Loading summary
Transcript96 lines
- [00:00]
John Burko
Right.
- [00:01]
Tony Travers
Very good evening to you all. Thank you all for coming. My name is Tony Travers from the Government department and LOC London here at the school, and I'm chairing this evening, which is very much focused on our speaker, who is the speaker of the House of Commons, John Burko. If I just begin what we're going to just say, spell out what I'm going to do here, we're going to have a conversation for about half an hour and then there will be an opportunity for half an hour to make it possible for questions to be asked and full interaction with even those right at the top of the circle. So there will be an opportunity, in addition to what we're going to start with, to ask the speaker questions directly. What I'll do, just as a very beginning to the event, is to first to thank John Burko for coming here this evening to be grilled. Partly grilled by me, partly grilled by you, to say that he is the Member of Parliament for Buckingham, has been so since 1987. He was elected as a Conservative and served under Ian Duncan Smith and and Michael Howard in their shadow cabinets. I think it's widely accepted that he started life as a radical on the right of the Conservative Party and is widely seen as having moved right to the centre of British politics. In his career in politics. In 2005, he was the Channel 4 Hansard Society opposition MP of the year. And now, as the speaker of the House of Commons, is independent of party politics. Indeed, as the speaker is the presiding officer of the House of Commons, which, as I'm sure many of you realize, is an incredibly important role in the House of Commons, given its pivotal role within sovereign Parliament. John Burko was born in London. In his youth, was a tennis player. Of note, I have learned after university, was briefly involved with the Federation of Conservative Students and then was briefly a merchant banker. Merchant bankers are respectable. They were the good parts of banking before it all went to the wrong. Anyway. Perhaps I could begin, John Burko, by asking you about the role of the speaker in the UK House of Commons. I mean, the House of Commons is the by far the most important part of Parliament. It is part of Britain's unwritten constitutional mechanisms. And given the enormous power of the House of Commons, Lord Hailsham memorably described that the majority is produced by the House of Commons as being akin to an elected dictatorship, and therefore the balance between the executive and the legislature is very important. How do you see your role in that system within the UK constitutional arrangement?
- [03:36]
John Burko
Traditionally, the Role of the speaker has been to act as a referee of, but not a player in the game. I say traditionally. I think there is a sense, Tony, that that should continue to be the case. Whatever else might usefully change as the role evolves, that concept of the impartial referee still stands. So first and foremost within the chamber, the Speaker's duty is not to take sides as between one party and another, or as between members of parties who of course are by far the majority in Parliament and those who sit as independents, but rather really to serve as the leader of the Good Order and Fair Play party. It is my job to make sure that people play by the Parliamentary rules, that they don't speak for too long and if they do, they're prevented from doing so. That people don't use unparliamentary language, that people don't accuse others of dishonesty, which they're not supposed to do, they're perfectly well able to make their case without resort to such techniques or devices. So it's that concept of the referee that's important. Or one might say that the role is analogous to that of a head teacher in a school in the sense that you're there to keep order, encourage participation and cut down on the number of people excluded altogether as a result of bad behavior. So I think that in a sense, in day to day terms is the essence of it. But I think there are two other roles that are worth mentioning as part part of the Speaker's functions. One is the role of the speaker as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission, which is by way of being an employer on the Parliamentary estate, responsible for the staff, services and property of the estate. There are 6,000 or thereabouts people employed on the Parliamentary estate and the speaker chairs the commission and quite a lot of other committees of the House. So you have an oversight role, a sort of cross between an Executive Chairman and a non executive chairman. And the other thing you do is meet and greet people from across the country and around the world, seeking to spread goodwill and understanding of what Parliament does and to learn more about what others do. So if there are three functions, it's chairing in the Chamber, chairing the Commission and associated bodies, and meeting and greeting.
- [06:13]
Tony Travers
Given that you'd been a Member of Parliament for one political party, you've been elected in that way, moving into the role of this independent person, representing in a sense all 650 MPs, is that an awkward or difficult change to make? You've been partisan for most of your Life, at least, and then suddenly going into this position where the one thing you can't be is partisan.
- [06:42]
John Burko
I won't say that I haven't noticed the change, because obviously when you are a backbencher, you are able to speak, you can contribute to debate, you can ask questions written and oral, you can table motions, you can sign motions, you can raise points of order, you can offer your opinions. And once you speak out, you can't do that on the vast majority of matters and you can't do it at all, really, within the Chamber. So there is a change and I have noticed it. It would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Has it on the whole been difficult? The answer to that, Tony, really, in all candour, is no. And the reason why that hasn't been difficult, whether people think I'm making a good job of it, of the job of speaker, is another matter. The reason why I haven't found that transition difficult is really twofold. First of all, I had some training in the role that the speaker undertakes sitting on Speaker Martin, my predecessor, Speaker's panel of chairs who chair bill committees, statutory instrument committees, debates in the subsidiary Chamber of Parliament, Westminster Hall. I've been doing that for four years, so quite a lot of my Parliamentary time had been devoted to that referee role, in any case. And the second reason why it hasn't been such a great change is that, as is, I think, not a total secret, I had for some time, whilst maintaining my basic allegiance to and overwhelmingly voting with the Conservative Party, pursued a variety of issues near and dear to my heart that aren't intrinsically party political. I'm passionate about the fight against global poverty, the battle for human rights worldwide and the cause, to name but one other example, of provision for children with special educational needs. Now, these are important matters, but they're not inherently party political. And I was used to working with other Conservatives, but also with Labour, lib demons and others in pursuit of those issues and my objectives in relation to them. So I had got fairly bored with some of the more predictable and rebarbative party politics and hadn't had much hand in it for a while.
