Editorial | Making of a Speaker

John Bercow, who served for a decade (2009-2019) as Speaker of the British parliament, became an iconic figure globally for his unique style for calling for “OOorrrrdeeerr” in the Commons and his quick-witted repartee against recalcitrant members of the House.

No matter complexities, or controversies surrounding the issues or questions upon which he was asked to rule, Mr Bercow appeared to be always in good humour, approaching every situation with equanimity.

In a way, John Bercow symbolised the image sold by the British, and cemented in the imagination of people around the world, of civilised cut-and-thrust among members of Parliament, who are well versed in the art of the insult.

Style-aside, Mr Bercow, who presided during one of the most tumultuous periods of the modern British parliament, was no caricature figure. He deftly, and at times controversially – mostly to the anger of the government – managed bills and parliamentary votes on Brexit, or the UK’s departure from the European Union (EU).

Which raises the important matter, Mr Bercow’s substance and the philosophy that defined his speakership. This is condensed in a statement made by Speaker Bercow in January 2019 in the Common’s on his decision, to the angst of the executive, that gave Parliament a greater say in the Brexit process.

He said: “Let me say this once again, and let me say it slowly for the benefit of all colleagues, the Speaker of the House of Commons is not a mere functionary, a cipher or an umpire who is merely there to count the votes and add them up. The Speaker has responsibilities … to the backbench members and to the House as a whole to ensure that it is able to have a say.”

The larger point of Mr Bercow’s observation was that while he adhered to the Standing Orders of Parliament, he wasn’t in a straitjacket, without a capacity to interpret their application to the circumstance of the time.

It is an idea that this newspaper again commends to Juliet Holness, the Speaker of Jamaica’s House of Representatives, who this week, early in the life of the new Parliament, had a run-in with opposition members that led to their walkout of the House.

Mrs Holness branded the Opposition’s action “a breach of parliamentary decorum” that undermined the interest of the people of Jamaica”.

This newspaper doesn’t believe that the walkout is a tactic that members of the legislature, of either side, should resort to lightly. It ought to be exercised only at the most extreme provocation, when the rights of members are being so severely undermined that dramatic action is necessary to draw public attention to the behaviour.

We are not convinced that Tuesday’s events met that threshold. We, however, share the Opposition’s concern about the manner in which Speaker Holness exercised her powers and the way in which she chose to interpret what was allowable under the Standing Orders when People’s National Party (PNP) MPs attempted to ask questions of Matthew Samuda, the minister with responsibility for water, the environment and climate change.

Mr Samuda had made a statement to the House about Tropical Storm Melissa, which is heading towards Jamaica and the preparations being made by the government for its potential impact.

Mrs Holness cut short at least three Opposition members, then did the same with the Leader of the Opposition, Mark Golding, who intervened on behalf of his colleagues. Like with the others, Mr Holness cut off Mr Golding’s microphone as he attempted to speak.

The Speaker’s ruling was that the questions being framed by the Opposition members were not specific to the matters spoken about by Minister Samuda. Neither did they relate, as required by Standing Order 16 (1) (a), to “information on a question of fact within the official cognisance of the minister to whom it is addressed”.

“The business before the House must always be conducted strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders,” Mrs Holness said to the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) MPs who remained in the House after the Opposition walkout.

“The actions of Speakers are guided solely by the Standing Orders, and Speakers are compelled to act to preserve order, uphold the rules, and maintain the integrity of our proceedings,” she added.

That is broadly true. But Parliament is a live environment. Following the rules and adhering to the Standing Orders can’t be hide bound in rigidities as to make a mockery of them.

Three main characteristics define the best Speakers:

• Their ability to transcend commitment to the party on whose ticket they entered Parliament;

•The ability to command the trust and respect of both sides of the legislature; and

• Their capacity for critical and nuanced thinking. They are not automatons who apply the Standing Orders by rote.

Few people will believe that the questions that were being asked of Mr Samuda on Tuesday were not relevant to the possible effects of Melissa on Jamaica or were beyond the capacity of the minister to answer.

This newspaper has in the past commented on Speaker Holness’ rigidities in the job and her apparent failure thus far to grow beyond her political roots. Her past efforts to shield the government from scrutiny by delaying when certain reports are tabled have been widely ventilated.

The latest development will only deepen distrust between the Speaker and the Opposition and raise scepticism among the wider public every time Mrs Holness rules against the Opposition.

It may be worth Speaker Holness’ while to take note of an observation of another former Speaker (1983-1992) of the UK Commons, Bernard “Jack” Weatherill.

He said: “The Speaker is the servant of the House, not its master … I have no power, only influence. And that influence depends on the respect in which the House holds the Chair.”