The race to be the next Speaker

What is needed is a Speaker who imposes their authority on the House of Commons, not their politics; a Speaker who will stand up for all MPs and when necessary stand up against the Government of the day; a Speaker who will not be intimidated.

The primary purpose of the House of Commons is to hold the Government to account. For too long the procedures of the House have been biased to ensure governments get their business through with minimal inconvenience. The new Speaker should make it clear that the existing rules will be interpreted to ensure scrutiny gets a much higher priority. If the present rules do not allow for that the Speaker should promote rules that do. The Today programme is no substitute for Parliament.

But change does not stop with the Speaker. MPs must take the new opportunities which they will be offered - the end of the three-day Parliamentary week is overdue, the deserted chamber an affront to democracy.

The reason the Commons is like a gentlemen’s club is because it looks like one. The reason the public feels excluded is because they often are excluded (why do we call them “strangers” in their own Parliament?). The reason the building seems like a monument is because it is a monument. We can surely change the use of the existing building so it feels less like a museum and offer an open invitation to enter.

We are all agreed that the Select Committees of the House of Commons should be strengthened. Their Chairs should be directly elected by MPs and not imposed by the Whips. Let us go farther. Whenever a new Secretary of State is appointed to the Cabinet he or she should have to be publicly confirmed in office by the appropriate departmental Select Committee. If a nominee cannot satisfy the Select Committee how can they satisfy Parliament?

Erskine May, the bible of Parliamentary procedure, was first published in 1844. Many of our procedures date from then and are not only incomprehensible to the public but to many MPs as well. Change and simplicity are essential. There is no point attempting to improve the reputation of Parliament if people can’t understand what’s going on. We can begin wholesale change of the procedure immediately by giving the existing Speakers Conference a wider remit to bring procedure and practice in Parliament up to date and in plain language.

Once a year Her Majesty comes to Parliament and reads a document described as the “Queen’s Speech”, which it plainly is not. The language is delphic and meaningless to anyone but insiders.

But there is a modern alternative. Let us still have a State Opening of Parliament with all the accompanying pageantry but the speech should be the “Prime Minister’s Speech”, and the debate which follows should end with a vote on a motion of confidence in the PM and the Government’s programme for the next session of Parliament. Parliament should own the process and the Prime Minister should be obliged to seek the authority of Parliament for that programme. Revolutionary? Hardly, but modern and understandable.

In 2009 the task of Speaker whatever it has been in the past should not be a reward for long service nor a career opportunity. It will necessarily be about judgement and independence. It should not be a popularity contest because some of the changes a new Speaker will have to lead will be unpopular. The Speaker needs to reassert the authority of the Commons and to be an overt advocate of Parliament against the Executive. He or she will need tenacity, commitment and determination to do so. Only those who are confident that they have these qualities need apply.

Sir Menzies Campbell is Liberal Democrat MP for Fife North East

ALAN BEITH

The next Speaker of the House of Commons will be expected to lead a process of openness and reform, while maintaining the impartiality of the chair.

The House of Commons needs to be doing its job well, scrutinising the Executive; controlling public spending, including its own; ensuring that the legislation it passes is fit for purpose; providing for the grievances of constituents to be dealt with; and debating policy choices in a process which constituents can recognise as rational discussion rather than a shouting match.

Public anger has created both a demand and an opportunity for reform. The influence of a newly elected Speaker can be decisive in maintaining the momentum for change.

While allowances and pay need to be taken completely out of the hands of MPs to be determined and policed by outside authorities, the Commons must start managing its own law-making work, as other democratic Parliaments do. The Government has a job to do, in devising policy, proposing legislation, managing the public finances and running departments. But it is not the Executive’s job to decide how Parliament does its work. Yet our Standing Orders currently give the Executive total control of the legislative time of the House. The Speaker should chair a Business Committee with no government majority and strong backbench representation. The Government can then propose legislation, but the Business Committee can decide how the time of the House is used to consider it.

The Business Committee should decide whether the level of support for a Private Members’ Bill justifies additional time.

