On 4 January 1642, Charles I (having tried and failed to rule without Parliament) stormed into the House of Commons and demanded the Speaker, William Lenthall, hand over five of his leading critics. Lenthall responded: “I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me…” No subsequent executive sought to govern in defiance of the legislature until Boris Johnson tried to prorogue Parliament in 2019. The (then) Speaker, John Bercow, again stood up for the rights of MPs. He condemned the prorogation (a “constitutional outrage”), and stymied Johnson’s plan, allowing MPs to vote parliamentary time for legislation outlawing a “no-deal” Brexit (the so-called “Benn Act”).

The greatest Speakers have always been fearless advocates for the rights of Parliament

Contrast this with the current Speaker, Lindsey Hoyle’s, extraordinary public attack on the SNP’s John Nicolson. The Culture Media and Sport Committee’s (of which Nicolson is a member) unanimously concluded that Nadine Dorries, while Secretary of State, “appeared to have taken the opportunity, under the protection of privilege, to traduce the reputation of Channel 4.” (In other words, Dorries had launched a potentially defamatory attack against an organisation she was trying to privatise while hiding behind parliamentary privilege.) Nicolson wrote to the Speaker asking him to act on the report. Hoy refused and Nicolson reported his response in a video posted to Twitter. Before a full House of Commons, the Speaker accused Nicolson of misrepresenting his letter and castigated him for making the matter public.

Hoyle didn’t explain how he had been misrepresented. Nor why decisions about the integrity of our elected representatives must be made in secret. Nicolson responded by asking, “what I and other Members should tell our constituents about integrity in politics in this context?” Hoyle then allowed David Davis (who does not appear to have had any prior connection to the issue) to make a speech attacking Nicolson. It’s not clear how Davis was briefed on this role, but he appeared to come armed with a prepared statement. Hoyle cut the debate off before Nicolson could respond. The affair may leave the casual observer with the impression that the Speaker comes down harder on MPs seeking to expose dishonesty in Parliament than those who are dishonest (especially when they’re close to the executive).

The Speaker must be more than just a referee. The greatest speakers have always been fearless advocates for the rights of Parliament. While non-partisan they were proudly political: shielding Parliament from the excesses of overweening governments. As the legislature became more representative so the Speaker became more important: marshalling and defending the only democratic limb of the constitution (to the extent that the Commons, which has not reflected the popular vote since 1936, can be considered democratic).

Hoyle showed his mettle (or lack thereof) when, in summer 2019, the Johnson government excluded more than 200 MPs from Parliament. Embarrassed by Johnson’s poor performance at PMQs without his baying mob of acolytes, the (then) Leader of the House (Jacob Rees-Mogg) abolished the rules allowing MPs to take part in votes and debates from home (in compliance with the lockdown then in place). Nearly a third of MPs (those who were vulnerable or shielding) were left unable to fully participate in the business of Parliament. Rees-Mogg’s action was arguably unlawful and certainly anti-democratic. At least one MP threatened a judicial review. In contrast with his predecessor’s defence of Parliament during the prorogation crisis, Hoyle threatened to intervene in court on the government’s side.

This isn’t an isolated example. Hoyle often appears to act in the interests of the government rather than Parliament. In June 2021 he overturned his clerks in ruling an amendment (restoring the UK’s foreign aid commitments) out of scope. The amendment enjoyed cross-party support and looked likely to pass (or at least provoke a significant rebellion on the government benches). Hoyle’s decision saved the blushes of the executive at the expense of the will of the legislature. Faced with several of the most dishonest administrations in modern history, Hoyle has done little or nothing to ensure the House is not misled. Rather, he has enforced an archaic rule prohibiting MPs from calling each other a “liar”. Erskine May (the parliamentary bible) actually prohibits, not just the word “liar”, but any “unparliamentary language”. This includes “abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder”. Yet Hoyle has stood by as ministers repeat smears and hate speech (recently permitting the Home Secretary to adopt the language of a migrant “invasion” – associated with the “Great Replacement Theory” used to justify far-right terror attacks.

In an ideal world the Speaker would never be required to go beyond the role of chair. The executive would respect, and defer, to the elected representatives of the people with good grace and the Speaker would not need to defend the rights of Parliament. But we don’t live in that world. Today’s executives, with (far too many) shades of 1642, believe they have a right to rule and see opposition as tantamount to treason. We need a speaker who will defend the rights of the legislature without fear or favour. Lindsey Hoyle, sadly, is not that person.

Sam Fowles is a barrister practising at Cornerstone Barristers, Director of the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research, and a lecturer at St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford. He tweets at @SamFowles