent critics for what they have described as his dignity and moral courage.

But in an election year as high stakes as this for the SNP, with Scottish Labour toe to toe in the polls, this motion could have significance well beyond the machinations of Commons process.

In his first campaign speech of the new year, Yousaf insisted that Starmer “doesn’t need Scotland” to win the general election, arguing that voting in more SNP MPs would “keep him honest”, and offering to “work constructively” with a Labour government to prevent backsliding on green investment or the creeping privatisation of the NHS. Regardless of the outcome of this afternoon’s vote, the SNP will use it to strengthen that argument.

Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, intervenes. He asks Mitchell to say how the government responds to the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the Gaza case.

Mitchell says the government respects the ICJ, but thought it was a mistake for this case to go to court.

Mitchell says the government is deeply concerned about the prospect of an offensive in Rafah.

It is impossible to see where civilians can go.

He condemns Hamas for fighting amongst civilians.

But the consequence of this is that Israel can only reach Hamas at an “incredible cost” in civilian lives. He says Israel should reflect on whether an offensive would be in their long-term interests.

Andrew Mitchell, the development minister, is speaking now on behalf of the government. He says David Lammy urged MPs to come together, and he says the best way for this to happen would be for the the Commons to support the government.

He says the government intends to move its amendment (implying it will vote against Labour’s, although he does not say that explicitly.)

Here is the text of the government one. It says the house:

supports Israel’s right to self-defence, in compliance with international humanitarian law, against the terror attacks perpetrated by Hamas; condemns the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023; further condemns the use of civilian areas by Hamas and others for terrorist operations; urges negotiations to agree an immediate humanitarian pause as the best way to stop the fighting and to get aid in and hostages out; supports moves towards a permanent sustainable ceasefire; acknowledges that achieving this will require all hostages to be released, the formation of a new Palestinian Government, Hamas to be unable to launch further attacks and to be no longer in charge in Gaza, and a credible pathway to a two-state solution which delivers peace, security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians; expresses concern at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and at the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah; reaffirms the urgent need to significantly scale up the flow of aid into Gaza, where too many innocent civilians have died; and calls on all parties to take immediate steps to stop the fighting and ensure unhindered humanitarian access.

He says the Commons as a whole should support this.

Lammy says MPs used to division ‘because our trade is politics’, but urges them to rise above it on Gaza

Lammy says the Labour amendment makes it explicit that the party would not give up a on a two-state solution.

In the Commons the SNP’s Dave Doogan intervenes and says Labour had had its own opposition day debate recently. It tabled a motion on ministerial severance pay. If it feels so strongly about a ceasefire, why didn’t it table an motion calling for one then?

Lammy says that the Labour party has been calling for an end to the fighting for weeks.

In the Commons David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, is speaking, proposing the Labour amendment.

It says that the House of Commons:

believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.

This is from Sky’s Beth Rigby on one of the factors that persuaded Sir Lindsay Hoyle to allow a vote on the Labour amendement.

On the matter on pressure on Speaker. Am told that many MPs made a personal pleas to Sir Lindsay about amendments. MPs’ have growing concerns for personal safety after incidents of confrontations & protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

Hoyle calls for review of procedural rules for opposition debates, saying current ones ‘outdated’

Here is the text of a note from Tom Goldsmith, clerk of the house, commenting on the decision taken by the speaker to allow the Labour amendment to the SNP motion to be put to the vote.

SNP says right to self-defence has been ‘ruthlessly exploited’ by Israel ‘in order to legitimise slaughter of innocent civilians’

An earlier post (see 1.43pm) said the Labour motion was likely to pass. I have removed that line from it now because, looking closely at what Sir Lindsay Hoyle said (see 1.54pm), it is clear that the government motion will only be put to a vote if the Labour one has been voted down. That means the government has a clear incentive to vote against Labour’s wording.

Also, if the government can knock out the Labour amendment, that would lead to a vote on the original SNP motion – which will trigger a Labour revolt (because some MPs would support it). That is a second reason why the Tory whips have a reason for voting against the Labour wording – even though in practice it is hard to detect much difference between the government’s position and Labour’s.