I hadn’t really expected the Speaker of the House of Commons to take this interview with a student newspaper very seriously. I’d envisaged arm chairs, tea and polite conversation. Instead I was lead, along with the media advisor who was overseeing our interview, to an enormous official desk where a teapot has certainly never been welcomed. Here I was allowed to ask my (stricly political) questions. I was interested to find out how Bercow got started on his political career and what advice he would have for any budding student politicians, before delving into his world as Speaker and those all-important reforms.
For anyone excited by the words ‘Bercow’ and ‘House,’ I should warn you that this is a strictly professional interview. Sally Bercow and Big Brother scoops will have to be left to better journalists who don’t arrive in Westminster in their old school uniforms .
The Student
The young John Bercow began his climb into the Speaker’s chair with a “degree of controversy.” I was interested to know whether he thought that his student membership in the FCS and the Monday Club, (both right wing) youth organisations, were a hindrence or a help to the start of his political career. “I still feel that, on the whole, it was a help because I did manage to develop skills as a campaigner. Although my own involvement in student politics involved a degree of controversy, and to some extent that has always been part of the commentary about me, my feeling is that it got me started in politics.”
Politics for Bercow had a “magnetic attraction from the age of about 18 onwards.” Indeed, it was clearly a calling; “I think that politics as a career is attractive if you value, or even relish, the chance to represent a body of people and perhaps, in relation to matters that are of great interest to you, to make a difference in your area and to the country. The distinctive point about a career as a politician is the chance both to help the body of people, tens of thousands in your own area, and potentially, either as a back bencher or perhaps as a minister, to make a difference to the fortunes of the country as a whole.’
Bercow advocates many different ways of getting into politics, from Student organisation groups, as he himself did, to having sympathy with single issue campaigns, “not necessarily a political party…whether it be fighting global poverty or protecting the environment.”
Bercow, unlike his ex-collegues and fellow Tories David Cameron and Boris Johnson, had an education removed from their silverspoon upbringings. The son of a taxi driver, Bercow didn’t make it to the local Grammer school, and now is keen to help young people who are trying to make it in Parliament without a public school education behind them.
Bercow has headed up the Parliamentary Placement Scheme, which “is intended to try to help people who are able and interested in working in parliament but who cannot afford to work for nothing, and either live in London or travel to and from at their own expense.” Bercow explains how he came up with this scheme as due to being “conscious that there are people working as interns in Parliament for nothing because they are fortunate enough to come from a relatively prosperous home.” Bercow goes on to explain that whilst he isn’t knocking that, (adding a jovial “good luck to them!”) he clearly is a believer that politics is for all. “I think it’s very unfair on those people who have the ability, and who want to work in parliament, but who simply can’t afford to work for nothing, that they therefore don’t get the chance. The idea of this scheme is to be financed by commercial sponsors, with an independent body overseeing and running it. It will identify such capable and committed people who come from financially poorer backgrounds and give them the chance to work here for a year being looked after and paid at least the minimum wage. It’s very small scale but it’s a start for ten or 12 people a year.”
The Speaker
Bercow is famously single minded, and found it difficult to abide by the party line, frequently finding himself returning to the backbenches where he could hold his own opinions. “I don’t miss being a backbencher,” He says, adding “I don’t think I ever had much influence over my party’s line. There are people who kindly said that, over a period, they found that the views I’d been expressing started to be more widely accepted, for example, equality-related matters, like when I first spoke out about gay equality.”
The biggest sacrifice that any politician has to make upon becoming Speaker is the right to hold opinions. I discovered how seriously Bercow takes this clause when I tried to pick his brains on tution fees. He was not easily drawn in. Bercow told me he doesn’t miss speaking out, because “I genuinely don’t think that I have anything particularly intellectually original to contribute to debates in parliament, there are certainly people in Parliament who are known for having original thoughts, and I don’t put myself in that category.” And yet, “I am sufficiently self confident (some people would say arrogant) to think that I have something to contribute in the House of Commons and so, some years ago, I decided that if the opportunity arose that I might like to have a crack at the role of Speaker. I regard it as a huge honour and privilege to serve as Speaker.’
The MP
The people of Buckingham, with The Speaker representing them as MP, can’t vote for any major political parties. “Some people feel they should be allowed to vote Conservative or vote Labour,” Bercow concedes. There is a suggested alternative, whereby the Speaker gives up his constituency and is MP for ‘St Steven’s Seat’, a constituency without any constituents, named after the St Steven’s entrance to Parliament.
