Is Bercow’s replacement as speaker a cause for concern for ministers?

The appointment of Lindsay Hoyle was designed to ease tension in the Commons, but he’s nobody’s poodle, says Sean O'Grady

(PA)

One of the more curious parliamentary trends in recent months has been the increasing animosity between the speaker of the House of Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, and the government. Although electing Hoyle last November to replace John Bercow was designed to reserve relations and ease tensions, Hoyle is proving to be nobody’s poodle. As a popular figure on all sides with no pretensions and a man of the world, he asserts the rights of the house with arguably more authority than his predecessor. He is having to do so more often.  

The speaker seems to have particular problems with the prime minister and with health and social care secretary, and his annoyance turned to a mild fury when the news about the “rule of six” was released before the Commons got to hear of it. This undeniably important story, affecting the lives of so many of the constituents of MPs representing English seats wasn’t even unveiled at a Downing Street press conference or in a Department of Health Social Care media statement. Rather it was scooped by ITV’s political editor Robert Peston, on Twitter of all places. Prompted by points of order by Tory MP Desmond Swayne and by Matt Hancock’s Labour shadow, Jonathan Ashworth, the speaker made little attempt to disguise his anger, or the potential retribution.

“It was all over Twitter as this was going on. Obviously somebody decided to tell the media rather than this house,” he said. “What I would say is that I expect the secretary of state to apologise to members and make sure that this chamber knows first. He was fully aware – fully aware – of what was  going to be said later. Let me say that if this minister wants to run this chamber ragged, I can assure you now that I am sure an urgent question every day might just begin to run him ragged.”

Hancock duly turned up, slightly chastened, yesterday morning to give the statement he should have made 24 hours before. There was no public apology, but the speaker solemnly informed the house that he’d had “a talk” with Hancock about future arrangements. MPs took his meaning.

It was reminiscent of the incident in May when the speaker threatened to throw Hancock out of the chamber for chattering. It is also consistent with his scolding of the prime minister for answering a question about schools by randomly going on about Keir Starmer and the IRA at last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions.  

Clearly Speaker Hoyle is tired of the prime minister’s flippant attitude.  

Afterwards, Hoyle explained to Times Radio that he was “uncomfortable” – “to accuse somebody of supporting the IRA who has actually prosecuted the IRA, I think was touching a nerve of something I didn’t quite like. I wasn’t comfortable with it.” Hoyle’s father Doug (now Lord) Hoyle was MP for Warrington, infamously attacked by the IRA in 1993. For his part, Johnson reportedly blamed his advisers for the minor fiasco, which some might say is typical. It was not the first time the prime minister has been ticked off for not directing his remarks via the chair, and advised to “go to Specsavers”.

But who’s afraid of Speaker Hoyle? Has he any power? So what if he’s annoyed?  

Not much formal power, to be sure, but much influence and a certain ability to make life easier or not. Like most jobs, the speakership is what you make of it and plenty of Hoyle’s predecessors have contented themselves with keeping order and allowing the government to govern without too much interference. Events in the hung parliament last year, when MPs seized control of the order paper, ie the agenda for business, were highly unusual. Speaker Bercow was right to stand up to the executive and permit MPs to take their proper role, especially when fundamental questions of sovereignty and the supremacy of parliament were at stake. So too was the UK Supreme Court entitled to rule the attempted prorogation null and void as an attempt to silence the Commons. However, life in a house with a secure government majority, as now, should be less eventful.  

The speaker exercises power and influence at the margins, in all senses, if he wishes to. He can, for example order ministers to come to the Commons to answer urgent questions. He can grant debates. He can prevent ministers from evading questions. These days he can be more or less helpful on social distancing, remote working and getting MPs back to Westminster and into the chamber, where Johnson needs a braying mob to support him. He can rule things in or out of order. Speaker Hoyle would never defy the house, break its rules and conventions or show unnecessary favour, but within fairly wide margins he can exercise discretion and make his views count privately – influence.

As the last speaker to be dethroned, Michael Martin, discovered in 2009, after the MPs’ expenses scandal and other problems, speakers, like monarchs, rule by consent, and in return their rulings are accepted final and beyond challenge. That is the deal and it is almost invariably honoured (Mr Martin was the first to be removed since 1695).  

Speaker Bercow was able to play such a major role in Brexit, despite personal allegations against him and claims of bias, precisely because he had the overwhelming backing of the house – most of the opposition parties plus a large proportion of Tory rebels. He would not, though, have been re-elected after the 2019 election, even if he’d wanted to be. For the moment Hoyle’s position is completely secure, as is very usual with an incumbent speaker, because Tory MPs are feeling ignored by the prime minister, and are watching his opinion poll ratings sink.

For the public it is mostly all very abstruse. Most don’t mind about the Commons being told first about anything, and in truth it is a rather antique idea. Governments have been briefing, spinning and leaking their stuff for decades, if not centuries. The point about the current run-in that ministers are having with Hoyle is that it matters to the MPs, and it adds to an impression of general administrative incompetence, that they are no good at governing. In other words, Johnson and his colleagues cannot even get the parliamentary basics right when they launch their half baked policies and rapid U-turns. It is telling, for example, that the chair of the Tory backbench 1922 Committee, Graham Brady, has complained openly that there has been no set piece Commons debate on the rule of six, this major shift in policy, and the jump in Covid infections that prompted the move. Equally they are alarmed by the apparent policy of breaking international law and the UK-EU withdrawal agreement.

These omissions are not just a question of the Commons’ dented pride, but that someone in government simply forgot that you’re supposed to have a debate on such things, even if you ignore what anyone says.  

So Speaker Hoyle is clearly unimpressed with some ministers’ performances – and he is not alone. Competence is becoming the issue now, linking Brexit, Covid-19, the union and much else. As someone once said, we can’t go on like this.