Rt Hon Michael Martin MP - Commons Speaker

Question: When you ask people about Parliament and the impression they have of Parliament, you get the message that it is very, very stuffy and full of procedures that seem outdated and don't really have much relevance to Britain today. How would you respond to that perception?

Michael Martin: Many procedures can appear staid and stuffy but when you seek an alternative you get into all sorts of complications. A lot of the procedures in the House of Commons have been tried and tested.

I don't say that there's no need for change but I remember Jim Callaghan saying when I was a young MP - and of course at that time he had just left office as Prime Minister - always remember that things that are traditional shouldn't be thrown out just because they are traditional; and things that are traditional shouldn't necessarily be kept for the sake of being traditional.

We now have a modernisation committee and we have addressed the difficulties for mothers coming into Parliament and we've listened to the views of young members.

The modernisation committee have proposed very many changes in the last four or five years. It's not for me as a Speaker to make the changes; but it's not for me as Speaker to be an obstacle to changes. And I'm always willing to co-operate with any proposed changes.

Question: What further changes can you see from the Chair do you think should be looked at?

Michael Martin: It wouldn't be a question of what I want, it would be up to the House to decide what changes should be made and you're best to ask the leader of the House who is chairman of the modernisation committee.

I know that the modernisation committee is looking at the way question time is structured and the hours Members keep and also what changes can be made to allow Members to get back into their constituencies to get feedback. So there's no point in me as Speaker making any suggestions, it's up to the House.

Question: What do you think could be done to try and ensure the public as a whole develops a better understanding of Parliament?

Michael Martin: First of all that MPs should get across to their constituents that it is their House of Commons - it is not the MPs' House of Commons, the House of Commons belongs to the people. There have been many, many positive things that have been done in the century we've just come out of giving great benefit to the people.

We should reach out to children in schools, housewives, people in factories and let them know what's being done on their behalf in Parliament.

Question: How would you actually go about doing that? What practical steps would you take to do that?

Michael Martin: We could become more inclined to indulge in information campaigns. At the moment these facilities are there, they are excellent facilities, but I don't think they are advertised enough. I'm not an advertising expert, but there are ways of getting it across, who knows via a television programme, we should be saying to those who are involved in education: "Look it's all here."

Parliament's a fascinating place of history - there's hundreds of years of history - and I think we need to get this across. We have education packs; there are seminars that are being held here; but all of this is being done in a quiet way.

When I used to be an engineer - working in a great factory for Rolls Royce up in Glasgow - politics interested me, but there was nothing up on the board, no circular in my wage packet saying look you can get in touch with Parliament. I think we should do more to let people know that it's their building and their institution.

Question: You don't wear the traditional wig and breeches. What other parts of your job would you like to get rid of?

Michael Martin: I made a conscious decision not to wear the wig because it wasn't me - it wasn't made for Martin. And the breeches I have now changed to long black trousers. But I do wear a traditional dress that is known as court dress which always makes me look like a QC - so maybe I demoted myself because Speakers always looked like Judges rather than QCs! I think the thing that I would like to dispense with is the traditional isolation of the speaker.

I think that I've got to make myself approachable and one of the things that I was determined to do is that every night I come back into the Chair and that allows Members to approach me. When you have question time at 2.30pm you are almost like the tennis umpire, you've got to go from one side to the other, watch who's jumping in on a question, watch who's been too long on a question, a Minister who's been too long on a reply - there's heavy concentration.

But between the hours of 9.30pm and 10.30pm there's a wind-up debate before the adjournment of the House. That's a time when Members can come and approach you and you have time to listen to them. Members can come up to me and say "oh Mr Speaker I wasn't pleased, I didn't get called today and I didn't get any of the debate last night". And therefore I can communicate with them.

The other thing that I want to do is to keep in touch with the staff. This Parliament of ours would not survive without the back up of the staff. I not only mean the advisers whom I value, but everybody whether it be the electrician or the carpenter.

