Ann Widdecombe tells ePolitix.com about her relevant experience to become the next Speaker of the House.
How do you think the row over expenses and internal debate over parliamentary reform has changed the role of the Speaker and the public perception of the role?
I think it has certainly heightened the role in public perception. I think Members of Parliament are now looking for very specific things from the next Speaker. The first is the ability to clean the place up and restore our reputation with the public. That is one reason why people have asked me to stand even though I’m retiring, because I’ve already got a very well established public reputation. The second thing we clearly have to do, and I think we'd have had to have done this anyway quite regardless of the expenses fiasco, is to have a look at the role of Parliament vis-à-vis the executive.
The Speaker is not God. The Speaker cannot say, as some of my colleagues have implied in various manifestos, "I will do this, I will do that". It's quite impossible. The House has the final disposal of these things. But I think that the Speaker can initiate things and can take a very strong line with things like statements being made into the House instead of to the press outside, and can take a much firmer line than has been hitherto taken. I think, for a long time now, the Speaker has viewed the role as, "well it's up to ministers what they do". He just controls the House of Commons. But in fact the way that ministers relate to the House of Commons is essential to its proper working. It is more than a chairman's role, but it is much less than a dictator’s role. By some of the manifestos that have come out, you'd think that the Speaker has supreme power. The Speaker does not.
Can the role be both presiding over the chamber and administrating more widely?
Yes I think it can be. But, as I say, the House has the disposal. You can initiate, but in the end if the House decides that it won't do 'X' then it doesn't do 'X'. So there's a persuasive role there as well.
Does the Speaker need to take a more public role?
I do not think that the Speaker should take any role which would embroil him or her in taking sides and in appearing to engage in controversy. That is not the role of the Speaker. That is like saying that a mayor should be political, or that the Queen should take a public view on policy. There are roles in this life at different levels where you cannot become engaged in controversy. I think to have the Speaker a bit more public-friendly is one thing. I think Betty Boothroyd was very, very public friendly. But to have a Speaker who actually engages in high octane political interviews on Newsnight? No, definitely not.
What are your views on a business committee and the role of the whips?
A business committee is fine. The role of whips can be very, very speedily curtailed. I wouldn't want to see it annihilated because I think the whips play a useful role. It could be curtailed by simply taking away the monopoly that the whips have over appointments, making that a matter for a very balanced and very senior committee of the House. I think it does have to be senior. You do have to have people who've been around for a long time who understand the workings of the House. But that can't be set up with a built in majority for one side or the other. It's got to be balanced so that people are chosen on merit.
What about sitting hours?
Hours, I wouldn't touch at the moment. I think there is some argument for extending the hours on a Wednesday. I think the merit of that is that you could raise the amount of time that's necessary for scrutiny. If you can't persuade a government to legislate less - and it doesn't matter what governments say, they never legislate less - then if you want increased scrutiny you've got to have more hours. And I do want increased scrutiny.
I think one of the deepest scandals of recent years, since the change in the hours, has been that to get the same volume of legislation through, we've had routine guillotining. There’s no other word for it. I know it's coyly called time tabling but it's actually routine guillotining of every single bill at every single stage, including the committee stage. And that means that you and I, and everybody else out there, are governed by vast tranches of legislation that have never been debated, let alone voted on by Parliament. I’ve got a good history on this one: when I was the shadow home secretary, I actually led a sit-in during a committee because it had only finished part one of a two-part bill. It hadn't even begun part two. I held a sit-in to prevent the committee from ending, whereupon the government - this government - just put down a motion saying that the committee was “deemed to have finished”. While you’ve got that sort of nonsense going on, you do not have realistic scrutiny. And we do need scrutiny, proper scrutiny.
Should select committee reports have more time for debate in the House?
The more you call for, the more that you come up against this problem of curtailing debate. There is a balance to be struck. What I'm not going to do, and where I think there is great danger when you get competitive manifestos, is signing up to particular positions. Again, that's not the Speaker's role. The Speaker's role is to try and facilitate debate about various options and to come up with one that is acceptable, not just to the executive, but to the House. It’s not just what's my bright idea, or somebody else's bright idea, but what it is being genuinely debated and is acceptable to the House.
What are your views on the more arcane rituals?
To me that is trivial in the context of what's going on at the moment. If anybody can get themselves worked up by the length of hem on the gown or something, then they're very sad.
Why are you best placed to become Speaker?
If these circumstances hadn't arisen, I don't think anyone would have asked me to be an interim Speaker. We’re in very unusual circumstances, I think. As never before, you need a Speaker who’s respected by the public, who's got a high standing with the public, who's recognised by the public. I think that's very important. I think it's important you have a Speaker with a very good track record of standing up for backbench rights and I have even joined up with Dennis Skinner occasionally to try and thwart things that were proposed by the last government, never mind this one. Certainly, I’ve stood up against some of the things that this one has done, so I think I’ve got a very good record on that.
On the expenses, I was one of the first to be exonerated by the Telegraph as having saintly claims, so I think that's very important. I think whoever is Speaker, their expenses have got to stand minute scrutiny. Otherwise, you could have a very, very unstable situation. I think we've had enough of that. This is the first Speaker who's been effectively got rid of for hundreds of years. We don't want to make a habit of it. We've got to have a great period of stability and you've got to have somebody who can control the House, and you've got to have somebody who has proven in the past that they can be non-partisan. I’ve very clearly done that in the past, and I have certainly voted against my party ocasionally and have spoken against it.
Is an interim Speaker a good idea?
It’s a matter that the House has to decide. I’ve said that right from the start, because it never occurred to me until the day of Michael Martin's resignation when I was approached. I’ve said right from the beginning, I have to be convinced that the House of Commons wants an interim Speaker. If it does, then I would be interested. But if it doesn't, I understand that. I wouldn't read that with any resentment.
I think the advantage of an interim Speaker at the moment is that because of the mess that we've got, you want somebody who can handle it now, immediately and then hand over to a cleansed House and start again. I think that's what I would say to people. This is an opportunity to start again. With any other Speaker, although wonderful I’m sure some of them would be - and I mean that because there are those I would support if I weren't standing - wonderful as I’m sure some of them would be, they don't offer the opportunity to start again with a fresh Parliament.
Is there a Speaker you admire?
I think that's a very difficult one to answer because the Speaker's role has depended on whatever historical drama was going on at the time. You can't compare like with like. But trying to compare this parliament with the Rumples? You can't do that, it's silly. I think of Speakers that I’ve seen in my time. I particularly admired Jack Weatherall for his conduct of the House. I admired Betty for the impact that she made on the public, so people became aware that the Speaker is not just some be-wigged chairman - he or she is actually quite a significant person in terms of our constitution.
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.