Sir Alan Haselhurst speaks to ePolitix.com about why he would be the best candidate for the role of Speaker.
How has the row over expenses and internal debate over parliamentary reform changed both the role of Speaker and public perceptions of the role?
On the first point, I’m not sure how far it has because there's hardly anyone who hasn't been fingered in some way or other. We’ve been subjected to all round condemnation but nevertheless the electorate for the speakership is amongst ourselves. It is members choosing one from their number whom they think is best suited for the job. In a sense, I think that part of [the expenses row] will be discounted. I think much more important in members' minds will be the extent to which the new Speaker will be someone who will encourage and assist reform or obstruct it by taking too traditionalist a stance.
I think the pace for reform will in a sense be determined by the party leaders and then ultimately the House itself, because we understand the prime minister is determined to put something forward. David Cameron is talking along these lines, as is Nick Clegg. I think we're going to have lots of ideas. Of course it is the House that has to be persuaded, and I think that the role of Speaker is to assist and encourage the process of reform.
Should the Speaker both preside over MPs and then lead or initiate reform?
I think it's the Speaker's gift to be pro-active; to encourage; interpreting to those who he then meets on a regular basis, be it the chief whips in the parties and the leaders in the party; the appetite that he detects amongst members for reforms; and the particular kinds of reforms. At the end of the day, of course the Speaker can be over-ruled by the House, he is the servant of the House and if he can't come forward with a motion before the House to say "please do this or do that" he has to work, in a sense, indirectly to try to achieve it. He's got a certain amount of leeway but it's been paired down over the years through initiatives, choice of debate, emergency motions, urgent questions and so on, where he can have some influence on what the House is doing.
Is there room for a more public role, such as an added media presence?
I think it would be a mistake to believe that the Speaker of our House of Commons can act in the same way as the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the United States or for the matter the president of the Assemblée Nationale in Paris. Where you have an executive which is quite clearly separate from the legislature it creates a different situation. Here, when the executive is very much a part of the legislature, it's difficult for the Speaker to appear to be a rival of the real leader of parliamentary opinion who is the prime minister of the day, so he can only speak for Parliament. I think that role can be developed, because
I found in my own cases in the last few years - through the Women’s Institute, Rotary Club meetings and things that the members inevitably get invited to when your on a non-political platform. You talk about Parliament, you talk about the history of the speakership and how it operates. You talk about the work of an MP, and there's tremendous interest and people say, "I never knew that, that is really interesting". Therefore I think the person who is Speaker can seek out platforms where it would be possible to talk up this place, because it is an important, vital part of our democracy. I would certainly see that kind of role for the Speaker to be the spokesperson, advocate if you like, for the House of Commons.
How can the primacy of Parliament over the executive be restored or strengthened?
Only if that executive is prepared to relax its grip to a certain extent. I think, more than any other Parliament in the world and, indeed almost uniquely, we put our Speaker on a pedestal of impartiality, and we say, "no more party politics for you chum, once you've been chosen you sever the links and you never renew those links". We’re saying that because we want to give confidence to anybody who comes into this place, be they an independent, part of a very small minority or just a relatively sort of modest member of an opposition party, that they are going to get a fair deal from the Speaker. I believe that our system bolsters that, so the Speaker has such a position of impartiality that we should trust the Speaker more and say, "let his discretion therefore, (because we know he's impartial) be exercised in other ways".
I think once you give the Speaker slightly more elbow room on, for example, the topical debate, if the House wants to continue with that as the institution, why on earth don't we let the Speaker decide it? For example, that and we could loosen the criteria for determining urgent questions. We could look at that aspect of it because that's the way you can inject topicality into the day's proceedings.
It's sometimes, I think, puzzling to people outside that the House of Commons has set its agenda a week or a fortnight in advance. Some issue comes up, and unless you happen to be lucky that there is a questions for that particular department that week (and it might not be on that immediate day), and the minster isn't rushing to make a statement to Parliament. The Speaker does have a mechanism whereby he could make sure there is a statement to Parliament and i think that's an interesting area.
Is there a role for a business committee?
Yes, if we will ever get the whips to relax what they feel is their grip on this place, why not? I’ve advocated this before when I spoke to the modernisation committee when they've done enquiries and I certainly think there's scope for that. If people are cautious about it then why not say that there is a portion of the business of the week that can be determined by the business committee? It's not just that.
What I’ve seen, the way that we have been timetabling bills rather more severely as time has gone on, that sometimes it's what I call ad hoc minorities who are being prejudiced against because there's a danger that even with a sort of understanding through the usual channels, a programme could even be agreed. It doesn’t necessarily take account of what might be seen as a troublesome, minority of colleagues on one side or the other who don't actually espouse their frontbenchers’ point of view and have got amendments down. Sometimes those are the ones that get squeezed out. Now, I think that has got to be thought about and given the opportunity for all shades of opinion to be heard, particularly during report stage of a bill. So yes I’d like to see a business committee tackle that as well.
What about the role of the whips. Should this be relaxed?
