On 4 November the House of Commons elected Lindsay Hoyle as its new Speaker, replacing the inimitable John Bercow who left the post on 31 October and who is also stepping down as an MP. Bercow is often said to have revolutionised the role and he is certainly the first Speaker to become a media celebrity following his eccentric style and unique way of bellowing ‘ORDER!!!’ to calm unruly MPs. So, it’s a good opportunity to briefly compare the roles in the UK and US and explore why Bercow’s ten-year tenure in the chair has proven so controversial.
The comparison
On the face of it, the roles of the Speakers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords are very similar to the role of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives (currently Nancy Pelosi). Unsurprisingly, given the American system was broadly based on the British parliamentary system. Speakers (supported by Deputy Speakers) preside over the day to day business of the House and maintain order, they are responsible for approving the order of business of the house and managing votes. They will also abstain on votes unless a casting vote is required.
There are important differences however which mean the roles in practice are very different. Whereas the US Speaker is always a member of the majority party, that is not the case in the UK parliament. While the Speaker is elected by the full House as in the US, by tradition, Speakers alternate between the two main parties so Bercow was a Conservative MP and the new Speaker, Hoyle, is from the Labour Party. They are also expected to be rigorously non-partisan, effectively surrendering their party affiliation when they take up the role. To protect this impartiality, again by tradition rather than rule, the other main parties will not field candidates in the Speaker’s constituency allowing them to be elected unopposed. This means they do not have to engage in any unsavoury electioneering. In return, the Speaker will not support any particular party position in the House and will not vote according to any ideology – if they are required to cast a deciding vote they will vote for whichever option requires the least change or preserves the status quo, usually ‘no’. This is incredibly rare but happened in April 2019 when the Commons was tied on a vote about having more Brexit votes. Bercow responded: “In accordance with precedent and on the principle that important decisions should not be taken except by a majority I cast my vote with the Noes.”
The Speaker also does not have any control of the business of the House, unlike in the US Congress. The government of the day determines what bills and other legislation are brought before the House, setting them out in a Queen’s Speech at the beginning of a parliamentary session. The government controls the order paper and therefore decides how and when legislation is managed through the parliamentary processes. The role of the Speaker is to keep things moving and help the government stick to its agenda, in particular in deciding the order in which MPs can speak during debates and keeping them in line. But also, crucially, to determine what is ‘orderly’. That is, what is acceptable process within the often arcane, confusing and antiquated rules established by our unwritten constitution. And this is where Bercow has proven to be the most controversial Speaker of modern times.
Bercow and the broken Parliament
Usually the goings on in House of Commons don’t attract that much public attention beyond a certain group of policy wonks who find it all rather fascinating… ahem. There’s a lot of shouting and waving of order papers but in the end the government largely gets to do what it wants. That all changed with the 2016 EU referendum, when the UK voted narrowly to leave the European Union. The vote split not only the country but also the main political parties, with widespread disagreement within both the Conservative and Labour ranks about the best way to implement the result. This changed the parliamentary arithmetic and the rule that the government always gets its way was broken, with government MPs willing to defy the party whip and vote the government down. The situation was exacerbated in 2017 following the ill-fated attempt by Conservative Prime Minister to increase her meagre majority to help her get her own way by calling a snap general election. Far from increasing her majority, she lost it, and was only able to continue to govern with the help of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party’s 10 MPs. The slender majority this gave her wasn’t enough when faced with rebellion amongst her own ranks from MPs who felt her approach was either too hard or too soft to be a genuine Brexit and she was repeatedly defeated in votes on the deal she had negotiated.
The volatile situation meant that suddenly the role of the Speaker became far more important, a situation that Bercow clearly relished. He had long styled himself as a Speaker who stood up for Parliament, not the government, and was already loathed by many government ministers (a minister functions like a U.S. Cabinet Secretary) who felt that his championing of individual MPs against the government crossed the line. For example, under his tenure the number of urgent questions that were permitted rose dramatically. When an urgent question is tabled on a matter, the government minister responsible must present themselves at the Commons and face public questioning by MPs – which can often be difficult or embarrassing if the matter in question represents a failure by the government. He also arguably dabbled in politics when declaring he would not allow President Trump to address Parliament on the grounds that he had ‘not earned that honour’. Bercow doubled down on this approach as the Commons descended into ever greater chaos. Bercow repeatedly sided with what became known as ‘the rebel alliance’ against the government, allowing them to seize control of the order paper and hold indicative votes to try to break the impasse, against the express wishes of the government. While this was seen by many as a triumph of our parliamentary system of democracy, other saw it as effectively a coup by Remainer MPs to try to stop Brexit. He also blocked several government votes, on the basis that House rules do not allow the same question to be put to the House twice. A rule many thought he should have waived, given the importance of Brexit. Most notably, he came out strongly against the the government prorogation of Parliament in September, a stance vindicated by the Supreme Court which ruled it unlawful.
Allegations
Bercow has also been dogged with allegations about his own behaviour and professionalism. The most serious of which relate to his handling of investigations into allegations of bullying and sexual impropriety by member of the House against junior members of their staff. He himself faced multiple allegations of bullying, allegations he strenuously denied. So reviled was he by certain MPs, they seek to block the customary peerage for outgoing Speakers and thereby deny him his place in the House of Lords. Before his resignation, there was also talk of the Conservatives defying convention and putting up a candidate to run against him in the upcoming election – even though he himself is a Conservative.
Bercow’s resignation and the election of Hoyle marks a change in how the House will be managed. It’s likely there are more turbulent times ahead and the new Speaker has pledged to be a neutral and transparent Speaker. Only time will tell whether Bercow’s approach was an aberration or represents a more significant shift to give backbench MPs more say in how the country is governed. At lease one thing seems clear, though: the House will be a duller place without Bercow’s acerbic wit, cutting put downs and bellowing. So, for the last time, here’s a compilation of some of Bercow’s finest moments. ORDER! I’ll not have any chuntering from a sedentary position from you, young man!
Image by David Mark from Pixabay