An example of this is that I recently changed into ordinary dress and I went up into an attic with all sorts of overhead ducts and pipes and all that, to look at a problem that the workmen had.

Now I've realised that I've become a Chief Executive as well as Chairman of proceedings and I've got to keep in touch with the staff. And that goes for being out in the country as well. Just in a few weeks time - Scotland's a beneficiary of this - I'll be opening a YMCA facility down on the Ayrshire coast and I get a backhanded compliment - Jack McConnell couldn't manage their Church opening which has been refurbished so they asked me, so that's not a bad thing. Keeping in touch with people is important.

Question: The National Childbirth Trust argued that you missed an opportunity over the breast-feeding issue in sending a message out to other employers throughout the country. How would you respond to that?

Michael Martin: The Speaker is not an autocrat who takes decisions on his own. The Administration Committee advised me that increased facilities should be made available to nursing mothers and that mothers should be able to feed wherever it was appropriate to them.

It's an advisory committee and they gave me that advice and I consulted with many members - much of the consultation took place with women Members. Most of them said that they wouldn't want to breast feed their baby in the Chamber, which would be, as one lady Member put it, "tokenism".

They would like facilities to breast-feed, and bottle-feed the baby if necessary, with some degree of privacy and also near the Chamber. I made the announcement, I directed that improved facilities for breast-feeding should be made available.

That applies to both Members and members of the public; it also sends a message to employers.

Many employers would appreciate that if they cannot allow the child to be fed in the very factory itself then they can follow the example of the House of Commons. What we've done is we've got a Chamber we can't allow children in, but we've made new facilities available. I think it's a positive message that's been sent out. Obviously I cannot please everyone.

Question: Do you think more could be done to get women into senior positions within the House authorities?

Michael Martin: There are always ways to encourage that but what I have seen is that in the House of Commons things have changed dramatically and more and more women are in high positions, both as elected Members and as staff. I have been in the House for nearly 23 years and things have changed dramatically.

At one time it would have been most unusual to see a woman as a senior clerk, but now it's taken for granted. No one says "oh that's a woman" or "that's a man". So change is coming about and some would say not fast enough, and I would be certainly willing to look at any ideas to see how we could improve on that.

Question: Prime Minister's Questions is probably one of the most visible aspects of Parliament's work during the course of the week. What do you think could be done to make it more presentable to the outside world?

Michael Martin: Prime Minister's Questions is a snapshot of Parliament and I think any snapshot- what you see in the newsreels or what you see in a photograph in a newspaper - is not always a true picture.

I think that PM's Questions is always going to be a noisy affair. And I get a sneaky suspicion that even those members of the public that might say if asked, "it's too noisy", would find it dull and boring if we turned it into a very staid and quiet affair with everybody behaving like good children when they visit their Aunty Jean's.

I think PM's Questions at the moment are very exciting and I've no objection to Members getting excited, although I obviously have to calm them down when they just step over the line. I really think that the public now see that - I was one of the Members who urged the televising of Parliament - and those that take an interest in the political life of Westminster watch the live channels and see that there are occasions throughout the day when things are quieter and a lot more staid.

They realise that there's a time for letting off steam and PM's Questions is that. What I have to recognise is that the PM is there to give an account of his stewardship and the leader of the opposition is there to ask questions - so long as the questions are in order.

If Members get so excited that they are shouting down someone and it doesn't matter if it's a Prime Minister or a backbencher, it's my job to step in and calm them down.

Question: Is there anything you can do about the apparent rise in the 'toadying' question - that which seems to praise the Prime Minister to the rafters?

Michael Martin: Well, I think you would have to ask the backbenchers who ask these questions. But without praising any individual member, let me answer you in this way: the best question - every Minister including the Prime Minister is there to give an account of his stewardship - the best question that can come is a probing question.

And it doesn't matter if you belong to the same party as the Prime Minister or not - a probing question is the best question. So if someone came up to me, "Mr Speaker I've got number one in Prime Minister's Questions, what do you think I should do?" I would say: "Ask a probing question." And why not? It's an open society, we're seeking to get a transparent society - ask a probing question.

