Standing down

---

How hard was it to reach the decision to stand down?

Sir Michael Spicer: Not terribly. I’ve done 36 years as an MP, and I think after that period one runs out of steam a little bit.

What will you miss most about Parliament?

I will miss the camaraderie and the gossip. I will also very much miss being chairman of the 1922 Committee. I have enjoyed that enormously, but two terms of office as chairman – which I think is the longest anyone has done – is the right amount. Standing for three is staying beyond your welcome. It’s better to go while one is still wanted, which I think I am.

What will you miss the least?

The back-biting. When I was leader of the rebellion over Maastricht it was enormously prevalent, although as far as I am concerned the last ten years have been very peaceful and quiet.

Was the Maastricht rebellion a difficult time?

Yes it was, personally, but I felt very strongly that we didn’t want a federal Europe. I had been the only minister to remain in office throughout the entire duration of Margaret Thatcher’s time as prime minister, but the day after Denmark voted No on Maastricht I put down an EDM on Europe called ‘A Fresh Start’, which got nearly 100 signatures. John Major was defeated in the Commons a few months later; it was the biggest rebellion within the Conservative Party for nearly 200 years.

How much has Parliament changed in your time here?

When I first got in you were either very rich or very poor. I knew of MPs who shared dormitories and tried to open a restaurant once a week just to earn a crust of bread. What I hope we will never do is go back to that. Being in Parliament has become a profession, so it should be reasonably well paid as a profession – otherwise, you won’t get good people here.

The move to a 9-5 Parliament is very convenient for the government, as it is totally predictable when a vote will take place, and there’s a limit on the demands on a minister’s time – but it’s not so good for democracy. When I was a minister the opposition could keep you up all night, and that would make you think again about things.

Parties are much more disciplined in the way they select candidates, and it’s all moving towards a slightly monotype MP and that’s sad. Parliament should be a reflection of life outside Parliament, good or bad. That isn’t a change for the better.

How has an MP’s role changed?

Email has changed things enormously. People expect instant answers over issues which are often issues that an MP shouldn’t necessarily dabble with. They’re local government issues, private issues, issues which should be directed towards an accountant or a solicitor. MPs are being dragged off the floor of the House and away from taking views on national matters, and are instead taking views on private questions about people’s private lives. That’s very distorted. People don’t judge you if you have the right or wrong view on Iraq, but whether you have the right view on solving their marital problems. The chamber has become of very limited use. If you make good speeches or ask a good question at PMQs then it percolates out, but the hard hours are done elsewhere.

How has your party changed?

In many ways it’s the same party that we always were, but modern technology means there is a greater attempt to control members. How much a smaller majority could change things is very interesting. It could have the effect of increasing the stature of Parliament.

What are you most proud of in your time as an MP?

As a parliamentarian I am proudest of getting through the electricity bill in 1988. My opponent was Tony Blair, and we devised a whole new approach of dealing with bills in committee. He told me that he didn’t want to mess around, but wanted four occasions on which he would get maximum publicity for himself and his cause.