Sir Alan Beith says Parliament must assert itself over the executive.
Question: How has the role of the Speaker – and the public's perception of the role – changed since the row over expenses and the ensuing debate on parliamentary reform?
I think it has placed demands on the next Speaker which are unlike anything that's gone before. There is an expectation amongst members and a demand amongst the public that the next Speaker should give a lead in cleaning up and reforming.
The process of the election itself will give a mandate to the Speaker to take that kind of lead. Clearly the decisions, many of them have to be taken by the House itself, but the Speaker is going to be expected to take a lead.
Question: Should it be a dual role, both presiding over the chamber and leading reform?
Yes. It's historically the case that the spokesman for the House needs to communicate with the public about what is happening in Parliament and how we're addressing things that are of public concern; not on the political policy issues but on the House itself.
Question: Could the Speaker take on a more pro-active role in the media?
I think that there is more that Speakers can be allowed and encouraged to do in terms of communicating with the public. Not by getting involved in the cut and thrust of politics, that's definitely not what the Speaker should do, but in speaking up for the Commons and explaining it to the public.
In doing so, supporting the work that many members themselves do - they go about their constituencies, they explain to children and schools how Parliament works, talking to groups. Most members of Parliament do quite a lot of that and it's part of the Speaker's role as well.
Question: How can the primacy of Parliament over the executive be restored?
The executive has a job to do and Parliament has a job to do. The executive is elected, it's the result of a general election victory, it has policies, programmes it wants to carry out and it's therefore entitled to try and get legislation through Parliament.
It's for Parliament to decide how that legislation is best dealt with, best examined and scrutinised and amended. The Commons needs to reassert control of its own timetable and that I believe should be done by a body that is more representative of the House as a whole and not by the government as such.
It should be done by a business committee chaired by the Speaker with strong backbench representation and no government majority; that's what happens in the devolved parliaments for example and it's what ought to happen at Westminster.
Question: What are your views on the role of the whips?
I think many people inside Parliament and many people outside Parliament sense that whips can be too powerful. They do have a job to do and in any parliament, however vigorously democratic, parties have to manage their affairs and have to organise themselves. so whips are quite an important source of communication.
There are quite a few occasions when there are areas of activity where the influence on the whips is either excessive or indeed inappropriate. Select committees have worked hard to place themselves outside the influence of whips, and that process needs to be continued and completed.
I think there needs to be more recognition by governments that as long as the people will expressed in the general election can be achieved through the legislative programme, it's in everybody's interests that Parliament, not the government, shall make the decisions about how that programme is scrutinised and examined.
Question: And sitting hours?
I think we have to continue to look at and be prepared to reform hours, to make the House a family-friendly place. Family-friendly particularly for members and their families and we need to do so in a way which still enables us to do the job that we have to do, to do it well.
we still don't use the time of the House effectively, quite often we don't need all the time that has been allocated to things, and on a number of occasions recently we found that even when we thought we were going to be required until 10.00pm, we finish early.
There's no harm in that except that it demonstrates that such time might have been used and needed for something that's been rushed through without proper consideration. It all points to the House itself taking better control of its time. A new Parliament with new members in it, I think, will want to look again at the hours question, because I don't think we've got it right yet.
Question: What are your attributes for the role?
I've always been a reformer. One of the very first things I did in terms of House internal affairs was to secure pension provisions for the staff of members.
When I arrived there were no pensions for members' staff and I moved an amendment and got it carried which set aside a 10 per cent amount of money so that members' paid pensions contributions for their staff.
I've always wanted to see Parliament more effective and I think I'm a fair-minded person and a person who's prepared to bring together the views of different people so everyone can have their say properly. I chair a select committee, very much enjoy doing that and I find you can achieve a lot when people with really quite different views given the opportunity to put their point of view and work together.
Question: Why do you want to do it?
I think that Parliament needs reforming leadership at this point and I regard myself as a reformer and someone who's prepared to take a lead in the direction of reform, sufficiently committed. Not to be put off by the fact that all governments become reluctant when those aspects of reform that touch on their ability to run things come along.
Question: Can you be a fresh change?
You do need some experience, I believe, in order to carry out the work of Speaker and to be ready for the variety of situations that come up. Of course I would be the first liberal Speaker since Speaker Whitley in the 1920s and no-one can say I'm not different.
I certainly don't fit much of the established mould of Parliament as represented by traditional party leadership and indeed I've been an opposition and/or backbench member for the whole of my parliamentary career. I know what it's like not being in government.
Question: The Liberal Democrats opposed Michael Martin. Could this affect your campaign?
We're in a new situation now, the election of a new Speaker. I think candidates will be considered and judged on their merits.
Question: What are your views on the more arcane rituals of the chamber?
I think the things that are most important to change are things that get in the way of doing the job properly.
It's more important to deal with time being wasted and members' energies not being given effective outlet, than it is to start stripping away some of the more colourful and traditional features of life in Parliament, some of which tell historical stories.
The trouble is we sometimes forget the story; we slam the door in the face of the sovereign's representative when we actually failed to stop the police coming in without appropriate authority and a warranty.
Some of the rituals tell a story and perhaps we should be reminding ourselves rather than getting rid of all the rituals.
We should be reminding ourselves of the significance of the story, there are always changes that we can make in the language, and there are areas where our procedures become absurd.
Much of financial procedure is mumbo jumbo to members and effectively there's vast amounts of money being voted through on the nod without proper examination. It's things like that which need to be changed, not the things that add a bit of colour and show a bit of tradition.
Question: Which Speaker do you most admire?
Well it has to be Speaker Lenthall for refusing to do the King's bidding. It's ironic that Speaker Lenthall did in fact get into some trouble later over his finances.