Question: You've been in some trouble over the recent Prime Minister's Questions where you intervened to stop Iain Duncan Smith. Whilst you abided by the letter of Erskine May some people said you didn't abide by the spirit of Erskine May. How would you respond to that?

Michael Martin: In actual fact those who love the House came to my defence very quickly and you will know that I am talking about some people who were former Speakers and others who were former leaders of the House and indeed serving Members of the House. Not one Member of Parliament has complained to me about how I dealt with it.

It was the media that took issue with my ruling. I remember because of a very emotive situation I made mention of the [asylum] vouchers and they came down on me with what I would call the hob nail boots - that this was wrong, I shouldn't have done it, I had broken with Erskine May. But they can't have it every way.

Either the rule is there or it's not there. When I did use a certain amount of discretion they said I was wrong, and when I didn't they said the same. Some of the scribblers just enjoy writing stories but I think that one backfired on them because those who love Parliament said I was right.

Question: You've raised the issue of the media. You've variously been described at points as "biased" and "incompetent". How did you feel when you read these criticisms?

Michael Martin: First of all, I think that accusation of being biased came on the first the day I became Speaker so that one's a bit hard to justify, I always say that everyone's entitled to a bit of time to be shoed in. And the other one about being incompetent: I was a deputy Speaker for three and a half years, and I served an apprenticeship of something like 15 years as Chairman of committees. Some of those people who made those comments did not at any time criticise my competence at that time.

It's up to them if they want to level that criticism but I am elected by the House and if Members of Parliament made that accusation I've got an opportunity to rebut it, but for the media I am a soft target. I do not have a chance to rebut it and nor do I wish to. But biased, no - in all my time in chairing committees which goes back a long time, no-one in this House has accused me of being biased.

Question: Sources close to you have suggested that you feel like you're a victim of Westminster snobbery. Have you ever encountered that snobbery? Do you think it exists?

Michael Martin: No. There are people from all walks of life in Westminster and I have not detected that. In fact I would say that every day the support that I have comes from every part of the House. Bear in mind that there are not only Labour and Conservative members, as some people think, there are other parties and some are small parties and I've got a duty to see that they get a fair shout.

I've got a job I want to do to see that it is fair. And if a Member has a complaint they'll come into this room and I'll speak to them about it and it usually ends up with them saying they hadn't looked at it that way.

And if I've inadvertently neglected a Member and he comes in and says "Mr Speaker I feel I've been neglected" - I'm the first person to say "you're right and we'll resolve that issue".

Question: Do you think that if the snobbery doesn't exist within Westminster, that perhaps it is coming from the Press Gallery?

Michael Martin:Yes I think it is - I refer to some of the comments that have been made about my accent. I don't wish to change my accent and I am proud of where I was born and brought up. If someone is making a reference to my accent I think it's more demeaning to him than it is to me and I feel sorry for him if the best he can do is talk about my accent; some have even spoken about my appearance.

All that I would say is that I think that snobbery does exist but it is only with a minority and what I've found very heartening is that other journalists have attacked them on that. I feel very sorry for them if the worst they can do is attack me for my accent, they can't attack me on my private life or my conduct as an MP or for neglecting my constituents because I don't.

Question: Has the criticism ever reached such a stage where you've actually thought is the job worth it? I remember when you called the press in on day two you said you wanted to be open with them, but since then you've have had a pretty rough ride.

Michael Martin: No. The one thing that's been very solid in my Speakership is that I've had this rapport with the House, as the days go on you work hard at being fair and you've got the support of the House. Anyone who has a high profile in this country will be attacked by the media and, as I say, it goes with the territory.

Question: On the issue of spin, do you think there is still is a tendency that Parliament is not being told of developments first and that announcements are being spun in advance?

