John Bercow

---

John Bercow sets out why he is the "clean break candidate" to be the next Speaker of the House of Commons.

Question: How has the role of the Speaker changed given the row over expenses and the debate on Parliamentary reform?

John Bercow: Has it changed the role? I think that it has brought a dramatically greater urgency to the challenge to revitalise Parliament. I think that as a result of the horrendous spate of revelations about expenses of Members of Parliament, there is now a huge and dangerous disconnect between Parliament and the public.

The Speaker of course has very limited powers, but I think people will look to the next Speaker to take the lead in overseeing a fundamental and speedy reform of the allowances system. My own views, for what it's worth, is that precisely because we have delayed too long and done too little, we have sacrificed any right we might ever have had to shape the contours of the allowances system for ourselves, in short self-regulation is at an end. external regulation is about to start, my sense of it is that whatever Sir Christopher Kelly recommends, unless there is a public consensus that it is fundamentally flawed, inequitable or unworkable, we shall have to bite the bullet and accept what he proposes.

It seems to me obvious that any proposal that comes forward will have to reflect the inescapable reality that most members of Parliament have to live in two places and their total income must enable them to do so, otherwise Parliament would be open only to the independently wealthy or the externally sponsored. I don't want it to be the preserve of a plutocratic elite, I want Parliament to be made up of a diverse cross section of capable people from all walks of life and different backgrounds in society.

So I'm confident that we can drive forward a reform and it does need to be done speedily and with the Speaker in the lead in championing and upholding the new arrangements. As I say, I think that that is a respect in which there is much greater interest in the election of the new Speaker and there is an urgency attached to action that wouldn't have been a matter even months ago.

Secondly I think that precisely because there is this huge disconnect between Parliament and the public, the role of the Speaker is going to be very important in addressing that and it's important to be clear what we mean.

The Speaker, as I say, has limited powers. Those powers might change, and there is an argument for increasing them, not least giving the Speaker the right to demand that ministers make statements in certain situations.

But even where the Speaker doesn't have powers, I think there is real merit in candidates for the office having a view about the merits of parliamentary reform, and certainly for my part I've made it clear that I do think that if we are to recover respect for our Parliament, we have to show respect for our own members and what that means is that we've got to redress the huge imbalance of power between the executive on the one hand and the legislature on the other.

In short, at the moment the government is controlling Parliament. That's the wrong way round, Parliament needs to control the government and that means that in terms of the parliamentary timetable, it shouldn't just be determined by the business managers, it requires the establishment of a backbench dominated business committee that will ensure a decent spread of business and use of parliamentary time and opportunities for backbenchers across the whole of the parliamentary week.

It also means that we've got to have emboldened and strengthened select committees that are democratically elected both in terms of their chairs and of their members, and select committees that have got greater powers that can call for papers, that can summon witnesses, that can devote resources to thorough detailed remorseless enquiries into important public issues.

I think that the power that exists in a very modest form to take an interest in public appointments needs to be extended and I'd like to see the concept of confirmation hearings much more heavily established. Pre-legislative scrutiny which happens on a small scale needs to happen on a much bigger scale, debates of a topical kind need to be more common place and chosen democratically by members of Parliament.

So in all of those ways I think that there is a great deal for Parliament to do to change itself. The other respect in which I think recent events have changed the significance of the role is that it can no longer credibly be simply an internal role; we cannot simply have an internal Speaker shrouded in mystique and inaccessible to the wider world.

I don't think anybody will seriously argue that we should have anything other than a politically impartial Speaker, but whilst maintaining the tradition of political impartiality, I think there is a real case for the Speaker to get out and about in the community when he or she is not in the chair.

The Speaker should engage in civil society - meet business leaders, hear from women's organisations, build a relationship with the youth movements of this country and there needs to be a dialogue. I've tried to argue very forcefully in my manifesto that the next Speaker needs to be a speaker and a listener, in that sense he or she needs to be a communicator in the best sense of the term with the ability to get a message across, about what Parliament does, about how individual members of Parliament work, what the significance of the House of Commons is and how we're attempting to address the new challenges and to reform to meet the spirit of the times. But also the Speaker's got to be there to hear what other people think of us, how they react to us, what their opinion is of us.

So yes I do think there is a change to the way in which the relationship is viewed, and certainly there is a much greater urgency for a new Speaker to establish him or herself and to make a substantial difference in a short time.

Question: Should the Speaker take on more of a media role?

John Bercow: I think that the Speaker should be able to make authoritative statements to the media on behalf of the House; I'm not suggesting that the Speaker should pop up on news programmes on a daily basis.

I do think there will be occasions when it makes sense for the Speaker representing the House of Commons to appear on the media and to put a case for Parliament. I've tried to argue that I think I would be a robust advocate for parliamentary democracy and for democratic politics, any Speaker has to have the sure-footedness and wit to avoid the obvious traps or pitfalls, no Speaker can become embroiled in partisan controversy that is raging between the different political parties and I would have no intention of doing that. Any Speaker who did that wouldn't last very long.

But I do think that there is now an appetite for the idea that on behalf of the house the Speaker should be a public representative. He or she should not be a shop steward, but should be a public representative of, an ambassador for, Parliament, trying to put a case for the work that Parliament does, for the way in which Parliament seek to represent their constituents, and to explain how we are going about the business of fundamental and necessary reform to our procedures.

