Sunak ‘concerned’ over Hoyle’s rule change but gives credit over speaker’s apology – UK politics live | Politics

• The SNP MP David Linden has claimed that Sir Lindsay Hoyle will have resigned by the weekend. He made the prediction in an interview with the PM programme, hours after Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, said his party, the third largest in the Commons, has collective lost confidence in the speaker. (See 12.43pm.) An early day motion expressing no confidence in Hoyle has now been signed by 67 MPs. But government ministers have been more eager to blame Labour for what happened last night, and Rishi Sunak has said that, while what happened was “very concerning”, Hoyle should get credit for his apology. Sunak implied he was not pushing for Hoyle’s removal. (See 4.28pm.)

Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, has refused to criticise Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, for his decision to allow a vote on Labour’s amendment in the Gaza ceasefire debate yesterday. Echoing the approach taken by his cabinet colleague Penny Mordaunt (see 11.48am), Gove instead claimed Labour was to blame for the events that led to the debate ending in chaos and acrimony.

In an interview with the Sun, Gove said:

I don’t think this issue is really about the speaker.

If you’re a government minister like me, you’ve got to respect the ref – even if you disagree with his decisions.

I like Lindsay …

The thing I regret is that Keir Starmer is allowing himself and the Labour party to be dictated by fear and intimidation.

Former government food tsar Henry Dimbleby calls for ban on advertising foods high in fat, salt and sugar

Ian Sample

The government’s former food tsar has called for a ban on advertising foods high in fat, salt and sugar and warned that such products are now the dominant threat to public health.

Henry Dimbleby, who resigned from his post last year citing government inaction on obesity, told the Lords food, diet and obesity committee today that poor quality food had become “by far the biggest cause of avoidable illness.” He said:

This is going to be one of the increasing problems facing society over the next 10 years and if we don’t get a grip on it, because of that lack of productivity, it will not only make us sick as a society, it will make us poor as well, and we are behind the curve.

A pre-watershed ban on TV adverts for foods high in fat, salt and sugar was due to come into force in January 2023, but delays ordered by Boris Johnson and subsequently Rishi Sunak mean it will not be implemented until 2025 at the earliest.

“I would restrict advertising of all of this food,” Dimbleby told the committee, adding that a ban should apply after the 9pm watershed as well as before. “I would just say you can’t advertise it.”

The Lords inquiry is gathering evidence on the role of ultra-processed foods and foods high in fat, salt and sugar, in driving obesity and other medical conditions. Ultra-processed foods tend to contain artificial colours and flavours, and ingredients such as emulsifiers and sweeteners, and are formulated to make them extremely palatable.

“The purpose of ultra processed food is to drive excess consumption,” Dr Chris van Tulleken, a clinical research fellow at University College London and author of the book, Ultra-Processed People, told the inquiry. “It is very normal to eat 80% of your calories from ultra-processed food in this country,” he added.

Dimbleby was highly critical of advertising that targeted children, describing Coco Pops as “the breakfast cereal that’s a pudding”, and said ultra-processed foods and other foods high in fat, salt and sugar should be labelled as unhealthy using black octagon symbols adopted in other countries.

He also called for substantial support for people in poverty, including fruit and veg vouchers, to make healthy food more affordable, and a salt and sugar reformulation tax, adding that this would not increase the price of food. “You have to restrict the commercial incentives of companies,” he said. “There is no version of the future that looks good if that doesn’t happen.”

The government has been accused of shutting down the main forum for Muslim-Jewish dialogue in the UK at an “extraordinarily stupid” time, PA Media reports. PA says:

The Inter Faith Network, founded in 1987 with the aim of helping to promote good relations between people of different faiths across the UK, said it would confirm on Thursday whether the charity will close.

The government had previously said that, because a member of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) was appointed to the charity’s “core governance structure” last year, it had decided to withdraw the offer of new funding for the organisation.

Answering a Commons urgent question on the situation, Felicity Buchan, a levelling up minister, told MPs: “As this house will be aware, successive governments have had a longstanding policy of non-engagement with the MCB. The appointment of an MCB member to the core governance structure of a government-funded organisation therefore poses a reputational risk to government.”

She said Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, had “carefully considered” points raised by the IFN after the appointment but had concluded these were “outweighed by the need to maintain the government’s policy of non-engagement with the MCB and the risk of compromising the credibility and effectiveness of that policy”.

But Labour MP Sir Stephen Timms criticised the decision and the timing, especially in light of the chaotic scenes in the Commons just a day earlier over a vote on Gaza.

Timms said: “Is it not, given the debate in this chamber yesterday, extraordinarily stupid to be shutting down at this precise point our principal vehicle in the UK for Muslim-Jewish dialogue? Surely we need more, not to be shutting that down?”

He said the charity had made a “very important contribution” to the UK for almost four decades.