“Somebody has to be Speaker,” Bercow replies, “and the constituents regard it as an honour to have the Speaker as their MP. You could have a separate seat for the Speaker and let Buckingham have its own party elections…Historically the House hasn’t wanted the Speaker to be put into some separate box. But Parliament has always rather liked the idea that the Speaker should have constituents and be subjected to constituent pressures, and be reminded of issues which are important to constituents.”
On one point however, Bercow was adamant. “People can have whatever view they want on whether it is undemocratic not to have a full Parliamentary election. What I feel very strongly about is the idea put about by some people (through lack of information or through malice) that the Speaker is thus neutered and can’t represent people anymore, and is somehow too busy to be the local MP. That is a preposterous line of argument that has no logic whatsoever. In one sense I am more effective. My letters get answered more quickly than they used to. And if I am dissatisfied with something, I can ask a minister for a meeting.” It is, Bercow goes on to explain, a great mark of shame in the British Constituency “if a minister so hacks off the Speaker that he demands to see them.” Apparently a meeting with the Speaker and “without coffee” is a threat in Westminster that holds serious sway. By this point in the interview I was willing to believe this. “I have lost count of the number of ministers who have come here to see me about matters that affect Buckingham. I do not accept that the Speaker can’t do anything, and I like to think I am still an effective Conservative MP.”
The Reformist
Bercow’s young daughter described him as the man who “sits in the chair.” It is from this chair that Bercow controls Prime Minister’s Question Time with extreme authority. “Order, order, I would like the house to calm down and reflect on what the public think of this kind of behaviour.!” he bellows across the floor. Tony Blair once commented that Bercow might “find it quite difficult [to] be quiet.” And now, no longer a backbencher, Bercow is trying to reform the House of Commons and reserves his frustration for the topic of MPs’ behaviour.
“I would say there are always some people who are determined to flout the rules or behave in an exhibitionist fashion. The trouble is there is always a herd instinct. People behave differently in a mass situation to how they would behave at their own dinner table…Well they shouldn’t!” I gently took the opportunity to point out that he interrupts the Tory party almost twice as often as the Opposition. “I think it is a particuarly facile and stupid notion that the only way you can prove that you are being fair is to interrupt an equal number of times,” he retorts, “and if you don’t, that this is somehow evidence of bias. This is a preposterous and intellectually bankrupt line of argument…I think that the most fair-minded back benchers on both sides would say ‘you can never please everybody, Mr Speaker does his best to ensure everybody gets a fair chance.'”
A sympathiser with the plight of being a backbencher, Bercow has set about “giving more opportunity and power” to them. “I’ve insisted on shorter questions and shorter answers,” he explains, “it’s something that has gone down well with colleagues. If they come into the Chamber and see on the list of questions that they are number 16, whereas in the past this meant they had very little chance of being reached, they know now that they have a very good chance, and will be able to pipe up on behalf of their constituents.”
Furthermore, in the past two years, Bercow has granted a staggering 74 Urgent Questions, eclipsing Speaker Martin who only granted two in his last year. An Urgent Question, which as Bercow explains is a “device which enables any Member of Parliament to petition the Speaker for permission to require the presence of a minister to answer this matter which is urgent because it has suddenly arisen.” Using the urgent question is something he feels has gone down well with his collegues, and also the media. Whilst support on this issue is appreciated, as with all MPs, Bercow has a tempestuous relationship with the media, and the media with the House. This is something he is trying to change. “I am trying to lessen the role of the media, in the sense that I am trying to cut down on or cut out the very bad habit whereby ministers in successive governments have leaked things to the media instead of coming to the House.” This normally happens, Bercow explains, when an MP is trying to get a “particular advantage or spin a policy positively in the media, or get bad news out… to kill it rather than to explain themselves to Parliament.”
The great thing about Bercow’s free hand with the Urgent Question is that, when the government has leaked material, they can be “forced to come to the House and explain themselves.
“I have also tried to improve things in the sense that, when ministers do make statements to Parliament, I try to get everybody who wants to ask a question into the exchange, so that instead of just cutting it off after half an hour or forty minutes, I tend to let it run fairly fully. As far as possible I try to ensure that all of those backbenchers have the chance to say what they think.”
