Short term pain for long term gain

On Sunday 15 November Sophie Raworth interviewed Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow MP

Please note 'The Andrew Marr Show' must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

SOPHIE RAWORTH:

Mr Speaker, here we are in the Speaker's House, surrounded by tradition, surrounded by history. You are the modern man, the man with the mandate to modernise. You've got state opening of Parliament coming up on Wednesday. I mean does, does it extend to those kind of ceremonies?

MR SPEAKER: I think the state opening of Parliament is an incredibly important occasion, and broadly speaking the way in which it's done is an invaluable tradition. I think it's a reminder of how Parliament came to be what it is, of the centrality of Parliament in our national life, of the importance of an assertive Parliament, and of the fact that we are a constitutional democracy. So the traditions governing the state opening of Parliament are very important. They're not mere frippery. They're not some antiquated set of notions with which we should dispense. They're an important reminder of how we came to be as we were, and the way in which we need to proceed. That doesn't mean that every single aspect has to remain exactly the same, but broadly speaking it's an important tradition, it's one that's greatly valued, and it's one that we shall certainly see continuing long into the future.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: (over) Which implies there could be changes. What changes may you make?

MR SPEAKER: I wasn't proposing to make any fundamental change to the state opening of Parliament. I think that there is always great interest …

SOPHIE RAWORTH: (over) Personal changes.

MR SPEAKER: … in the subject of dress, Sophie. The truth of the matter is that the media in particular, and to some extent members of the public, are very interested in and perhaps focused on the subject of attire. As people know, I have made a change. I think day to day, one does not need to wear an elaborate attire, it's not necessary, and so I have dressed in a business suit with a modest black gown on top. I think on the day of the state opening, the important point to recognise is that it is a ceremonial occasion, so it is to be distinguished from the day to day occasion; and, accordingly, I will wear a different outfit on the day of the state opening.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: So what will that be? I mean how much of a change will you make? You will presumably still wear the black and gold gown that the Speaker traditionally wears?

MR SPEAKER: I do intend to wear the black and gold gown because I think the state robe is important and I think it says something significant about the relationship between Parliament and the monarch, and the role of the Speaker on such an occasion. But, no, I was intending and I am intending to wear a morning coat and to have the state gown on top, and I shall very probably wear a House of Commons tie. I think it's very difficult for people to object to that. It says something about the role of the Speaker and the centrality of Parliament, and it is particular to the role of the Speaker.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: (over) So that's doing away, that's … that's doing away with court dress, with the stockings, which the Speaker traditionally wears. I mean do you think that there will be people who say that's actually disrespectful?

MR SPEAKER: It's certainly not disrespectful. When you say will people say it is - Sophie, the truth of the matter is that whatever you do in public life, there will always be people who criticise. And genuinely from good motives, because they hold a different opinion and they sincerely believe that you are mistaken and that they are correct. So, yes, there's inevitably going to be criticism, but equally I think a lot of people will say well it is a good thing that we should respect the past but not live in the past. And when you talk about dispensing with court dress, a morning coat is a modern form of court dress; so I am preserving some element of tradition, which I think is valid and justified, but updating the attire somewhat as well. And I think, therefore, there is a fusion between tradition and modernity.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: I mean you …

MR SPEAKER: It won't please everybody, but it seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate and proper thing to do, and there is no question whatsoever of any disrespect. I've great respect for the monarch, great respect for Parliament, great respect for my colleagues - all of which will be on display.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Now, as I said, you were elected on a … on a mandate to modernise. One of the first things you obviously have had to deal with is MPs' expenses. Sir Christopher Kelly has published his recommendations. Should they all be implemented by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in full?