- [08:48]
Tony Travers
Well, that leads me on to what I was going to ask next, which is, what did you feel that? Or what drew you to the role of Speaker? I mean, what was it about the role that made you think I could presumably improve the way this is done, or at least I would, you know, could bring something to it?
- [09:10]
John Burko
I was self confident enough and some of you might think arrogant enough to think that I got something to offer Parliament. I didn't want to be a minister and I didn't expect to be asked to be and I didn't think I'd be very good at it. Partly because I don't consider I got anything particularly original to contribute and partly because I'm not a very good team player. And I thought to myself, well, I wouldn't be much good as a minister. I'm not going to be asked anyway if my party gets into government, do I think I've got something else to offer? Answer yes, I think I would be good as some speaker for a number of reasons. First of all, I like to think I'm a competent chair, I'm fair minded. I'm used to facilitating, letting people get in, hearing different points of view and I flatter myself. I've got a moderately good memory which is quite useful in the chair. You can actually remember people sitting around the chamber, what their names are, which their constituencies are as well. But perhaps more substantially, I thought, well, the role of the speaker should evolve, it shouldn't just stay the same. There's much more the speaker could help to do in two key respects. First, in the process of trying to deliver Parliamentary reform, making for a stronger, better, more assertive House of Commons to hold the Government of the day to account and to scrutinise it more dispassionately and effectively. And secondly, I felt, well, this is not to knock or criticise my predecessors, they did the job according to their own lights. But circumstances change and I felt, well, if we're going to recover respect, we've not only got to clean up politics by sorting out the expenses system, we've got to be prepared as a Parliament and the speaker as its representative to get out, to do outreach, to engage with communities. We won't, in my opinion, recover self respect by dressing up in fancy and old fashioned uniforms and looking and sounding and feeling important. We'll recover self respect for the institution and the profession of politics only by being willing to talk, to hear from and take account of other people. And I think I can do that. I'm trying to do that tonight.
- [11:26]
Tony Travers
I mean, you said that you want to implement an agenda for reform, for renewal, for revitalization and for the reassertion of the core values of this great institution, meaning Parliament. Now, the implication of that statement, which I found, is that these things have fallen into a pretty sorry state. Parliament is not held in high esteem. And what kind of reform, renewal and revitalization would you, or do you think you could Bring or encourage from the.
- [12:02]
John Burko
Chair, there are a number of things. First of all, in no particular order, we've absolutely got to sort out the expenses system. I know this is very inward looking, but until we tackle that, we won't be allowed to rejoin the national conversation. So we've got to sort out that system in the light of the debacle of the law last 12 months, through the replacement of existing discredited and antiquated arrangements with an expenses rather than allowances system. Quite an important distinction, an expenses system. The reimbursement of specific costs incurred as opposed to a general entitlement to spend a certain amount over a period with no questions asked. A system based on equity, transparency, audit and accountability. So that's crucial because once we've done that, once we show through the Thomas Legg process, the review of claims over the last five years, the results of which to be published in the next couple of weeks, support, I hope, for Christopher Kelly's proposed reforms of the system, making a much tighter system in the future, establishment of the independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, regular publication of everything that we've claimed, all the rest of it. Once we've done that, I think we've cleared out the Aegean stables, if you like. And I think that's incredibly important. The second thing, which I think is very important, is to recognize that it's not just the expenses system that made people think that politics is broke. It predated that. And if we dealt only with expenses, it would post dated as well. We've got to put the backbench member of Parliament in a different position, catapulting that member from the stalls to centre stage. I'd like to see backbenchers more empowered individually in terms of the frequency with which they can ask questions, the chance to table motions on the floor of the House in a way which members can't. At the moment, I would like to see backbenchers empowered collectively through select committees, where the House elects its own chairman of a select committee or chairwoman. The idea that we should have select committees which exist to scrutinize the executive, having their membership and chairs hand picked by the executive, is so transparently absurd and objectionable that only an extraordinarily sophisticated person could fail to see the need for change. And I think the House should be in charge of its own timetable at the moment, the government business managers determine what's debated and at the very least we must have a business committee for the allocation of non government time, that is to say, the consideration of issues which are not the subject of government bills. So those are the sorts of reforms that we need. I'd like to see the House sitting in September. It's absurd that we away from our place of work for so long, even though members are working in their constituencies. I'd like to see Lords Ministers accountable to the House of Commons. Andrew Adonis, Lord Adonis. Peter Mandelson. Lord Mandelson ought to be accountable to members of the elected House. These are just some of the reforms I'd like to see. Can I deliver them on my own? No, I can deliver them by agreement across the House. The small number of things I can do, I've tried to do. I've spotted speeded up progress at question time. We get a lot further down the list of questions now because I do try to move it along at a greater pace. And if I may, in my own calls, mention one other reform I've introduced, which I promised I would introduce if elected. There's a thing called the urgent question procedure, whereby members of Parliament, often the official opposition, but not always, can apply for permission to ask an urgent question of the government with a minister obliged to replace apply on the floor of the House. In the previous 12 months before I was elected, I think there were about four of these granted purely in the gift of the speaker to grant or not Grant. I've had 17 in the first seven months. Not because it's a statistical game, but because oftentimes, irrespective of which government is in power, Governments don't offer to make statements about policy matters to Parliament, particularly if they're a bit awkward or difficult, and if they don't offer to make statements and others say, come on, let's have an exchange, I think that exchange ought to be granted.
