When this Speaker departs, the return of discretion will be overdue
The Speaker of the House holds forthright views, but he is the one MP who has a duty never to air them
John Bercow has never found it easy to conceal his forthright opinions. My first memory of meeting him was when he was a newly elected Conservative MP in 1997 and I was running for the party leadership. While most new MPs were quite tentative in their meetings with each of the contenders to be leader, he left no doubt about where he stood: even though I was supported by most Eurosceptic MPs, I was not far enough Right for him. He was voting for John Redwood.
Twenty years on, the forthright views that now get him into trouble are very different. By announcing that he would prevent President Trump from giving an address in Westminster Hall, and revealing that he voted to remain in the EU, he has kicked off an understandable controversy about his suitability to be Speaker of the House of Commons.
For after a few years in Parliament the views he expressed underwent a major change, to the point where, by conviction or calculation, he baited many in his own party while courting favour with Labour MPs. The latter gleefully voted for him as Speaker, knowing how much this would annoy his own party colleagues, and it has given them satisfaction ever since.
As Speaker he has had his good points. His predisposition to grant urgent questions and emergency debates has led to ministers being hauled before the Commons at inconvenient moments more frequently. That is good for the relevance and power of Parliament. He has made a genuine effort to explain Westminster to young people: while traditionalists sniffed at the Youth Parliament being allowed to sit on the green benches, the experience for those of us who have attended it has been more inspiring than sitting with the actual MPs.
He has also had bad points: being intemperate to individual MPs and the clerks who work under him; as well as unnecessarily overturning established conventions – dispensing with the wigs of the clerks being the latest pointless example. In addition, the laudable desire to ensure governments are held accountable has sometimes seemed to blur into a distinct partiality to the wishes of the Opposition, but Conservative MPs have always lacked either the unity or indisputable example to do something about it.
Now, however, his strong feelings, and irrepressible urge to advertise them, have given his critics two clear instances of political partiality on both of the great controversies of the day: Brexit and Trump. His spokesman was quoted as saying that, in giving his views about Trump, he had acted “honestly and honourably”. The trouble is that the Speaker is the one MP who is not meant to give his honest views, and he is meant honourably to be above taking part in the political debates of the day. So this does not constitute much of a defence.
The tradition of an impartial Speaker goes back a long way in British politics. Even Henry Addington, who in 1801 went straight from being Speaker to becoming prime minister (now there’s a thought to set minds racing), was not noted for expressing opinions while he occupied the Chair. For well over a century Speakers have removed themselves from even the slightest appearance of political bias, never commenting even on the most highly charged issues and sitting on the cross benches in the House of Lords when eventually migrating there.
Such impartiality is not an outdated convention to be abandoned along with the wigs. It is an important part of why our Parliament is so respected around the world and why its proceedings are seen as legitimate and fair. The next few years will see fierce debates and possibly close votes as Parliament debates the “Great Repeal Bill” and the terms of Brexit. MPs from all sides should be able to have complete confidence that when the Speaker selects which amendments are to be debated, or has to give the casting vote, he is acting on the basis of fairness, balance and precedent. Without that confidence the legitimacy of Parliament’s decisions, which is a priceless asset in a democracy, is undermined. Having unnecessarily revealed that he voted Remain in the referendum, the Speaker has now made questionable many rulings he will give.
Impartiality matters, too, because once the principle of it is breached there is no limit to further infringements. Why not comment on health care, education, and taxation? These are big issues, but so is Brexit. Why can’t a future Speaker choose further subjects on which to expound, perhaps this time to the rage of the Opposition?
Furthermore, a Speaker is, behind the scenes, a counsel and confidante for politicians of all parties. As Leader of the Opposition, I would regularly visit Betty Boothroyd in Speaker’s House for a glass of whisky and a chat. She came from Labour, but once she was Speaker I knew I could discuss anything with her because she was truly above squabbling party leaders like me and Tony Blair. I would not have done so had she been in the habit of giving her views in public.
Weighing into heated arguments about a Trump state visit was not only another flagrant breach of this tradition, but also cut across the clear responsibility of ministers for conducting the diplomacy of the United Kingdom. Trump’s unpopularity in this country obviously makes the handling of his visit particularly delicate for the Government, yet it is manifestly in the national interest to have a good relationship with the United States.
The correct way for a Speaker to handle fears that an address to Parliament would be divisive or difficult would have been to wait to hear the views of the House, consult his counterpart in the Lords, and then to give a private steer to ministers, if necessary, to construct a state visit that minimises fierce opposition from MPs. Whatever we think of Trump, telling someone they can’t visit your house when they haven’t even asked to do so is rude and self-indulgent. These are not the attributes by which most of us want Britain to be known.
The Speakership of the Commons is a great office, as old as Parliament itself and higher in precedence than most of the Cabinet. When or how the current occupant departs cannot be known. But when he does, a reaffirmation of distance, discretion and self-discipline in this role will be seriously overdue.