Question: What are your views on the more arcane rituals of the chamber?

John Bercow: I don't have a dogmatic view about language used in the chamber, some of it is very old-fashioned but I can see real merit in preserving courtesies, so I'm not somebody who is arguing for the abandonment of existing modes of address.

I think there should be a discussion about that and people may have different views, but I don't have a very strong view about it.

But it is very important that even if we were to contemplate a change, we preserve the best features of our debates. Parliament at its best, when it's not in table tennis mode, does have some extremely good debates.

They're often rather poorly attended, but members make learned contributions and are very polite to each other and that I think is worthwhile, so any change would have to respect that principle, and I don't regard it as a priority. as far as dress is concerned, I can see an argument for the Speaker dressing slightly differently from other members, but the idea of returning to the days of when the Speaker wore a wig and special stockings and all the rest of it seems to me to be for the birds. It is part and parcel of a very old-fashioned approach which might have commanded respect at one time but which seems curiously discombobulated from the world in which we now live, so I certainly wouldn't want to go back to that and I think that where the case is made for modernising reforms, we should go with that.

Question: What are your personal qualities for the role?

John Bercow: I think I've got a number. First of all I've got a demonstrated track record of political independence. Whilst in common with most of my colleagues, I have generally supported my party, I have been more than ready on several occasions to speak and vote independently of it if I've thought that that's justified.

I think that's an important quality, I think it is a proof positive that I am not just a party hack; I have tried to see the merits of arguments and to speak and vote accordingly.

Secondly, over quite a long period, I've been involved in a lot of work of a cross-party nature, I chair several all party Parliamentary groups and for several years I have championed unfashionable but important causes. In doing so I have striven at every turn to minimise the partisan and to maximise the scope for consensus between colleagues from different parties who share a commitment to advance the agenda on that issue, especially educational needs - that's been a big passion for some time and it's quite well known that I undertook a review for the government of services to young children on speech, language and communication needs.

I've never regretted that, it was one of the most fulfilling and invigorating initiatives in which I've been involved in 12 years in the House of Commons.

I have long championed the cause of the fight against global poverty and the pursuit of human rights in some conflict stricken parts of the world. I believe strongly that those of us who are fortunate have a responsibility to try to help those who are less fortunate and that is an issue again that I've pursued for years.

I've been on the international development select committee getting on for five years now and those issues again, although there are differences between the parties, I have tried to pursue on a non-partisan basis, and that's true of a number of other issues as well.

There's no secret that I'm a long-standing social liberal within my party, I've supported the cause of gay equality for several years and I recently was the only Conservative to support the Equality Bill at second reading and I make no apology for that, that was what I judged to be right.

I am proud of the views that I've expressed, the causes that I've championed and the votes that I've cast and I think that my record is evidence that I'm somebody who is able to view issues on a non-partisan basis and just to do what I believe is right for the country and I think that somebody like that is well placed to sit in the chair and to act as umpire between the participants in the debate.

And I suppose the third and forth points that I would make are these. First of all I have been on the Speaker's panel as chairman for the last four years and I've chaired public bill committees - about 10 of them - scores of statutory instruments and dozens of Westminster Hall debates, and throughout I have taken the view that I am the representative of the good order and fair play party, my sole roll has been to ensure good order and to facilitate the maximum participation.

I think on the whole the chair shouldn't intervene very much, should try to hold back, intervening only when it's absolutely essential and let the debate flow and I've consistently done that so I think I have for those colleagues who have seen me in the chair, have got a track record of impartiality, fairness and competence.

Finally, for the external part of the role, for the public advocate role, the ambassadorial role, I do think I'm a good communicator, I think the capacity to put across a view in a way that is coherent and meaningful to people and I can sit and listen and learn.

Question: Your candidacy seems more popular with Labour MPs than members of your own party. Is this going to prove a problem?

John Bercow: A lot of Conservatives have told me they will support me. Peer group pressure partly based on the idea that someone a little older and more senior should be Speaker - can deter Conservative MPs from expressing support for me in public, but it will not prevent them for voting for me in private, and the election is a secret ballot.

The second point I would make is that the best answer to doubt, scepticism and criticism is effective performance, I believe that my performance as a chair on public bill committees, statutory instruments and Westminster Hall debates has been one of fairness and competence and just as I have been fair and competent as a member of the chairman's panel, so I would be if I were elected Speaker of the House.

There is no question for any Speaker of siding with one party or the other, the Speaker stands above party and sees it as his or her role to uphold fair play and to do what is right by the House of Commons and our democracy, and that is what I would do.

Question: Is there a Speaker you most admire?

John Bercow: When I was a teenage, George Thomas always struck me as a powerful Speaker in the House of Commons and as someone who loved the place dearly. I think lots of different Speakers have contributed a great deal. Bernard Weatherall was well respected, Betty Boothroyd commanded a great deal of affection and Michael Martin in contending with terrible snobbery and even racism in some quarters has shown a guts and staying power which should be respected.

Question: Is there anything else you would like to add?

John Bercow: I think I'm the clean break candidate. There are several able candidates in the field including a number who have put themselves forward for the election of Speaker on a previous occasion.

I am standing for the first time just as someone in his or her forties can run the country, so someone in his or her forties can run the House, I believe that I've got the skill set to do so, and my appeal to colleagues is to give me the chance to prove that I have what it takes.