- [16:25]
Tony Travers
The way you describe that, which is very clear, also contains the essence of a problem, doesn't it, which is that to some degree, members of Parliament who are not members of the government have allowed themselves over time, not just during this government, to be maneuvered by the executive, by the government, into a position where they backbenchers, do not give the government of the day, they don't scrutinise it enough, don't hold it to account enough, and are not independent of it enough. Now, if that is to change, those same MPs are going to have to empower themselves, possibly via you, to bring about that kind of change. They're the people who allowed it to happen collectively. Can you lead them, if that's the word I want to do such a thing, which would radically alter, in principle, the balance between the backbenchers, the backbench MPs and the government, which is not something any government, even after it was, certainly not after its first two weeks, is going to want to bring about is.
- [17:37]
John Burko
Well, I think that the answer to that is that unlike with radical policies, in relation to which I think it's generally true historically to say you've got more chance of getting a radical measure introduced and followed through early in a Parliament because after about mid term, natural caution applies, the party managers are nervous if a thing will work long term but be unpopular short term, and the civil service often gets hold of all the strongest ministers and discourages them from doing anything radical. So in policy terms, it's usually the case that radicalism has got its best chance in the first 18 months or two years of a Minister's term in office. But I think in this case, with reference to what you've just said, Tenny, you're absolutely right. I think the chance of getting major reforms at the start of a Parliament is actually less because I think just after an election, particularly if there's a change of government, the new government, although I would encourage it if there were one, to go for parliamentary reform, will inevitably be focused on what it considers sexier health, education, crime, the economy, etc. So actually, I think the best chance of getting through significant parliamentary reforms is at the fag end of a Parliament. Can I lead the process? I can and I am doing so. I'm doing my best at every turn to. To make the case for the thrust of what is called the Wright Committee reforms. There's a select committee of the House of Commons called the Reform Committee of the House of Commons, set up a few months ago by the government, to be fair, chaired by Dr. Tony Wright, the Labour MP for Cannock Chase, who's a noted parliamentarian and constitutional reformer. His committee has produced a report with proposals for election of select committee chairs, election of select committee members, right of private members, individual backbenchers to move motions on the floor of the House, the proposal of a business committee of the House for the allocation of non government time. All of these things are in there. I have been saying to ministers for some time now. Come on, let's get these matters factored into the timetable. You've got to respond to the report. Let's have a debate, let's have some votes, let's have some decisions. I was gratified that after some weeks of discussions behind the scenes, the Prime Minister signalled last Wednesday at Prime Minister's question time that these matters will be debated shortly in the House. We've now got a date of February 23rd. And he very helpfully said, and I'm grateful to the Prime Minister for saying this, that these matters would be the subject not only of debate, but of decisions. And it's there on the record, colleagues decisions, and I endorse that. And all I'd say to backbenchers is whatever the government whips say, in the end, people can't be forced to be free. Members have got to decide are they going to be under the thumb or are they going to assert themselves? And I hope they'll assert themselves and demand change their interests and the interests of a stronger Parliament.
- [20:28]
Tony Travers
But it does still depend on, at some level, the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, not in any way strong, arming their MPs to vote, in a sense, in all the ways they can to hold back reform. And I mean, I think what the public's going to find difficult in all of this is that there's any need to debate it, or at least any need to have to go through these behind closed doors. It takes a long time. We've got all, all these different individuals looking at it all. I mean, this sense of urgency last summer was very great. And yet the longer we move away from the white heat of the expenses scandal, there's just the sense that perhaps the party leaders, in their collective best interest, think perhaps they can leave it all where it is.
- [21:23]
John Burko
Well, you raise a very fair point. There's a slight divide between what people out there including here, might think is sort of commonsensical and obvious and why not get on with it and the political class? And Tony, basically my answer to that is, I accept that point. You may think, well, you know, why should it require long consideration, procrastination and delay? I don't think it should. Things in politics often move quite slowly. But what I think has changed is this. In the past there was often talk of parliamentary reform, but I think there were a number of things that held it back. First of all, there was a sort of sense of make me virtuous, but not just yet. It was always sort of thought to be of interest, but a second string, second order type issue. Secondly, the whips were strongly opposed to change and tended to throw their weight around. And thirdly, in the past, the speaker had no particular oomph in this matter, even if the speaker was a keen reformer, which wasn't always the case. What's changed is, in short order, first, there's a general recognition in Parliament that we cannot go on like this and we've got to reform and improve, and that extends to the party leaders and even the whips. Even the whips, I think they've just about sort of got the point. They're not always quick learners, but I think they've sort of got the point. And secondly, I think that the speaker, if I may say so, has got a slightly stronger position now.
- [22:46]
Audience Member (Female Independent Candidate)
And.
- [22:47]
John Burko
And I don't say that it's because of me, but because of the way I was elected. I was the first speaker elected after formal hustings, publication of manifestos and a secret ballot. And I made all these arguments about parliamentary reform in my campaign. And I like to think that having got elected by a clear majority, I've got a bit of a mandate, and I think a combination of those factors will bring change. The only thing I can say is you don't necessarily get the whole cake in one go. Now I'd like to have the whole cake, but if I have to settle before the election for a half of the cake, well, it's better than nothing. I don't think we should be so purist that we take the view we either want all the reform we want or none. You sometimes make progress incrementally.
- [23:28]
Tony Travers
We move to the Constitution. Beyond Parliament, Britain is seen as, and indeed is, a very centralised country. There are aspects of the way Parliament is managed and the speaker manages it, which could influence that. I mean, for example, in the issue of centralisation, it would be possible for the Speaker, I assume, to rule on whether or not matters that were not directly the responsibility of national government should be debated in Parliament. Is that something you could do to tilt the balance away from everything being centrally run in Whitehall and Westminster?
