Lindsay Hoyle’s intervention in the Gaza ceasefire debate last week has caused chaos, but the Speaker has a habit of bending to power, writes Sam Fowles
Lindsay Hoyle’s controversial decision to allow a vote on a Labour amendment to the SNP’s motion for an immediate ceasefire, against the advice of the clerks of the House, has seen 83 MPs now call for his resignation. But this isn’t the first time Hoyle appears to have bent the rules to suit those with power.
At the height of the Covid lockdown, ministers refused to renew the measures allowing MPs to vote remotely. More than 200 members (who were either immunocompromised or who had family members who were) were effectively barred from Parliament. Hoyle did nothing. MPs threatened litigation (in which I was instructed). The government ultimately reversed its position.
Then in 2021, when Conservative rebels looked likely to defeat the Johnson government over cuts to foreign aid, Hoyle ruled their amendment out of order, despite the fact the amendment’s author, Andrew Mitchell, maintained it had been cleared by the clerks.
And now, in 2023, with Labour in the ascendancy, the Speaker is accused of using a similar play to spare its leader’s blushes.
Hoyle seems at his most craven when it comes to accusations of lying in Parliament. Few would deny that truth is an increasingly rare commodity in British politics. Hoyle could do something about this. The Speaker can summon members to correct misleading statements and, if they refuse, let the House refer them to the Privileges Committee for investigation and punishment. Except for Boris Johnson (where MPs gave him little choice), Hoyle seems to have done more to protect liars than punish them.
When a Select Committee suggested that Nadine Dorries misled Parliament over the privatisation of Channel 4, Hoyle wouldn’t allow MPs to debate whether she should face sanction. John Nicolson, a member of the Committee, informed the public about Hoyle’s decision; the Speaker set aside Parliamentary time to have Nicolson put on trial before the Committee. I defended Nicolson and he was acquitted. The Committee noted, in its decision, that MPs were unaware of the rule that Hoyle claimed Nicolson had broken. If the Speaker sought to avoid accountability by insisting MPs keep his decisions secret from the public, it’s not a good look.
Hoyle justified his actions in the Gaza debate last week by claiming he was protecting MPs. He hinted darkly about the “threats” they face. But if our politics really has sunk to this level, then Hoyle bears at least some of the responsibility. He permits MPs to speak of their political opponents in increasingly degrading and violent terms (despite having the power to rule out “unparliamentary” language). Police have previously warned MPs that their words risk inciting violence among the public. For example, a man using the same slurs used by politicians against “activist lawyers” and traitors has been charged with terrorism after allegedly attacking my colleagues with a knife. Ministers describe migrants as an “invasion” (imitating the language of the far right) as thugs throw fire-bombs at refugees. They mock LGBT+ people while far right extremists scream at kids going to drag story time. Hoyle does not seem to have taken an interest in any of this until it could save his political skin.
The Speaker isn’t just a guy in a chair. He is the guardian of Parliament’s independence and integrity. Lindsey Hoyle appears too fond of those in power to be either.