MR SPEAKER: In my view, yes. Sir Christopher Kelly was asked for his advice. He was charged with the responsibility for producing independent recommendations for a better system for MPs' expenses and allowances. I've always argued two things. First, that the new system has to be governed by principles of equity, transparency, audit and accountability. Secondly, I've argued consistently that we have delayed too long and done too little to justify having any right to dictate the contours of the new system. I have candidly to say that denial, delay or dilution is simply not an option. Sir Christopher has produced his recommendations. In my view, they are very sensible, they should be embraced, I hope they will be implemented. It is fair only to add that the Parliamentary Standards Act requires the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to draw up a scheme for implementation and to consult upon it. So of course that is what will happen. But if you are asking me do I think the Kelly recommendations are justified, the answer is yes. Should they be embraced? Yes. Is it important for Parliament to bring about decisive, sweeping, fundamental change quickly? The answer is yes.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: But there does seem to be talk of tinkering around the edges - particularly on employing spouses, particularly on mortgage interest payments. Is that your concern, that that could happen? I mean Sir Ian Kennedy has said, who's heading up the new body, that there is a lot of work to do. It does imply that there could be changes.

MR SPEAKER: There may be work to do. It's important that whatever is done is lawful, and Parliament above all must be expected to behave lawfully. People are entitled to express their views, but I'm not, Sophie, going to duck your direct challenge. You're asking me do I agree with Sir Christopher Kelly about the need to abolish state financed house purchase. The answer is that I agree with him 100%. You're asking me do I agree that Members of Parliament should no longer be able to employ family members? The answer is that I do agree that they should not be able to do so. So you've asked me two very straightforward questions, and I hope you'll agree - and more importantly perhaps even than you agreeing, your viewers will agree - that I have given two very straightforward answers.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: What should happen to spouses who work for their … their partners, for MPs at the moment?

MR SPEAKER: Sir Christopher Kelly recommends that there should be a lead in period to the new system. He is not suggesting that such arrangements should be discontinued immediately. He has made it clear that there should be a period of some years leading up to the implementation of the new arrangement, and I think a lot of people would say that that is fair, it is reasonable, it gives Members of Parliament and their spouses an opportunity to make new arrangements. But on the issue of principle, I am clear that he is justified. Let me be clear about one other point. I am not suggesting for one moment that most spouses or family members are misbehaving. They are not. I am quite sure that the vast majority of family members who work for Members of Parliament work extremely hard. They might even work harder and more anti-social hours and provide excellent value for money. The truth, however, is that public trust in Parliament has plummeted. The damage has been seismic. And the truth now is that the public perception of the way in which we operate is so negative that it is necessary to accept a wholesale, fundamental and I think irrevocable change. And an important part of that wholesale, fundamental and irrevocable change is saying we shall not have family members employed. (SR tries to interject) There's an element of rough justice, but it is necessary.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Exactly, that's what I was going to say. I mean it is pretty rough for some MPs though, isn't it? It is going to make a huge difference to their lives. I mean there are a lot of MPs who have employed their spouses. They are not going to get their mortgage interest payments anymore. There's an awful lot of belt tightening that will be going on. Do you have sympathy for them?

MR SPEAKER: Members of Parliament will have a difficult time. I can see that many will find change very uncomfortable. It is certainly true that there are huge numbers of innocent Members of Parliament working dedicatedly, behaving honestly, who will feel aggrieved; and on a human level, one can understand that. But I have to make a judgement, as my colleagues do as well, about the overall interest of Parliament, and the truth is there has to be some short-term pain in order that we can achieve the long-term gain of a recovery of the respect and standing of the House of Commons.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Should the MPs not have been allowed a vote on it?

MR SPEAKER: I believe that it would be wrong for Parliament to vote on the matter because I've argued all along that precisely because we've delayed so long and done so little - and all of us are responsible for that - we've sacrificed the right to shape the essence of the new expenses system. If you accept that, if you acknowledge that we can't do it ourselves, if you insist that it has to be prescribed independently and externally, it logically follows that you believe it is absurd for the House of Commons to vote on the matter. So the answer again to your question is, it is a matter on which the House of Commons in my opinion should not vote.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations, if they are indeed accepted and brought in by IPSA would, as you say, be phased in. Once the initial period is over, what about a pay rise for MPs? Is that something that should be considered?

MR SPEAKER: Remuneration can certainly be considered by an independent body, and there is much support for the idea that it should be determined free of political influence. If you are asking me do I think that in current circumstances the pay of Members of Parliament should be a principal concern of ours, the answer's no.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: But that wasn't my point.

MR SPEAKER: (continuing) Do I think round the corner, there's a big pay rise? No, I don't.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: No, absolutely, and that wasn't my point. I'm saying because this is being phased in - once this is all over, once you know this is all sorted out, in the future is that the way forward because, as I say, a lot of these MPs are going to have to considerably tighten their belts - is the way forward to give MPs a pay rise in maybe five years time?