The House needs to overhaul the way it deals with public finance. Endless billions of pounds are voted through “on the nod”. There should be a process by which significant issues genuinely arising from the Estimates can be brought to the floor of the House for a vote by Select Committees.

Prime Minister’s Questions is seen by many constituents as worse than a school playground. A new Speaker should get backbenchers and party leaders together to discuss how to make it work effectively and rationally. It has different functions, not all of which need to be dealt with through the same procedures: it enables MPs to raise issues affecting their constituents directly and publicly with the prime minister. It serves as a test of whether party leaders and the PM can carry the confidence of their own parties in the way they present their case. But as a mechanism for getting real answers to questions and challenging inadequate answers it is hopeless.

Much more effective probing can take place in the less heated atmosphere of a select committee. There is now so much No 10 involvement in departmental policy that the prime minister should occasionally come before departmental select committees. The select committees are a parliamentary success story and they should be strengthened and made more independent - for example, by secret ballot in the election of chairmen and members.

Most members work very hard on behalf of their constituents. Select committees involve the public through evidence sessions and e-consultations. All-party campaigning groups of MPs bring many members of the public into direct contact with politicians. Parliament needs to build on its strengthens as well as tackling its failings, and both need to be recognised. The Speaker and the Deputy Speakers should also accept a public role outside the Commons, supporting the work that MPs do to explain Parliament’s role to their own constituents.

Lastly but of fundamental importance, the Speaker must reassert the traditional authority of the office - which is re-enacted as the doors are closed on the sovereign’s representative at every State Opening - of protecting the independence of the Commons from abuse by Executive power. The rights of the Commons are there because they are the rights of those who elect us.

Sir Alan Beith is Liberal Democrat MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed

JOHN BERCOW

1. The Context

The context in which the next Speaker will be elected could scarcely be more serious or challenging. For all that the House of Commons contains a large majority of hard working Members of notable experience and ability, the brutal fact is that the reputation of Parliament is at rock bottom. Of course, there has long been an undercurrent of discontent driven by the public’s sense of powerlessness, a belief that politicians are all the same - promising much and delivering little - and a feeling that Parliament is old-fashioned, remote and ineffective. This discontent has been reflected in lower turnouts, a shift from party activity to involvement in single issue campaigns and the rise of fringe parties, including those of dangerous extremists.

Now disengagement from politics and indifference to what we do have given way to outright public ridicule, scorn and contempt. The tidal wave of devastating disclosures about expenses has horrified the public. Massive damage has been done. Only the most decisive action now to bring about permanent change for the better will enable us to restore trust in our probity. This is quite apart from the wider mission to reform Parliament and reconnect with the public. So the next Speaker faces an unprecedented challenge - to help clean up politics, to place Parliament at the centre of an effective democracy and to build a relationship of mutual respect with the electorate. Above all, the Speaker must be part of the solution and must drive the process of renewal.

2. My Own Candidature

Following encouragement from colleagues in all parts of the House, I am putting my name forward as a candidate for election as Speaker. I do so for three main reasons: to bring forward the necessary reforms to the House; to strengthen the role of backbenchers both in standing up for their constituents and in holding the government of the day to account; and to be a public advocate and ambassador for parliamentary democracy.

Ever since I was elected in 1997, I have been passionate about Parliament and almost two thirds of my service have been as a backbencher. I hope that I offer a number of qualities that can be of benefit to the House.

First, I have a track record of political independence. While I, in common with most MPs, have generally voted with my party, I have proved many times that I am ready to speak and vote independently of it when I have judged it necessary.

Secondly, in debates in the Chamber, on the International Development Select Committee and in All-Party Groups, I have long pursued unfashionable but important causes on a non-partisan basis. As many colleagues will know, my consuming passions in Parliament include special educational needs, the fight against global poverty, the drive for constitutional reform, and the need for equal treatment of people, irrespective of gender, race, disability, age or sexual orientation.

Thirdly, as a member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairmen for the last four years, I have chaired a great many Bill Committees, debates in Westminster Hall and Delegated Legislation Committees. My guiding principle in the Chair has been to facilitate debate and maximise colleagues’ chances to participate, intervening only when necessary. I hope that you will agree that I am competent, fair and well-versed in parliamentary procedure.