- [24:12]
John Burko
The speaker can use, to some extent, his discretion to push the boundaries of debate a bit. Everything is supposed, really, that is debated in Parliament to be, and must technically be, the republican responsibility of a government department. But I think that in practice, there's lots of stuff that is heavily influenced or even dominated by the European Union, and there should be scope for that to be debated. And there are lots of matters, this is a very important point, I think, lots of matters that are not necessarily high on the Government's agenda, but which might be high on the agenda of backbench members, which should be fully, much more fully aired. And that, really, colleagues, is my point about trying to give the backbencher centre stage. You know, I'll give you an example. I'm not saying I will get this Immediately. But even when you talk about the legislative process, I don't think governments are always very sensitive to this. The report states of bills after a bill's come out of committee, report stage of bills is often a very unsatisfactory exploration of the issues because there isn't enough time. Ruthless programming prevents there being adequate time to debate important matters on which members have a view. And I remember when I was a backbencher, it was quite common for a minister to say if I intervened and raised a particular point and wanted the matter to be more fully debated, a minister would say to me, well, I say to the Honourable gentleman, this matter was aired quite fully in committee consisting of sort of anything from 16 to 24 members, to which my answer was, well, it was all very well, and Minister seeking to offer me these soothing bromides and telling me the matter was debated in committee. But I say to the minister, with great respect, I wasn't a member of the committee, I wasn't chosen by the whips to be on that committee. This is my opportunity at repeated stage to air my concerns. And I'm extremely irritated that to discuss this matter, we've got sort of 15 minutes. So I think that the government has got to be prepared, the House has got to be prepared to put itself in the position of the member who was not on the little exclusive committee but wants to air views. And I think we've got to think much more of the whole of the House representing the country than just the chosen few put on some official committee, courtesy of the government whips. People are put on committees, I either as a reward or as a punishment, they're either put on a committee, they're either put on a committee as a reward, they want to be on and they've done something good. And the whips say, yeah, you can go on the committee or else they're put on a committee in which they have not the slightest interest as a punishment. I know Kelvin Hopkins, as a Labour member in Luton, was put on the Crossrail Bill committee. Kelvin had not the slightest, bless him, he's a very great man, great interest in all those things. Kelvin had absolutely no interest in that committee whatsoever. But he'd rebelled, I think, on the tuition fee. And as a punishment, the Crossrail Bill committee sat for months, if not a year or two, and the whips put him on it as a punishment. Now, we've got to get away from that culture.
- [27:14]
Tony Travers
I mean, I'm going to open it up in about three minutes, but just looking ahead, there's clearly Significant uncertainty about the outcome. Uncertainty about the outcome of any general election. But the one that's coming up clearly could produce a range of different results, which could include a Parliament with no overall majority and indeed could be a very messy mixture of no party quite in control, with very many new members of Parliament. Do you think that in such a Parliament, your role or the role of the speaker would be radically changed?
- [27:52]
John Burko
It's a step into the unknown. I hesitate to say that it would be radically changed. It would certainly change a bit. I think any new Parliament represents a change in the sense that there would be large numbers of new members. So in a very prosaic way, it.
- [28:05]
Tony Travers
Changes, but many more than normal.
- [28:08]
John Burko
It comes to large numbers of new names and you've got to start to recognise all sorts of people you've probably never seen or come across before. So in a purely sort of procedural sense, it's a challenge for a new speaker to get to know all those new names and faces. But more substantially, I take on board the point that you're making. I think it could make for a change in the role and changes as yet anticipated. Because if the numbers are very different, and if, for example, I don't say this will happen, the Lib Dems have got a more pivotal role. If the Parliament is either higher or more balanced, there will then be an issue of the amount of time that they're allocated, how many questions do they get to ask, what sort of numbers of opposition days should they be granted? And there will probably have to be quite considered, maybe even protracted discussions about that sort of thing. I think the other thing is that, you know, if there is a more balanced Parliament, it does underline the importance of the speaker having very good links and a capacity as necessary to liaise and negotiate with people of a range of different political faiths. Now, some people say, well, I ought to be able to do that. John ought to be able to do that, because he seems to have had a number of political faiths himself over the years, and that may be true, but I did have support from people in six different parties and independence of right and left. So I hope that at least I'm attentive to and respectful of people with a range of different views and I look forward to working with them.
- [29:38]
Tony Travers
Okay, well, look, let's use that as a opportunity to bring in the audience, as they say, and I'll take them in order that I see you, I take it from microphones, heading gentlemen, there first and then there second.
- [29:56]
John Burko
Should we do two or three?
- [29:59]
Tony Travers
So One, two, and then that hand there. Okay. And keep the questions short, if you can, so we get as many in as possible.
- [30:10]
Keith Raffin
Yeah. The first point is on the legislative process, Mr. Burko, which you touched on. And I just wonder whether you think that the select committees could be more involved in that process. And what I mean by that is that, say, the Queen's speech included not just the legislation for the immediate session coming, but also the session after that, so that it would be announced in principle, so that then the select committees could actually look at that legislation and principle. It's widely accepted at the moment. There's too much legislation. It's badly drafted, and it's not scrutinized well. And as a former backbencher myself, I sat in committees quite often punished, I might add, where we spent six weeks on the first five clauses, six weeks on the first five clauses of a bill, and then we skated through the last 95 and two weeks or three or four sessions. That's clearly an abuse of the guillotine. So what I'm trying to say is lengthen the. The process. Involve the select committees so that by the time they actually come before the House, whether it's second reading and at report, and I agree with what you say about report. There actually has been a lot of work done. It might avoid things like the community.