MR SPEAKER: I'm not talking about a pay rise. I am talking about independence. And so the way I would put it to you, Sophie, is that I think that both the expenses system and the remuneration of Members of Parliament should be determined entirely independently of the House of Commons. It should not be possible for a government or a set of party leaders to scupper an independently determined arrangement. It should be independently determined what expenses Members of Parliament can claim and what pay they receive. And there should be an automaticity about it. In other words, once that's been decided, it should simply happen and it should be beyond the ken of a prime minister, a leader of the opposition or a leader of another political party.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: How soon do you think these recommendations are going to be put in place because you have said you wanted them before the next election?

MR SPEAKER: I certainly hope that they will be in place at the next financial year; and, therefore, if they're not implemented as early as April - and it would be incredibly difficult to achieve that - I would certainly hope that within weeks of the General Election a new system could be in place. That is my wish. I don't think that we want a great, protracted debate or delay. What we want if we are to recover public respect, to demonstrate that we have changed and that we are moving on is speedy implementation of a package of recommendations which has long been researched by Sir Christopher Kelly.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: And if there is tinkering around the edges and if Sir Ian Kennedy does rewrite some of the recommendations, what is the response, do you think, or what is the damage done from … from the public point of view?

MR SPEAKER: I think it is very important that the thrust of what Sir Christopher Kelly has recommended should be implemented. I think most reasonable people would say that points of detail can and should be examined. If there is a danger of an unintended consequence flowing from a particular proposal, let that be highlighted and avoided. But Sir Christopher Kelly has come forward with a detailed, explicit and comprehensive blueprint for a reformed system which would be far better than what we have at the moment. I think it would be a catastrophic mistake to row back from that and to try to stick with a system that the public regards as excessively generous and fundamentally rotten to the core.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: That sounds like a bit of a warning to Sir Ian Kennedy.

MR SPEAKER: I'm not in the business of warning people. It's not for me to do that. Sir Ian Kennedy is a respected figure. He's a figure of expertise, he's a figure of authority, he's a figure of great experience, and he is the Chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority - or at least shortly to take up that role. He must make the judgements that he will, and IPSA must reach the conclusions that it chooses. You're asking me my opinion - would it be wise to row back in any meaningful way at all from what Sir Christopher has recommended - and my answer is that it would not be. I stand by the view that Sir Christopher has examined the issues, he's taken a great deal of evidence, he's adopted a fair-minded approach, he's produced a comprehensive list of workable and equitable proposals, and those proposals should be implemented.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Obviously still very difficult for a lot of MPs. This expenses scandal has been going on for months and months and months now; we've talked of nothing but for a very long time. Do MPs finally get it, do you think? Do they get what this was all about?

MR SPEAKER: I think most Members of Parliament do recognise that the old arrangements could no longer be defended, if indeed they could ever be defended. We all share responsibility for the hole in which we find ourselves because we perpetuated a system which had operated for a very long time, which was not transparent, which was not accountable, which was not properly audited, and which was never independently determined. I think most MPs see now that those arrangements must change. I've no desire whatever to sniff at or trample upon the wishes of my parliamentary colleagues, but I don't think that my job as Speaker is to be a shop steward for Members of Parliament. I think that the Speaker of the House of Commons has got a duty to be an ambassador for Parliament, a robust advocate of democratic politics, and someone who takes very seriously and thinks carefully about the reputation of Parliament. It would be the easiest thing in the world …

SOPHIE RAWORTH: (over) What about standing up for the MPs though?

MR SPEAKER:… for me simply to go along with what particular MPs say. That wouldn't be right.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: What about standing up for the MPs? Who's doing that? If you're not the shop steward, who is standing up for the MPs?

