Last week’s furore over the Opposition Day debate on Gaza has put the office of Speaker of the House of Commons under the spotlight. Sir Lindsay Hoyle’s unusual decision to accept a Labour amendment to the SNP ceasefire motion has prompted accusations from the SNP and the Conservative Party of bias and/or incompetence. This blog is not the place to litigate the Speaker’s ruling, but it is worth noting that his reasoning (Sir Lindsay said it was made to allow the House ‘to consider the widest possible range of options’) is in keeping with a recent trend towards ‘modernisation’ over precedent.[1] The last few decades have seen an increasingly public profile for the Speakership and profound changes in the way proceedings of the House and the judgements of the Speaker are understood. Social media and the televising of proceedings have brought the judgements of Speakers into the public eye as never before. In light of these changes, the intense scrutiny of last Wednesday’s decision raises questions about the future of the office. Is it really possible, in a modern, digital, and increasingly tribal world, to sustain a neutral Speakership?
The fate of the last two Speakers does not portend a particularly happy future for the office. Michael Martin, later Lord Martin of Springburn, resigned under intense pressure from the media and MPs on all sides in the midst of the expenses scandal in 2009. More recently, John Bercow left office in 2019 under a cloud of bullying allegations and, more relevantly to this discussion, criticism of supposed bias in decisions relating to Brexit. Such was the controversy that he became the first former Speaker not to be ennobled since J.H. Whitley refused a peerage in 1928, and the first not to be offered a seat on the red benches since the eighteenth century.
Party political manoeuvres over the Speakership are, of course, nothing new. The election of the Speaker was divided on party lines in 1951 after Labour objected to a Conservative MP becoming Speaker when it was Labour’s ‘turn’. Nonetheless, the elected William Morrison (later Viscount Dunrossil) served eight years as Speaker and was re-elected without opposition in 1955.
Nor is controversy over the Opposition Day amendment the first-time vocal disagreements with the Speaker have been heard in the House. Most recently, the parliamentary struggles over Brexit made complaints of bias and walkouts relatively routine. In 2006, Speaker Martin was heavily criticised by the Conservative Party for ruling a question from David Cameron out of order. Even the late Baroness Boothroyd, the most respected of recent Speakers and largely responsible for the transformation of the office into the prominence it has today, was not immune to criticism. The Labour stalwart Tam Dalyell was of the opinion that she was too unwilling to stand up to the government, and a 1994 decision relating to accusations of contempt of Parliament against a Conservative minister drew the ire of Labour MPs.[2]
While the technological and political changes of recent decades present new dangers for the Speaker, they also present new opportunities. The role of the Speaker in promoting public engagement in Parliament and promoting parliamentary education has increased such that it has now become an indispensable part of the role. This in addition to the not insignificant responsibilities of chairing proceedings, managing House services, and representing the Commons to the country and the world. In exercising these duties, the Speaker continues to receive the expert support and advice of the Clerk of the House, which is now supplemented by a large professional House of Commons staff and modern communication technology.
What is new, however, is William Wragg’s Early Day Motion expressing no confidence in Sir Lindsay. At time of writing, it is at 71 signatures.[3] Attempts to dislodge the Speaker are hampered by the absence of any provision in the Standing Orders to remove the Speaker during a parliament: they can only leave office by death or resignation. The principle being that a majority government, displeased at the actions of an independent Speaker, should not be able to remove them on a whim. Of course, resignations can be more or less voluntary, and Michael Martin’s resignation was forced under threat of a (non-binding) vote of no confidence. While Mr Wragg’s EDM is not capable of removing the Speaker, it is intended to make his position similarly unsustainable in the face of opposition from a sizable portion of MPs.
None of this prevents the House from amending these rules, nor does it prevent the Speaker being removed as an MP. Under more dire circumstances, the Speaker might be removed under the House’s ancient right to control its own composition – which includes by expelling members. The last time this power was exercised was in 1947, when Garry Allighan was removed for a breach of privilege. The House of Commons was once willing to apply this ultimate punishment to its Speakers, though. In 1695, the sitting Speaker Sir John Trevor was removed from the House (and the chair) for accepting a bribe of 1000 guineas from the City of London Corporation.[4] Not even the most vehement of Sir Lindsay’s critics would suggest corruption, but since 2015 and the Recall of MPs Act, a future Speaker could be removed following the lesser punishment of a suspension (though the pressure to resign beforehand would likely be intolerable).
Quite apart from the fate of a Speakership or the difficulties sustained opposition might cause, the real danger lies when debates around a Speaker escalate into bad faith attacks that seek to undermine neutrality for short-term approval. Speakers have always been subject to criticism, both public and private, but MPs have recognised that the value of the neutral and respected Speaker is more important than any gains that politicising the office could bring. It is only when MPs neglect their own role in defending the constitution that the institution is at risk.
It is easy to forget that the Speaker’s non-participation in party politics is not the norm and that this principle relies upon the collaboration of members and strangers alike. Even in those systems most like Britain’s, where some form of neutrality is well-established, Speakers remain members of their previous parties and stand for election under that label (except in Ireland where the sitting Ceann Comhairle is saved the trouble of elections entirely). Since 1996, the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives even votes in divisions.
In the 1960s and 1970s, an attempt by the then Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons Lucien Lamoureux to adopt the British tradition of complete independence from party politics was scuppered by the refusal of the Tories and the New Democrats to stand aside in elections to his seat. Though non-membership of party is just one element of the Speaker’s neutrality, this episode is a reminder that Britain’s strictly neutral Speakership is only maintained by common consent and acceptance by parliamentarians of the utility of the system, and the removal of that consent would destroy the Speakership as we know it. MPs should reflect on Lamoureux’s failure and consider their role in defending the neutrality they value.
Ed Selkirk Ford.
Ed Selkirk Ford is a PhD candidate and postgraduate teaching associate in history at the University of Exeter. He researches debates about parliaments and representation in Britain and British settler colonies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.
[1] Though Sir Lindsay has since said that one reasons was fear for MPs safety, this was not mentioned in his initial justification of the decision. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-02-21/debates/610A4D12-A333-4885-9D0B-0A225C35C043/CeasefireInGaza
[2] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1994-05-11/debates/39db52a5-3bd5-4776-888e-0eabab0b7199/ComplaintOfPrivilege
[3] https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61908
[4] https://historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1690-1715/member/trevor-sir-john-1637-1717