- [31:14]
John Burko
Charge, for example, which was your constituency.
- [31:17]
Tony Travers
When were you there?
- [31:18]
Keith Raffin
I was member for. I've been in two parliaments. I was in Scottish Parliament, too, but I was member of the House of Commons from 1983-92 for Delan and Northeast Wales.
- [31:28]
Tony Travers
Okay, thank you very much. And the next one was Keith Raffin.
- [31:33]
John Burko
Keith Raffin. Hi. Yeah, sorry. And you are, by background, I think, a journalist. Yeah. All right.
- [31:45]
Tony Travers
I think you've made the point about the memory.
- [31:47]
John Burko
Very good.
- [31:49]
Tony Travers
Okay, gentleman at the back, he's you. You're on Amazon. Hi, my name is Teddy Nixon.
- [31:56]
John Burko
I'm an undergraduate at the lsc. It seems like one of the issues.
- [32:00]
Tony Travers
That is coming up at the coming election is that of electoral reform.
- [32:04]
John Burko
And without wanting to put you into politically difficult position, I was just wondering, should an electoral reform bill go through the House in the next Parliament, how.
- [32:16]
Tony Travers
Could that change the position of the Speaker? Fair enough. And we'll take one more, and then we'll. That's right, gentlemen in the middle. And that will be first off, Mr. Speaker.
- [32:26]
John Burko
Thank you.
- [32:27]
Tony Travers
I'm an American studying here in London. Thank you. And interning in Parliament. So it's a pleasure to have you and thanks to LSE for organizing this event. My question regards the makeup of the House of Commons. I was at Parliamentary Questions last week and I look out and I see lots of white men representing Great Great Britain. What can be done to ensure that the people of Great Britain are adequately represented, particularly with minorities? Okay, but three very different and good questions.
- [32:55]
John Burko
Thank you. Should select committees have a bigger and an earlier role in the legislative process? Answer yes, there's been some progress on that front already with the concept of pre legislative scrutiny having taken hold in recent years, although I think it still applies too rarely, it's more often the exception rather than the rule. I would like to see a situation in which far more bills were subject to pre legislative scrutiny by a select committee so that the concept behind it, the practicality of it, the merits flowing from it, the downsides it might cause, could be more thought thoroughly and dispassionately and with the involvement of witnesses, expert witnesses, explored before we got to a bill coming before the chamber. So the answer to your question, in essence Keith, is yes. And I think that you could do that by pre announcing a subsequent legislative program for the following year. That's one way of doing it. And looking at the other side of the equation, if the select committees are to do that job more effectively, which is not to knock or cavil at the work that they're already doing, that seems to me to be an argument for resourcing them better, for ensuring, of course, they've got democratic legitimacy through elected chairs and elected members of those committees. So they're not appointed by the executive. I think they should have a greater power to call witnesses. They don't always get the witnesses they want. I think that there is an argument also for saying that they should be able, at whatever point when they present reports more often, to have a chance for those reports to be debated on the floor of the House with the debate open not by the minister but by the chair of the select committee. Now that will be a real way of showing that instead of the parliamentary game being dominated by the government of the opposition front bench, we were according a status that reflected our rhetorical support for select committees in the practical management of the business of Parliament. Secondly, the question, if that doesn't address your question adequately, we'll always continue the exchanges afterwards. But I hope it's a stab. Secondly, on the question of electoral reform, that's a very interesting one. How might it change the role of the Speaker? I'm not sure that it necessarily would change the role of the speaker directly. It might in the sense that if you had electoral reform it would probably conduce to a more balanced in inverted commas house. Underlining the importance of the point that Tony and I touched on at the end of our two way exchange of the speaker building links, establishing relationships, coming to understandings with the various different parties and requiring some tactical guile for the purpose. As to the question of electoral reform, obviously I don't take a view on that. I think what I can fairly say though is that I'm not expressing a view about the merits of electoral reform or not because it's a highly charged matter in Parliament and I don't think I should. But I don't think that argument will go away if either there is a balanced Parliament or if at the coming election election one party with for example Significantly less than 40% of the vote would nevertheless to get a significant overall majority. I think if that happened, if you had a government formed by a party with much less than 40% which is what happened last time, I think it will rev up the argument about electoral reform. I just say that as a matter of what I think is political inevitability. Thirdly, from our American friends for which thanks thanks for your kind remarks. How can we make Parliament more representative? I think that this is now regarded as a priority. Prime Minister Brown established a speakers conference which is a relatively rare event under my predecessor Michael Martin, on which I served, as it happens, as a backbencher. And then I continued the chairmanship of that conference once I became Speaker. And that conference was specifically to look at how we can improve and overcome the problem here, the representation of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities in Parliament. In other words, their numbers in the population are larger than their proportion of representation in the House. And the conference has produced its report which will in due course be debated in Parliament. And I think that a range of things removing all obvious barriers that are attitudinal through education, improving physical access in what is a very old building, getting the parties to get rid of discriminatory practices in the selection of candidates, perhaps trying to provide financial help for people who would be good candidates and good MPs but find the whole process of even seeking selection almost unthinkable because they haven't got two brass farthings to rub together. And it should shouldn't just be a rich man's game and dare I say it, in extremists. If there's no improvement in female or ethnic minority or disabled people's representation at this coming Parliament, maybe we will have to look, the parties will have to look at targets or even quotas, and that's what the report says. Let's see what happens this time round. But if you're asking me do I think it's a problem that Parliament is disproportionately white, male, middle class and able bodied, the answer is I do think it's a problem. I don't think you have to have a complete mirror image. I'm not arguing for strict and mechanistic quotas, but I think that we will recover respect and we will command more interest and attention if we look and sound a bit more like the country we want to govern.