MR SPEAKER: I'm standing up for the cause of a reformed system and the right of Members of Parliament to be able to hold their heads up and say we have changed, we get the message, we know it needs to be different, we are improving, we hope that the public can see that. That is the strategic challenge that the Speaker of the House of Commons faces and I hope that I'm rising to that challenge. So I'm certainly not trampling upon Members of Parliament. I stand up for Members of Parliament, but I don't stand up for an indefensible system. I am saying that I recognise - and I think most of my colleagues recognise - that the present system cannot be defended. It has to be changed. Let's go about the process of change together in a positive spirit, recognising that in the end we individually and the House collectively will benefit from that change.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: And still you know weeks, months to come, Sir Thomas Legg is expected to ask for yet more money back from MPs. Some of those sums could be quite substantial. Is that what the public needs to see though? Is it the payback that the public for you needs to see?

MR SPEAKER: Yes. If there's a choice between a headline that says 'Westminster whitewash' or a headline that says 'Payback time', the headline 'Payback time' is much to be preferred. The public want an assurance that Parliament has understood their anger; that it knows that the system it had was not justified; that it accepts that the future has to be not modestly but dramatically different. I strongly suspect that significant payback will be a part of that. Each case will be considered on its merits. Demands will be made only when Sir Thomas Legg judges that it is reasonable to make them. Members of Parliament of course have a right as part of the process to put their point of view, and natural justice demands nothing less. But in the end, we have to have a conclusion, we have to have closure. People must accept the consequences and we then move onto the future.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Let's look at everything on a wider platform because when you were elected as Speaker, you did talk about you know being the clean break candidate. That's how you were spoken of - 'the man with the mandate to modernise'. From what you promised at the time of your election, I mean how much do you actually think, how much reform have you actually achieved?

MR SPEAKER: Well I think we're already making some progress on the expenses issue. We've got the Kelly recommendations …

SOPHIE RAWORTH: (over) But expenses aside. I mean …

MR SPEAKER: (over) Well I think that that is quite important.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: … talk more generally about, about the House of Commons and the procedures, the way that …

MR SPEAKER: Yes.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: … the House of Commons runs here.

MR SPEAKER: Well I think already important changes have been made. First, I said that I wanted to make much sharper progress at ministerial question times and Prime Minister's Questions. That has happened. Colleagues right across the House will tell you that far more questioners are being called. I'm making greater progress down the order paper. People are playing ball and that is good for the opportunities for backbenchers and the opportunity to scrutinise ministers. I've said people should stick to the question - there shouldn't be long preambles. We need pithy inquiries and pithy responses, and we've made huge progress in that respect. Secondly, on government statements I've indicated that I want the ministerial statement to be of a certain length and it shouldn't exceed it, and there should be plenty of opportunity not just for opposition frontbenchers but for backbench members to question. And time and time and time again, Sophie, in addition to the progress we've made at Question Time, I've been able to say that everybody who wanted to be called to ask a question on a government statement has been able to do so. My tactic has been to say thirty people want to get in, brevity is required both from the questioner and from the minister. And that has happened in virtually every case of a ministerial statement. I've introduced far more urgent questions in Parliament. Now in case your viewers say well what does that mean? There is an urgent question procedure in the House of Commons. A member can apply for the right to pose an urgent question on a matter of importance to the relevant minister and to get a reply, and there's usually then 15, 20, 25 minutes debate on the subject. Typically I've been granting an urgent question a week. That injects into the proceedings of Parliament an urgency, a topicality and a vitality that were previously missing. It's sometimes uncomfortable for the government, though it is actually good in the name of good government, but it's good for Parliament and that's what I want to see.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: And what about Prime Minister's Question Time? I mean that's still, that's still you know the Punch and Judy politics that still goes on, the yaboo politics. Do you want to change that? Do you think that should be changed? Should it be toned down or not?

MR SPEAKER: I'd hesitate to say that it should be toned down. Prime Ministers Questions has always been a lively and robust occasion, and I think that that's going to continue to be the case. I think it is important that there's plenty of time for backbenchers and, therefore, I have been keen to emphasise that although the exchanges between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are very important, they're not the whole story. Backbenchers want on behalf of their constituents to pose questions to the Prime Minister and they should have the chance to do so. It's important too that answers should be from the Prime Minister and from ministers at ministerial question times on matters for which the government is responsible. So some members of the public complain that ministers talk too much about the policy of the opposition. Well I am discouraging that. I have several times had to upgrade ministers and say I must ask the minister to focus on his policy or her policy and not that of the opposition. So in answer to your question, again there we're making real progress. Is it perfect? No. Could it be better? Yes.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: (over) Is it too acrimonious? Is it too acrimonious at the moment? I mean you see … you listen to the exchanges between party leaders. Do you feel it's too acrimonious?