Yes. I believe the House should be given a bigger role in determining who's going to be the chairman of select committees and extend as far as possible the role of the House in determining these things. Why don't we look at new ways of dealing with bills? Why not say to the opposition parties, everyone knows when the government’s going to get its bill, but let the opposition parties select those parts of a bill which they want to subject to more detailed consideration? Let’s do that on the floor of the House. We split it for the Finance Bill. Why can't we split for other bills?
Should hours be looked at?
I think hours have got to be looked at. I worry about the changes we've made in the so-called pursuit of family-friendly hours because it depends what your family is and where your family is. If the House is sitting earlier for a committee which sits even earlier still, and you are in the habit of taking your children to school because you might not see them again before bedtime, you're mucked around on that.
I think this family-friendly thing can be played too far. And let’s face it, there are a heck of a lot of people in this country apart from MPs who are working all hours, depending on the business you're in. We rely on our National Health Service to keep going. We rely on the transport system to keep going. So it seems to me, we should look at it from the point of view of working the hours that are necessary to do the job with which we've been entrusted. Not the difficulty of maintaining topicality and ensuring there’s a proper length of time available for dealing with bills, especially at report stage.
If we've got a set finishing time which people are not prepared to breach, then there's a problem. If the Speaker uses his discretion to grant an urgent question, he may be taking an hour out of what is a very crowded and popular debate that's due to follow. We have rigid hours which are very convenient of course for people to know what they're doing, but if those hours are maintained too rigidly it is very difficult to use the powers that the Speaker has to inject emergency motion into the proceedings and also an urgent question.
Why do you think you should be Speaker?
I think it's in the end down to style, personality and an ability to do the job. I’ve done the job as deputy speaker for 12 years. I’ve also had a spell in 2006 when Michael Martin was unwell when I did it for six weeks. I had very good feedback on the way I conducted proceedings then. I believe you can, even within existing powers, make a difference in making the House more vital and involving more members in the process. Beyond that, I think it's the attitude of mind you have towards reform and change. Listening to what members are saying and using the power that the Speaker has to try and influence those who are prepared to re-shape the business of the House, in a way that comes to terms with what currently members feel about how we should reform.
How will you convince potential supporters that you are a fresh change and have a modernising agenda?
I shall say I believe I’ve got the experience to handle what is. We're living through a very difficult time. There is going to be change introduced and I think I can best help the House manage that change. I think my way of handling the business of the House will be something that would be appreciated. I have on the record the evidence I’ve given to the modernisation committee, which are things I believe have got to be explored. If you have someone there who is prepared to do that, then I think that's an indication to colleagues that you are going to be on their side.
The fact that I would want to take on the role of a greater advocacy for Parliament and not just, as it were, be seen front of House here, but also use the opportunities which I know exist to the Speaker of the House of Commons to be on neutral, non-partisan platforms, in order to talk about Parliament and to face questions from people in those sort of circles. I don't think you can set yourself up as a rival to the prime minister or the leader of the Opposition. But I think you can speak for Parliament.
What are your views on the ancient rituals such as the terminology and the uniform?
I think the House will always want to examine these things and we do continually change. I'm on the whole an advocate for the retention of the indirect form of address and I say that simply by comparison with what I’ve seen in those parliaments where they don't retain it and they have the direct address. I think that the indirect form of address, "the honourable member" and so on, actually does help to act as a filter on tempers rising and inappropriate things being said. I have been in one or two parliamentary assemblies in the world where, quite frankly, it's a bear garden by comparison. It's almost "you dirty rat" type of approach across the chamber. I don't think we would dignify our politics by going in that direction and I think that's the danger of changing that particular thing.
Speaker Martin was the first male Speaker to dispense with the wig, and the style of dress changed as well. I think that is more in-keeping... You've got to be able to distinguish the way the Speaker appears and I don't think there's been a great deal of criticism in that particular respect. Whether the clerks should wear wigs, well, I’m entirely neutral about that. But, if anyone else has been criticised, the clerks have not been. The clerks are respected, I think, as a truly independent body of people and if wearing a wig and a gown helps to emphasise that then I’ve no particular problem with it. What I want to see is that the business of the House is relevant business that reflects the concerns of people out there and that we have got a much more all-embracing approach to the business, where members feel they are really engaged and fulfilling their role as a Member of Parliament to much greater extent than perhaps they feel now.
Could you pick a Speaker that you particularly admire?
Well, they've all had their virtues. But in many ways one of the ones who had not necessarily one of the highest profiles was Jack Weatherill. I think he was an outstanding Speaker and I think as time has passed, more people have come to recognise that fact. He didn't have the flare that perhaps captured the imagination of the public like George Thomas had. He was an extremely kindly man and I think a very good Speaker. A better Speaker than one might have imagined considering the extremely sort of partisan roles he'd had in the past. George captured the imagination of the public, and was an outgoing personality in that sense. Betty too was someone who captured the hearts of people because they saw Betty in action on television. Jack came sort of in between that time. I just think that he was an absolutely straight down the line, very effective, undemonstrative, but absolutely super Speaker.
Do you have any additional comments?
I think that I’ve got the energy to do this. I’ve got the love of this place. I’ve been here a long time. I’ve got the experience of this place, and I believe I really can help the House through a transitional period. I would simply adore the challenge to show that, even without change, things can be done differently but with change that we could really transform this place and renew the public confidence in it, which is desperately necessary.
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.