Finally, I trust that I have some skill as a communicator. By tradition, the Speaker operates internally, chairing in the Chamber and fulfilling a wider role in the House, but he or she has rarely commented in public. The traditional vow of silence outside the Chamber is no longer appropriate. Naturally the incumbent must remain above the party fray but, on a basis that enjoys the consent of the House, the Speaker should be a robust public advocate for democratic politics and the work of Parliament. I believe that I can fulfil this role. Above all, in seeking colleagues’ support, I am asking people to vote not for a Conservative but for a Speaker who has what it takes to do the job, to be an effective ambassador and to restore the prestige of Parliament.

This is no time for interim measures or party manoeuvring for future advantage. Opting for short-termism would risk demeaning the office of Speaker and insulting the intelligence of Members who are perfectly capable of sensibly choosing a Speaker to serve for a sustained period. Indeed, the House needs to elect a Speaker who has a mandate to take Parliament forward in the critical years that lie ahead. As a matter of principle, I believe strongly that the post of Speaker should not be a job for life but an opportunity to make a difference within a reasonable period of time. If you do me the honour of electing me, I will serve for no longer than two full Parliaments and, in any event, for no more than 9 years in total. I say this because any Speaker should be able to make a mark in that time and his or her successor should then be elected by experienced MPs in the existing Parliament before a General Election. It should not be done after a General Election, on party political grounds, by newly-elected MPs who do not know the candidates.

Below I set out what I see as the key challenges for Parliament. None of them is exclusively down to the Speaker and several issues are well beyond his or her remit. Nevertheless, I have tried to tackle the big subjects head on so that you know where I stand. These are my preliminary thoughts and I should be interested to hear yours.

3. Allowances and Expenses

Sorting out the mess of the allowances system is an urgent priority. By delaying too long and doing too little, Parliament has lost public confidence and sacrificed whatever right it thought it had to shape the system. There must now be an end to self-regulation and a start to a new system determined independently of us and accepted by us. The Government has brought forward interim proposals to remove the worst abuses and other parties have themselves sketched the outlines of a sanitised system.

Almost everyone now agrees that any new arrangement must:

Sir Christopher Kelly will shortly produce his blueprint for reform. My view is that, whatever Sir Christopher decides, unless there is a public consensus that it is fundamentally flawed, inequitable or unworkable, we must bite the bullet and accept his findings. Whatever scheme is put in place has to reflect the inescapable reality that most MPs have to live in two places and their overall income, including allowances, must be adequate to enable them to do so. Otherwise, only the independently wealthy or the externally sponsored will be able to afford a parliamentary career.

With 24-hour media, the growth of websites focused on Parliament and rising constituency caseloads, the demands placed on Members of Parliament are greater than ever. Members welcome the responsibility but, in cleaning up the system, we should make no apology for the fact that reasonable budgets, subject to proper audit, are vital to our work. Having the right number of qualified staff, paid decently for the professional service they provide, and supported by the necessary technology, is essential if we are to do the professional job which is rightly expected of us.

Every party has a duty to make the House of Commons more representative of the people we are privileged to serve. We must have a 21st-century Parliament made up of dedicated, highly-motivated, competent members. We must not take a giant step back to a 19th-century Parliament which would be the exclusive preserve of a plutocratic elite.

4. Putting Parliament First

In discussing the plight of Parliament, it is easy to descend into nostalgia for a mythical “golden age” when quaking ministers were held in check by legislative giants who performed their task of scrutiny to perfection. In truth, governments have always sought, largely successfully, to control Parliament, but some reforms, notably the introduction of Select Committees, have made the situation marginally better. Another common fallacy is to claim that it is all the fault of the present Government and that every change since 1997 has made matters worse. In fact, successive governments have strengthened the executive grip on the parliamentary throat and some recent changes, including the introduction of Westminster Hall debates, family-friendly hours and the advent of some pre-legislative scrutiny have been positive. Nevertheless, there is a clear deficit on the parliamentary balance sheet. In particular, there has been one glaring weakness in the changes made over the last decade. Too many have been focused on the convenience of the executive and too few on the rights and responsibilities of the legislature.