MR SPEAKER: It's not for me to say it's too acrimonious. I think a lot of the argument is about issues, it's about principles, it's about policies. So if you're suggesting or inquiring whether too much of it is personality focused, I think I would say that's not the case. Most of the arguments are on great issues of political difference - difference of policy, difference of outlook, difference of principle - between the different political parties. And that is as it should be. Would I like it to be a little less boisterous, a little more reflective, a little more dignified? Yes and I'm trying.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: In terms of scrutinising government ministers - Lord Mandelson, are we going to see him answering questions in the House of Commons, Lord Adonis?

MR SPEAKER: I do strongly believe myself that members of the government who sit in the House of Lords should be accountable to the elected House because otherwise, Sophie, there is a democratic deficit and that is wrong. How do you achieve that change? You need to have support from the different political parties. The Speaker can't do it on his own. And if you're arguing for change because you think in principle it's needed, you then have to consider what model. You could have members of the House of Lords answering questions in the subsidiary chamber of the House of Commons - namely Westminster Hall. That's one possible approach and I think it has much to commend it. A second approach would be to say that Lords ministers could come to the bar of the House and answer questions there. There is a third option of Members of the House of Lords coming into the Commons, performing at the despatch box and sitting on the green leather benches, but I know that a lot of people would say that that breaches a sacrosanct principle that only elected Members of Parliament should sit in the House of Commons. So it may well be that option one, Westminster Hall, or option two, the bar of the House, would be a good way forward.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: And how soon could that be?

MR SPEAKER: It could be achieved in a matter of months, or even possibly a matter of weeks if there were agreement to it. It isn't something that I can trigger alone. What I think I can safely say is that Lords ministers are not reluctant to take part in this exercise. There is a considerable keenness and enthusiasm on the part of some of those ministers who may see it as an opportunity for them, but who I think also recognise that they do have a duty to the House of Commons. So the short answer to your question is if we're all agreed or most of us accept that change is needed, we should identify an agreed approach and get on with it.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Let's look back, as we finish, just at your extraordinary appointment. I mean they were extraordinary times and the scenes in the House of Commons on the night and the day that you were appointed were extraordinary in themselves. And just it was the … the lack of support that you seem to have got from your Tory colleagues. There was an awful lot of venom as well post your election. What … How do you look back on that now?

MR SPEAKER: It's not something to which I give a lot of thought, to be honest. I believe that the best response to doubt, criticism and scepticism is good performance. It would be quite wrong and very unseemly for me to have engaged in some sort of war of words with my critics or detractors, and I have not done so. What I've done instead is tried to demonstrate what I said all along - namely if you elect me, I will be competent, I will be fair, I will defend the rights of Parliament - and that is precisely the approach that I have adopted. So I have not frankly been very bothered about it at all.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: (over) What do you put it down to? What do you put it …

MR SPEAKER: (over) I've had a lot of support from different political parties.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: But what did you put …

MR SPEAKER: (over) I had support from six different political parties, which was more than any other candidate was able to command.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: But what did you put it down to - that venom? I mean is it your political journey from the far right of the Tory party to talk of you almost defecting to Labour, which was you know spoken of at the time? What do you put that down to - the fury?

MR SPEAKER: I think there were a number of factors. I think first of all a lot of members of my former party, the Conservative party, tended to feel that the Speaker ought to be a somewhat older colleague who had served in the House for rather longer. A lot of them had a particular candidate in mind, a very good candidate who sought election and received a good deal of support. So that was one factor - they just felt instinctively and intrinsically that it was wrong to have a young member. Secondly, I think there were people who felt that I didn't fit the bill because I wasn't sufficient of a team player; that I had worked with other political parties.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: (over) A careerist is what some people called you, wasn't it?