- [38:39]
Tony Travers
Okay. Right, I'll take some questions a bit nearer the front now, having other. But we'll come back to the back. So one here, one there, and I'll go back to the back. So one here. I won't forget you. Don't worry, I'll come up there next. Yes, yes, thank you for that. Very good. Right, you're on.
- [39:07]
John Burko
Mr. Speaker, we've seen, I think in the media particular, particular with the expenses scandal, a tendency to sort of conflate the illegal with regards to expenses with the merely perhaps slightly unfair. What do you think that we can do to actually.
- [39:20]
Tony Travers
That the House itself can actually do.
- [39:22]
John Burko
To recover its sort of esteem within the. Within the country as a whole?
- [39:30]
Tony Travers
Okay, should we just do. Yeah, sorry, no, no, just for efficiency's sake. There's another question somewhere there. It was, sorry, my fault. And then we'll take that one. Then I promise you we'll go up to the top circle. Yep.
- [39:46]
John Burko
One of the oddities of our parliamentary system is that you are still a Member of Parliament and you represent a constituency and you have to be re elected in June. So what I'm curious to know is how does it work for you where you don't have a party machine behind you? Who is it who delivers your leaflets? Who pays for the leaflets? Splits? Who canvases for you? Do you have a manifesto? What's the practicalities of running that campaign in those unusual circumstances, especially as you.
- [40:10]
Tony Travers
Face the more than the usual challenge as a speaker, I think it's fair to say. And then, gentlemen, there, yes, you've said that you want to see a broader view from MPs themselves. Now, the two things that seem to stop that are private members, bills which.
- [40:29]
John Burko
Have very good debates and usually upcoming.
- [40:33]
Tony Travers
Subjects very rarely get past that first stage.
- [40:37]
John Burko
And the second thing is the process.
- [40:39]
Tony Travers
Of talking out a bill. I'd like your views on those, please.
- [40:44]
John Burko
Sure. Okay. I hope I haven't misrepresented it. If I understand the questioner at the front, his point was that he felt that the media had tended to conflate, and perhaps thereby, indeed, to confuse either themselves or the public, the illegal with the merely greedy or slightly more trivial but not illegal expense claims. And how could we recover respect? I think there has been a certain amount of conflict going on. I think on the whole people can see that some claims have been very, very, very wrong. People who claim for an expense that they absolutely didn't incur and where it is demonstrable, that they didn't incur it. I don't want to comment on particular cases have obviously got a great deal to answer for. I think it is quite easy, if I may say so, for the media to concentrate on things like. Like a washing machine or a piece of furniture.
- [41:50]
Tony Travers
Trying to say it, aren't you duck houses, is what you're trying to say. Sorry.
- [41:54]
John Burko
And I'm not saying that people didn't behave very foolishly. I think some claims were very unwise, although I think it is fair for members to make the point, and this may not go down very well, that there is a difference between substantial claims and wrongful claims. Now, I've taken the view. The short answer to your question, how do we overcome this is transparency about the past. With it all out there, transparency for the future as a matter of course, not picking and choosing, but regular releases of information is critically important. And in my opinion, the other thing that's very important, important is having a system configured for us, independently of us and accepted by us. In other words, I don't think Parliament has any right any longer, in the light of what's happened, to choreograph its own expensive system, we've lost public trust. And I think we've got to accept that it is for an independent body, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, building on the work of Christopher Kelly and his committee, with the recommendations they made, to draw up a scheme, yes, to consult on it, but to implement it speedily in the next financial year. And my view is MPs should not vote again on either their expenses system or indeed, in my opinion, on their pay. I think that should be done independently of us and accepted by us. How? I think probably that's the fairest answer that I can give. There is one caveat, and you may not think that it's important, but I hope you might see that it is. In going for reform and accepting that the Daily Telegraph did, in many ways a legitimate public service in highlighting Abuses. We mustn't throw the baby out with the bath water. We don't want to end up. I don't want to end up as somebody comes from the wing of the Tory party that pays my mortgages and buys its own furniture. I don't want to end up with a system in which the only people who can afford to be members of Parliament are people who've either got inherited or made money. That is bad. People who've got ability and the commitment and the desire to be MPs should be able to become MPs. So I come back to this point that sometimes people say, oh, you know, these MP MPs, all these expenses, well, they're unjustified and entitled to complain in the light of what's happened. But let's just be clear. There's a proportion of people, a very small proportion you'll never satisfy because they think that we're all scum, that we shouldn't be paid anything, we should probably have to pay to be members of Parliament, and that colleagues, that is wrong. So there's a difference between having a system that's broke and that needs to be fixed and sort of behaving as though you don't need any exposure, defenseless system at all. I once heard one journalist, who should remain nameless, but a real chinless wonder, to be honest, absolute chinless wonder, saying on Sky News one night, well, of course, it's all very bad. It's all very bad. And I know a number of people, I know names, no pactrell, but I've got a number of friends who either claim nothing at all or they claim very little because they regard it as a privilege to be a Member of Parliament. And I thought, yeah, I think I know who your friends are. These sort of Tim nice but dim characters who probably come from wealthy backgrounds who don't need a penny. Now, we don't want to go down that route. That would be bad for politics. We want a system that's fair, that's open, that's audited, that's not over generous, that's transparent, but which is consistent with having people of ability from all backgrounds with the chance to serve. That was too long an answer. Now, the second one was in the middle there.
- [45:37]
Tony Travers
Say one word from your question to remind me.
