After ten years in post, the Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow has decided to step down at the end of October or after a snap election, depending on which comes first. Following a decade sitting in the middle of the Commons, trying to control parliamentary proceedings, Mr Bercow will instead be devoting more time to his family.
Why shouldn’t he? If we are to get a general election in the next few months, it would seem the logical time for John Bercow to give up the tenure and pass the baton onto someone else. His predecessor, the late Michael Martin, was in the role for over eight years, a similar period to the first female Speaker Betty Boothroyd. There are many eager Deputy Speakers and present backbenchers waiting in the wings to take over the helm. It is perfectly clear why they would want to. For if Mr Bercow’s premiership as Speaker has taught us anything, it is that the Speaker weals great significance in parliamentary affairs. While Prime Minister’s Questions paints them as a caricature, someone who just shows ‘Order’ repeatedly while getting nowhere, their powers are far stronger. This has been proved most decisively in Brexit. Time after time, MPs have applied for emergency debates under Standing Order 24. They make their case and it is then up to the Speaker to decide whether their cause is legitimate for a debate. Mr Bercow has always stood on the side of backbench MPs and the legislature, allowing key discussions. Most recently, the Benn bill gave MPs control over the parliamentary timetable, ensuring that the UK couldn’t leave the EU at the end of October (whether Mr Johnson chooses to obey that law is another blog post altogether). John Bercow’s whole approach has been around causing trouble for the executive and making them answerable to the Commons. This is something to deeply admire. In Whitehall, excellent civil servants and government departments have so much power, which they can use for good or ill. It is crucial they are held to the highest levels of accountability before their legislation can be implemented and affect millions. This has again been allowed, thanks to the Speaker’s use of urgent questions. If there was any mechanism to cause trouble for the government and specific ministers, this is the one. All an MP has to do is put down this UQ and, after approval by the speaker, a minister or Secretary of State is quickly forced to come to the Commons for a response. This puts the government on the spot, ensures a minister is competent and allows for any difficulties with policies to be raised. Their usage has doubled, if not trebled, relative to previous Speakers. Within bills, the Speaker is able to decide which amendments, if any, are selected. Amendments are vital for opposition parties, especially in a hung parliament, as it allows them to put their policies forward. If these have a cross party consensus, it is possible they can pass and further damage the permanent control of the executive. How often we heard amendments, always followed by a letter of the alphabet, being discussed around the media in crucial Brexit votes. These crucial mechanisms highlight the breadth of power and decision making the Speaker holds. Undoubtedly, with power comes criticism. Many Brexiteer MPs believe him to be on the side of remainers (he openly admitted voting remain in 2016) by allowing these emergency debates and awkward questions. It is clear that he supports backbenchers, whether opposition or government. It just so happens that a significant chunk of government backbenchers and nearly all opposition backbenchers are remainers. If your support as Speaker is weighted in favour of backbenchers, the remain cause is logically advantaged. The paralysis over Brexit, and even the likelihood it may never happen, cannot be blamed on the Speaker. While he was the catalyst for allowing debates, votes, amendments and questions, it was MPs who voted three times against leaving the EU with a deal, therefore making no deal far more likely. It was MPs who have been amazing at stating what they are against but incapable at what they are for. It was Theresa May who wrote to the European Council and applied for an extension to Article 50, not Speaker Bercow. The fun (!) over Brexit isn’t going to end when the next Speaker arrives. To believe so is as foolish as the Tory MPs who thought Brexit would be solved with a new leader. Rather, the events still, three years on from the referendum vote, are only just beginning. Presuming we leave at the end of October, future negotiations will need ratifying, trade and security discussions will take place, all with parliamentary approval required. A real expert will be needed in the chair, someone who understands parliamentary procedure and can ensure the government - of whatever party - isn’t going to exploit the Commons. The balance in our constitution is far too heavily in the executive’s favour. That they have a such. Vast number of prerogative powers that were formally in the monarch’s hand is surely undemocratic. MPs should always vote on whether the UK commits troops to war, unless the UK is under a critical, imminent threat from a foreign power. Parliament should have far greater influence over who becomes Secretary of State, especially when the role can be given by the Prime Minister to their chums instead of those best suited to the role. The complete reorganisation of Whitehall seems far too transformative to be left to a Prime Minister alone. The position of the Speaker at least attempts to readdress that balance. People’s views of John Bercow are, I imagine, fairly fixed. Either you view him as the savour of representative parliamentary democracy or as a part of the Westminster plot to ensure the UK never actually departs the EU. I wholeheartedly see him as the former. He has ensured that MPs - those all-important individuals we send to Westminster to decide, on our behalf, how the nation is governed - are allowed to scrutinise, vote, debate and legislate on matters that are to affect the UK for decades to come. Whatever his flaws and there are many, he deserves at least the public’s appreciation for that.
1 Comment
Jon Crossley
26/9/2019 21:49:00
I thought Mr Bercow was very dignified and calming in the Minutes following the PMs statement and questions yesterday, when Points of Order were raised by concerned MPs trying to bring a change to the language being used. His suggestion for review and reform were very helpful and he seemed empathic to colleagues who were very upset.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|