MR SPEAKER: Well I hardly think I tick the box of being a careerist. I was a member of the Shadow Cabinet and I resigned from the Shadow Cabinet of my own volition on a matter of principle. It didn't advance my career at all. So I think the charge of careerism is extraordinarily ill-judged and it simply isn't backed up by the evidence. The fact is that I'd worked with members of other political parties on international development, on human rights, on special educational needs, and frankly, Sophie, I make no apology for that whatsoever. (SR tries to interject) All of those issues have been important to me. I would just say I think these things to you. First of all, it's not a bad thing to have a Speaker, someone who is notably independent of party and who is pretty much in the centre of the political spectrum. I was proud to be a Tory Member of Parliament for twelve years, proud to represent Buckingham as a Tory, proud to have voted with my party 99% of the time as the record shows.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Okay, but …

MR SPEAKER: But I was independent minded, I am independent minded. I'm not in anybody's pocket. And I also said in the election look, it won't be difficult for me to be a fair minded and impartial Speaker because I've served on Speaker Martin's panel of chairmen for four years, I've been accustomed to chairing debates, chairing Bill committees, chairing delegated legislation committees and being a non-partisan figure who, if anything, is simply the leader of the good order and fair play party.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Your wife is now standing as a … as a Labour candidate in local elections. Does that not make your life difficult?

MR SPEAKER: I don't think that makes my life difficult. First of all, my wife isn't my chattel, she's my wife. She is a private citizen who has her own views and is an independent person. And it has long been known that my wife is a supporter of the Labour party, so I don't think there's anything odd, embarrassing, and certainly there's nothing underhand about it. I think the second point that I would make is that there is a precedent here. My predecessor, Speaker Martin, served for nearly nine years as Speaker of the House of Commons, throughout which time, if memory serves me correctly, his son served - as he continues to serve - as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. And I think my predecessor's wife continued to be a Member of the Labour party. So there's nothing odd about it. And I think what I would say to you on the subject of my wife and her political affiliation is that I have been accustomed, as she's been accustomed, to criticism. We've been used to Sally being described as a cross between Jerry Hall and Lady Macbeth, and it seems now that I have to get used to the idea that she will be judged to be a cross between Jerry Hall, Lady Macbeth and Eva Peron, and frankly I'm very relaxed about it. Most fair minded people would accept that my wife is perfectly entitled to her political affiliation. She is not the Speaker. I serve as Speaker and I serve fairly and impartially as between members of parties and as between members of parties and independents. She's free to do as she thinks fit. There is a proportion of people in the media and beyond who entertain the old-fashioned, sexist idea that of course the spouse must do as she's told. Well I totally reject that and I think there'll be huge numbers of people out there who will absolutely accept it when I say my wife is independent of me, she's a free citizen, she's perfectly entitled to stand as a party candidate in a local election or indeed another election if she so wishes. It doesn't in any way reflect upon my absolute commitment to be impartial and fair, and the record of impartiality and fairness that I've demonstrated.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: How do you want to be remembered when you leave the post of Speaker in however many years to come? How do you want to be remembered?

MR SPEAKER: I want to be remembered for two achievements. First, I want dramatically to enhance the role of the backbench Member of Parliament in the House of Commons. The backbencher has got to achieve centre stage in our political, democratic, inquisitorial process. That seems to me to be of the essence and I'm determined to contribute to as many reforms as possible that will help the backbencher, either acting individually or acting collectively, in the work of holding the government to account - questioning, probing, scrutinising, exposing, doing the job of an effective inquisitor and legislator. Secondly, I really want to reconnect Parliament with the public. Of course that's partly about expenses reform. It's about internal reform within the institution to makes us more effective in scrutinising ministers. But it is also about the job of advocacy, of being an ambassador, of explaining what we do and of engaging in a dialogue with the public. Since I became Speaker in June this year, I've had the pleasure of speaking to children and young people at no fewer than a dozen schools right across the country in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is but a part of the Outreach project in which I am engaged, but it's quite an important part because children and young people are our future. They're the future of the country, they're the future of our politics, and it seems to me very important when not in the Chair to get out and about, to meet people, talk about what we do, explain how we're changing and listen to their views. Getting out, meeting young people, going to public institutions, engaging with members of voluntary bodies is a crucial part of the process of trying to create and sustain a bond of public trust between Parliament and the public, and I'm absolutely committed to it.

SOPHIE RAWORTH: Mr Speaker, thank you very much.

INTERVIEW ENDS

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version