Michael Martin: I think if you examine the situation since I've become Speaker, Ministers are more inclined to give statements than they were previously because I have said, and I've put it on record, that this must be the first place to hear about any new development or any new matter of policy.

Now there are two ways of doing that. A Minister may say "look, I'm going to come down to the House and tell them what I'm doing", he will make a statement.

If a Minister decides that he is not going to do it that way - and as you say maybe it's done through a press statement - I may then get what is known as a private notice question. And I'm not supposed to go into how I come to that decision, but I think Ministers can guess that if they make a public utterance outside and hold a press conference then a PNQ will be granted.

I think that the record will show that Ministers are becoming more accountable and they're coming to the House and they're making statements. So that's positive.

Question: Do you think that spin doctoring is part of modern politics and you just have to live with it?

Michael Martin: Yes, I think that the media cannot have it both ways. In the old days the media would speak to a Minister and say "what have you got in mind" and that would be the end of it. Nowadays the media put their own spin on it and the way the Minister combats that is getting someone to advise him how to present the case.

I think that it's reasonable that the media object to it as spin-doctoring. Presentation is important and I have no objections to it - but it must not be allowed to take priority over substance.

Question: In the same way that lobbyists don't get access to Westminster do you think there's a case for actually halting the number of spin-doctors who appear to be around the press gallery and around the Parliamentary precincts - because they are putting a caveat on what is said in the Chamber, they are actually distorting what is being said in Parliament.

Michael Martin: That's up to the media. I don't know how many passes we issue - but there's an awful lot being handed out to every newspaper and media organisation in this country. But that press gallery is often empty, so if they're worried about what spin doctors are doing, there's one way get round that - sit in the gallery and report Parliament as it is and then they've cut out the middle man, haven't they.

On lobbyists, I've always had an aversion to these slick lobbying organisations; I don't think they do Parliament justice When I hold surgeries I will welcome constituents and those who are employers, and if an employer's got a problem with a Minister or taxation or whatever, then let the Member of Parliament lobby on his behalf - not for any fee or anything but because he is a Members of Parliament and there is a direct interest in his constituency.

The message I would send out to captains of industry is why bother with these lobbyists when you've got 650-odd MPs who each has a constituency and if you have an industry then - whether you've got an office or a warehouse or any place of work - you go to that MP and say I've got a problem here, the Minister is putting this tax on or that tax on.

Then the MP will say I'll go and see him about that. It doesn't mean to say he'll solve the problem but he'll make representations. And I would rather see that than some operator who calls himself a lobbyist - these people are almost like the story of the Emperor's new clothes, they've nothing to offer. So I would regard them as a nuisance.

Also we were talking earlier about the education process. Every person in the land is entitled to come to the central lobby when Parliament's open and say: "I want to see my MP, I want to lobby my MP."

There are a lot of organisations that have a handle on that because you've got Help the Aged coming; we've got the Police; you've got ship builders from Tyneside coming; you've shop stewards and employers. So they all know how to lobby. You don't need these so-called experts.

Question: One final point, there seems to be this view that the Press Gallery is immovable, that the media has a right to parliamentary space when MPs have had to go out to outer buildings. Given the fact that, as you've pointed out, they don't tend to be sitting in the gallery do you think there is a case for creating a separate media centre?

Michael Martin: I think that most journalists would say that it's a great privilege to be in the gallery and it's a great privilege to be in the lobby. It's not every gallery pass-holder who's allowed to get in the lobby - it's a great privilege to get in there. I think it is very, very important that we have the media close at hand in a prime place where they can see the proceedings of the House.

I regret that they are not always there as often as they could be but I would see no advantage in taking them away from there. I want to encourage them to be there and to report Parliament fairly and not to put a distorted view on it

And the vast majority do that. In spite of what you say about me and the relationship with the media, I actually hold receptions for them and openly invite them; it doesn't matter if they criticise me or not. And they all say the same thing - they see it as a great privilege to be here. But the important thing about a democracy is that the press have a crucial role to play.