- [45:39]
John Burko
Yes. Your question was about what sort of campaign I can fight in Buckingham. Yeah, look, I'm a hybrid. I'm a hybrid because I remain Member of Parliament for Buckingham, but with no party. But I do have to fight an election now, now and again. People say, why don't you put the speaker in a separate box called St. Stephen's Hundred Yards Around Westminster, and don't allow him to be opposed, just have him in a special seat where he's secure from competition. I don't agree with that because I think that the speaker should be in a position of having the experience of other MPs, knowing what constituents are thinking, hearing their problems, having to deal with their concerns. So I do think that the speaker should have to fight a seat. But conventionally, the major parties haven't wanted to stand against the Speaker. I think it would be quite difficult to get people to stand for speaker if the speaker knew he or she was going to be opposed at every general election by major parties. So Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats aren't planning to stand against me. In fact, they've all indicated they won't and that they support me. But I do face opposition from UKIP and the British National Party and from a couple of other independents. How do I campaign? I can't have money raised by the Buckingham Conservative Association. Formally. Individual individuals want to contribute, they can, but the Tory Party locally can't raise a fighting fund appeal for me, as it's always done in the past. Short answer to your question. How do I raise funds privately and independently through my own efforts? I've got a group called Friends of Speaker Burko trying to raise funds for me. I suspect I'll end up contributing some of my own funds and so be it. How will I campaign? I tell you this. If others want to pick a fight with me, and they're absolutely entitled to do so, I make a campaign about that. I'm not going to fight the election campaign with my hands tied behind my back. I will steer clear of a range of national partisan controversies, but I will be open about what I've said, what I've done, how I've voted. I will talk about my track record, my continuing commitment to the constituency and my determination to restore faith in Parliament. And I'm not smug, I'm not complacent. But I'm cautiously optimistic that I can defeat ukip, the BNP and the Independents.
- [47:46]
Tony Travers
And the third question was about private members bills as opposed to.
- [47:50]
John Burko
Yes, yeah, yeah, right. I think private members bills are wrongly relegated to the end of the parliamentary week. I think they should be in the middle of the parliamentary week. I'd like to see them aired and debated, not on a Friday, when most members of their constituencies put mid week Wednesday centre stage. Higher profile, more attention, greater interest, extensive opportunities for people to speak. Point one, I can't do it on my own, but I'm working on it and it's sort of in a way aligned with the question of private members motions. It's not quite the same, but that concept of a private member being able to put a motion and table a debate in Midwest I can try to steer the House in that direction. Secondly, I'm not keen on filibustering. I think it undermines the credibility of the House. Filibustering, for those who aren't familiar with the term, is deliberately talking a thing out by talking for hours and hours to try to deprive a thing of parliamentary time. I think that's old style politics. I think people think it stinks and we should move away from it. Am I trying to do so? I beg pardon? I think I could not least, and I hope I will, by highlighting some of the more egregious examples of when it's happened and saying to people out there, in a sense appealing above the heads of members to the public and saying, do you think this is fair and clever or do you think it's silly and replaceable? And I've got a feeling that I'll get the right answer. Incidentally, on the whole, it's a good idea to ask a question any important when you're fairly confident of getting the right answer.
- [49:28]
Tony Travers
And there is less filibustering than there used to be, isn't there? Because certainly bills are timetabled and the speaker can control it in the Commons.
- [49:35]
John Burko
Tony, that's a very good point. And in a sense one could argue that what's source for the goose is source for the gander. If there is timetabling, and it may sometimes be too strict, but I don't object to the idea of timetabling per se. I think it's sensible and businesslike. You know, there should be limits of time. If you have timetabling of g government bills, why shouldn't there be a timetable for private members bills that's not excessively generous but which is fair and which prevents people just acting as parliamentary vandals.
- [50:00]
Tony Travers
Okay, right now, I promised the circle a go now, so. Goodness, that's gentlemen in the middle and two of you together. They're almost together. Yes, right at the back. So as far away from the microphones as you could be. I'm sorry, sorry about that. And then out on the edge in the blue shirt after that. Okay, two of you at the back there. One, two and then three.
- [50:30]
John Burko
Good evening, my name is Hassan. A class of 94 and currently on the candidates list. What is your message to voters who have been switched off from mainstream political.
- [50:41]
Tony Travers
Parties and are intending to vote for.
- [50:43]
John Burko
The BNP or Ukip?
- [50:47]
Tony Travers
And that's it behind. Good evening. My name is Lei. Thanks for your talk this evening. Speaker, we know last week American President Obama proposed stricter regulation for banks to. To prevent them from being too big to fail. Do you think? Is it whether it is possible for UK to pass some similar laws to keep the banks from being too big to fail? And what's your opinion? Do you support such regulation? Thank you. Straying into complex financial politics, but I'm sure you've said you're prepared to say where you can and can't speak. And gentlemen, the blue shirt.