The dice are loaded more than ever in favour of government. Why? First, in an age of 24-hour news, ministers are the lead suppliers of items for news coverage. Aided and abetted by the departmental machine, and with no power to instruct that Parliament be the first to be informed, a debate on policy or events is essentially a joust between the media and the minister. MPs become at best bit-part players in the problem, struggling to catch up with what has been released and to probe the minister about it.

Secondly, the modern state is bigger than ever. The scale and complexity of ministerial activity have increased but the time and resources to scrutinise it have diminished. In short, government is doing more but parliamentarians have not kept pace with this increased executive output. In crude tug-of-war terms, several recruits have been added to the ministerial team but few, if any, to the parliamentary.

Thirdly, the government chooses the majority of MPs who will sit on the select Committees that scrutinise its work. Similarly, it chooses the bulk of MPs who will sit on the public bill committees that consider its legislation and decides how long they will be given for the task.

Throughout consideration of the issues, certain priorities must remain at the forefront of our minds. We need greater independence for Parliament from the Executive; we need enhanced scrutiny both of policy and of legislation; we need better use of time and more opportunities for backbenchers to challenge the Government. Above all, we must strive to do not what is merely convenient, but what is right.

We can stop the rot, but we have to act decisively to do so. If the House expects to gain the respect of others, it has to start by showing some respect for its own Members. This means asserting the duty of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive and to hold the Government to account. Starting from first principles, we need radical reform of the way we operate - from the management of House business to the composition of committees, from the level of scrutiny to the opportunities for backbench members to take part in key debates.

There are many ideas for improving the performance of Parliament. Amongst others we need to consider:

Use of Parliamentary Time

Role of Committees

Opportunities for Backbenchers

Accessibility of Parliament

If the political will exists, some of these issues can be determined soon and changes implemented within months. Others might require a more extensive debate and the opportunity for evidence taking. There may be a case for a Speaker’s Conference or a constitutional convention on parliamentary reform. However, this should not be an excuse for protracted navel gazing and the relegation of pressing issues to the backburner. On the contrary, parties should all commit to take part in such a convention and to act on its recommendations early in the next Parliament.

5. Speaker as Ambassador

For centuries, the Speaker has spoken only on procedural matters from the Chair and made little or no public comment outside the Chamber. Some traditionalists will doggedly defend this arrangement, saying that “it has always been this way and it would be dangerous to change”. I disagree. It would be dangerous not to change when the world has done so. Parliament has been broadcast on radio since 1978 and on television since 1989. With 24-hour media and in the age of the internet, the Speaker need not and should not be a purely internal figure, shrouded in mystique and forbidden from making any public utterance in all circumstances.

Just as the Prime Minister speaks for the Government and the Leader of the Opposition speaks for the Opposition, why shouldn’t the Speaker of the House of Commons speak for the House of Commons? By speaking for the House of Commons, I do not mean breaking the convention of total impartiality in the Chair. What I mean is three-fold:

First, the Speaker should be willing to appear before an equivalent of the Liaison Committee or to conduct a version of Speaker’s Question Time in each parliamentary session in order to explain his or her approach to the running of the House.

Secondly, the Speaker should be permitted to put out statements to the media which are authoritative from the perspective of the House as a whole.

Thirdly, the Speaker should be an ambassador for the House of Commons to the society which it serves.

Successive Speakers have supported charities, and hosted a diverse range of groups and visiting delegations in Parliament. The time has come to go beyond this, visiting and reaching out to a range of public institutions and voluntary bodies. This engagement, communication and interaction must be a two-way process. In other words, a Speaker alone is no longer enough. The next holder of the office has to be a Speaker and a Listener - explaining the role of the House and the work that individual Members do to as wide an audience as possible - but also listening to and, as appropriate, assimilating the views of the public. In the new and challenging circumstances of our politics, the next Speaker will face a dual role, as I have argued in this prospectus: to be the advocate for parliamentarians, especially those who sit on the backbenches, and to be the ambassador for Parliament to the outside world.

John Bercow is Conservative MP for Buckingham