Conservative former minister Theresa Villiers described the current situation as “regrettable”. She said: “I completely understand the importance of not engaging with organisations which have hardline views but surely we can find a compromise to keep the IFN in business? Because they do do some incredibly valuable work in fostering respect and mutual understanding between different faith groups.”

Labour MP Barry Sheerman said of the funding withdrawal: “It’s the wrong time, and the wrong move.”

A spokesperson for the department said: “Interfaith work is hugely important but that does not require us to use taxpayer money in a way that legitimises the influence of organisations such as the MCB. The Inter Faith Network cannot rely on continuous taxpayer funding. We regularly remind our partners, including the IFN, of the importance of developing sustainable funding arrangements, rather than relying on taxpayers’ money, which can never be guaranteed.”

Rishi Sunak has thrown a partial lifeline to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker, giving him credit for his apology for the decision he took last night.

In a clip for broadcasters in Angelsey this afternoon, asked if Hoyle had his backing, Sunak replied:

What happened in the House of Commons last night is very concerning.

It seems that the usual processes and the way that the House of Commons works were changed. Now my understanding is that the speaker has apologised for that and is going to reflect on what happened.

This morning No 10 refused to say Sunak had confidence in Hoyle. In his clip this afternoon, Sunak did not give the speaker his full-throated backing, but he implied he was willing to draw a line under the matter.

But Sunak also said he was concerned about the notion the extremists could parliamentary procedure. He said:

The important point here is that we should never let extremists intimidate us into changing the way in which parliament works.

Parliament is an important place for us to have these debates. And just because some people may want to stifle that with intimidation or aggressive behaviour, we should not bend to that and change how parliament works. That’s a very slippery slope.

At PMQs yesterday Rishi Sunak said that the legislation to exonerate post office operators whose convictions are regarded as unsafe because of the Horizon scandal will be published “very, very soon”. In a Commons written statement today, Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister, has set out at some length details of the cases that will be covered.

One factor applied by the legislation will be an assumption that prosecutions that were brought by the Post Office were inherently unreliable. He says:

The legislation will specify who the prosecutor was in the relevant case. The Horizon inquiry has heard evidence of the egregious behaviour of the Post Office’s investigatory practices. It is therefore proportionate that the government legislates to quash these prosecutions where the prosecutor is, in effect, discredited.

Libby Brooks

At first minister’s questions in the Scottish parliament the Commons chaos was ignored entirely as opposition leaders tore into the SNP on domestic challenges.

Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross led on a “damning” report published this morning by Audit Scotland that said the increased pressure on the NHS was now having a direct impact on patient safety, as the service found itself unable to meet growth in demand.

Ross quoted the report stating there was no “overall vision” for the future of the health service.

But Humza Yousaf, the first minister, insisted that, while he took the report “very seriously”, there was record investment and staffing in the NHS in Scotland.

The Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar clashed with Yousaf on Labour’s proposed windfall tax, which the first minister attacked as putting thousands of jobs at risk earlier in the week. Sarwar accused Yousaf of siding with the energy giants over working people and made the comparison that is likely to feature heavily in forthcoming election leaflets: that Yousaf appears to be defending big energy companies from paying more tax on their profits, while anyone earning over £28,000 in Scotland pays more income tax.

Business questions is now over. The highlight came towards the end, when Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, responded to a question from Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, in which Flynn said that the SNP has decided collectively it no longer has confidence in Hoyle. He called for a no confidence vote. (See 12.43pm.)

In response, Hoyle in essence pleaded for his job. He said that he had made a judgment call that turned out to be wrong and he apologised almost grovellingly to the SNP. But then, quite movingly, he talked about the “absolutely frightening” material he has been shown about the threat to MPs, and he stressed his commitment to keeping people safe. I’ve beefed up the post at 12.45pm about his words with direct quotes. (You may need to refresh the page to get the update to appear.)

Was it enough? No 10 refused to express confidence in Hoyle earlier, which suggests Rishi Sunak is still sitting on the fence (one of his less edifying habits – remember how he avoided taking a stance on the standards committee report into Boris Johnson). Sunak may be waiting to see where the consensus view in the Conservative party settles before expressing a view in public.

But at this point it looks as if the threat to Hoyle’s future may be receding. During business questions there was no Tory anti-Hoyle feeding frenzy, and instead he received support from government backbenchers, including some who have not been shy of picking fights with previous speakers. (See 12.45pm and 12.22pm.) Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, praised Hoyle repeatedly as a “decent man” and played down prospects of allowing a no confidence vote. (See 12.43pm.) Within the past two hours only two new signatures have been added to the no confidence early day motion, where numbers are now stuck at 59. And one of those Tories who did sign it, Derek Thomas, suggested on the World at One only a few minutes ago that, if the EDM were to result not in Hoyle’s resignation, but in the speaker just being a bit more careful about making anti-Tory rulings next time, he would regard that as an acceptable outcome.