The fallout from last week’s furore in the House of Commons over the SNP’s Gaza ceasefire motion continues.

Our readers expressed their anger on both Friday and Saturday:

Shame on Labour for its contemptible Gaza vote tricks

Hoyle was not the real villain. SNP should accept apology

Today, one of our correspondents criticises the SNP, Labour and the Tories for their part in the affair, and urges the Commons to act.

Peter A Russell of Glasgow writes:

"There were three proposals before the House of Commons last week. The SNP proposed an unconditional unilateral ceasefire by Israel. Labour countered with an amendment that defined the Gaza War in the context of the October 7 and the development of the two-state settlement, and proposed a complete humanitarian ceasefire; and the Tories added their own amendment that proposed a humanitarian pause. It is hard to see any reason why the merits and otherwise of all three of these should not have been debated and voted on by MPs. This was the aim of the Speaker.

However, two things prevented that happening. The first was the arcane rules of the House, which are based on precedents established when Opposition Days were confined to a single Loyal Opposition. It is quite beyond belief to anyone who has ever taken part in (or chaired) a formal debate that a motion and two amendments cannot be accommodated in good order. The second is the games played for political ends by the respective parties. The SNP set a trap for Labour, who in turn set their own trap for the SNP, only for the Tories to use the arcane procedure referred to above as a device for their own benefit, and who then collapsed the debate entirely.

What is most regrettable is the way in which the chaotic conclusion has overshadowed what had been a well-argued and sincere debate on the most serious of subjects. The solution must be the updating of procedures to protect the House and the Speaker so that the parties can never again manipulate them is this way. It is really not that difficult."

Sign up for the Letter of the Day newsletter here

📨 Read more in our Letters page
Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.