The reforms don’t stop here however. “I’m still not happy yet that Prime Minister’s Questions has been reformed to the extent at which it would be desirable…I still think that it’s often extraordinarily noisy and there is far too much heckling and abuse, and although I know the media love it, they make the mistake of thinking that, because they love it, the public love it, and I dont think that the public do love it. I think the public accept that it should be lively and every now and again boisterous, and passions can be inflamed and there are strong opinions, and there’s no harm in a bit of noise; that’s always been the case in Parliament. But I don’t think it is helpful when there is an enormous amount of barracking and the Prime Minister has to shout to be heard… I think that the public think it is rather juvenile.”
I ask whether increasing the force of the legislature and making it, as Bercow once said in a speech, more than just a “rubber stamping operation”, wouldn’t best be done by introducing an American-style separation of powers. Bercow didn’t agree; “it wouldn’t be something for the Speaker to advocate,” he explains, “we have not evolved in the way the United States has evolved… On the whole, our focus is on democratic accountability, to ensure that those people who hold power are answerable for its exercise. One of the disadvantages of the complete separation of powers that applies elsewhere is that ministers are not directly accountable to the representatives of the people. In our sysetm, ministers do sit in Parliament and are answerable to the House of Commons in every direct sense. I think that is very desirable. I sense there is an appetite for subjecting ministers to close, regular, intense questioning so that their policies have to be explained, justified and defended whenever parliament wants them to be… The Prime Minister is making more statements to Parliament than were made in the past and it is absolutely right and proper that our Prime Minister should come to the House of Commons to explain his policies and the reaction to his leadership of great events.”
As an explanation for his opinions, and for the lack of warning that Bercow gives for the length he allows statements to run on (during the riots, David Cameron was on his feet for two and a half hours) Bercow says “the Prime Minister has the supreme responsibility of running the country, but it’s my responsibility to chair the proceedings of the House, and I can’t be subcontracted to anybody else. I have to do it myself. and to try to stand up for the interest of Parliaments and not be on one side or the other, but to stand up for the rights of Parliament.”
The Man
If he had his time again, would Bercow in fact have rather been Prime Minister? “Oh no, without hesitation I’d say I’d rather be speaker. I don’t actually think I was particularly suited to being a minister,” he admits.
“One of the things about being a minister is that you’re a member of a team and therefore you have a collective line on pretty well everything… since I was often out of sympathy with the official line and didn’t find it at all easy or desirable to keep silent about that fact, I would spout my own views which were not consistent with the official line. As a minister you have to shut up and accept that.” This was not the answer I was expecting. I had thought that Prime Minister was the position at the top of the greasy pole, towards which every single ambitious politician must be slithering towards. But apparently, for Bercow, this is not the case. “Whilst I have respect for the Prime Minister, in the same way I have great respect for his predecessor, (both very able people in different ways) they have great power, and enormous responsibility. The enormous responsibility with an enourmous invasion of privacy and pressure on their family life (quite apart from the fact I think I would have been a lousy Prime Minister), meant I didn’t for one moment think that I would be, and never had any ambition to be, I can assure you of that. I think that it’s a very very burdensome role. Whilst being Speaker is a demanding role and I think I work hard doing my constituency duties, it’s nothing like as pressured as the role of Prime Minister. And for me, it is hugely enjoyable and stimulating. So if you think I am trying to make a virtue of necessity that is genuinely not the case. Look me in the eye and say ‘John did you ever want to be prime minister?’” I look him in the eye, the question implied; “the honest answer is ‘no.'”
Bercow went on to add, howover, “I never had any intention to become Speaker. I have to admit it had never occurred to me. It was in 2003 someone first mentioned it to me and around 2005 I decided when the chance came, I’d like to have a go at it. But I find it the most rewarding role that I have ever undertaken in my life. I always feel that I am very lucky to be MP for Buckingham which I thoroughly enjoy. In the event that I die tomorrow, which I have no intention to do, I would die a happy man. I have a job I love and a wife and family that I love as well.”
Despite being comparatively young for the job of Speaker (he was only 46 when he stood) Bercow made it clear he would only be standing for two terms; eight or nine years. The question of what he will do after his terms are up prompted him to tell me about the time an (anonymous) MP asked him this question, and Mr Bercow replied “how many un-employed ex-Speakers do you know?” But to me he said he would like to remain interested in public affairs. “In the old days you could be Speaker and then go on to be minister afterwards, but that doesn’t happen now. It would be unimaginable. I would try to do something useful and constructive. But day to day I’m thinking about how I could do the job of Speaker better. I don’t want to have held the job just saying ‘look at me, I’m the Speaker,’ I am actually trying to do something with the role.”