- [51:43]
John Burko
Your own political journey has been characterized as quite an extreme transition from the right to the left of the Conservative Party. I wonder whether or not you subscribe to that analysis, whether it's easier for a speaker to be accepted if he or she is seen as being moderate in his or her own party as opposed to having a very, very sort of unchanging partisan perspective. Okay. People fed up with politics may be thinking of voting for Ukip or the bnp. How people vote is a matter for them. And I don't want to say too much on this subject because electorate can do what it wills. What I think I would say is that people might want to consider two things. First, are they voting to protest or are they voting for change? If they're voting just to protest, they might vote for any number of different small parties which are not very likely to be elected and even if elected in small numbers are not very likely to exert much influence on Parliament and public policy if they're voting for change. I think there is merit in considering whether the big coalitions of the major parties, the major parties are coalitions of some different opinions are more likely to bring about that change. And the second point I think I will make at the risk of getting into some concern controversy is that whilst I as speaker would always treat elected members of Parliament from whichever party, no matter how appalling, fairly, I would always do that because that would be my duty. I think I am perhaps allowed to say that here tonight, there's no reason for me to be impartial as between the fireman and the fire, perhaps I should say the firefighter in the fire. And no reason to be impartial as between Democrats and dictators. And I hope that the mass of the people of this country, and I'm conscious of the vast numbers of languages spoken on this campus and the range of countries represented that people will vote for, parties committed to democracy, committed to faith, fairness. But it's to some sense that we are looking for the betterment of the human condition, irrespective of whether that human being is black or white, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other faith. And I hope that the country will resist the siren calls of extremists. Second question. I'm afraid I feel I can't answer that. Could we in this country pass an Obama type bill on financial regulation? Could the House of Commons do so? It could. That's a very, very political matter. It's a very important matter. But it's precisely the sort of matter on which I really can't take a view. That is for the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic parties to debate, if they want to debate it, and to come to a view. But I don't think that it's something really in which I should become involved.
- [55:01]
Tony Travers
The last question was on your own political. My own political journey. And is it easier for somebody seen to be at the centre of their party to be the speaker rather than somebody towards the edge of their party?
- [55:13]
John Burko
If I put it, I think in essence the answer to your question is yes, there's no rule. But we are talking about. About human interaction and the likelihood of one person gelling more effectively with the House than another. I think that is probably true. There are always exceptions to every rule. And you could no doubt look back in history and find examples of speakers who'd previously got very, very, very, very strong track records of hardline political opinions, some of whom went on to become Prime Minister, and in the days when that could still happen. That doesn't happen these days and it won't. So there are always exceptions to every rule. But I think in general terms that's true. I think an occupant of the chair is a more likely to get there and be more likely to hold the confidence of the House when he or she is there in post, if that person is thought to be relatively politically moderate rather than a strident advocate of a particular case. Do I accept the basic characterization of how I've shifted from the right of the Tory party to the centre now occupying new party? Yes, I think that is a matter of fact. I think in one respect, if I may say so, there were probably some people with whom my task is more difficult precisely because they object to or feel resentful of the fact that I was previously of one very firm view and have moved away from It. And although you were too polite or delicate to ask the point in those terms, let me just broach that question. How do you deal with those who resent the fact that you were elected and object to you? And I think that the answer to that is that the best response to doubt, skepticism, criticism and even hostility is not to engage in a war of words, but to try to do the job well. And I suppose what I would say to my critics are absolutely entitled to disapprove of me, dislike me, object to the fact that I was elected. I think my response would be to say, well, first, I hope you'll accept that I stood in an open contest on a platform and was democratically elected, so I do have a right to serve. And secondly, I just say to people, please judge me on the record. I'm just trying to do my job well. I'm trying to be competent, I'm trying to be fair and I'm trying to be effective in delivering reform. And surely that's the basis on which one should be judged.
- [57:35]
Tony Travers
Right, now, we're supposed to finish at 7:30, but the speakers kindly agreed if you can all bear to be kept away from the reception to carry on for perhaps another 10 minutes.
- [57:49]
John Burko
So can we.
- [57:50]
Tony Travers
Three more questions from up top. Try and keep them short. I'll do three more from down here. So, gentleman at the front there. Gentleman in the front row here. Yes. There's a woman at the top there.
- [58:03]
John Burko
Trying to make the case for.
- [58:04]
Tony Travers
Quite right.
- [58:04]
John Burko
Better treatment of women.
- [58:06]
Tony Travers
Well done. Well done.
- [58:08]
John Burko
See? Sorry, have you anything to say about the House of Lords, particularly, because if it's elected, it could be a clone of the Commons, if it's appointed, it could have more representatives of minorities, which we've been asking for.
- [58:27]
Tony Travers
Lords. Interesting. Now, gentleman in the middle and the woman at the back. Yeah. Tejas, I believe, from Canada. I was here in June on your first day as speakers, so it was quite a pleasure to see you. And speaking of beginnings, to the other end, when you're done your term as speaker, what. What would you like your legacy to be? What would you like to be remembered as having done as Speaker? And then right at the top there.
- [58:59]
John Burko
Hi. After the expenses scandal, there was a lot of disillusionment which led to a very low voter turnout and the apathy that that kind of created, I don't know, undermines the democratic process to some extent. Extent.
- [59:13]
Audience Member (Female Independent Candidate)
How do you think Parliament can encourage.
- [59:16]
John Burko
People to engage with politics? Can engage, specifically people, younger people, who have historically been bad voters, to engage with the process and to vote, which will in turn discourage, will prevent marginal and very extreme parties from getting a seat in Parliament. Okay. Do I have anything to say about the House of Lords? I'm afraid, again, I feel that although that's not specifically a matter of partisan conflict, it is a matter of intensely, strongly held different opinions within parties. It's a little bit beyond what I ought to speculate about, except I think I can say, and I hope that this is helpful because it's intended to be, that when I was a backbencher and I did have a right to express a view, I strongly favoured a wholly or predominantly elected second chamber. Now, to take on board the point, does that mean you end up with a clone of or a rival to the lower House? I don't think that that need be the case. I think that it could be elected possibly on a different method. That was what I thought at the time. I'm not saying I think that now, because, of course, I don't think anything now on these matters. When I could think, I did think, and this is what I thought, that it could be done on a different basis, possibly at a different time, probably at a different time from a general election. And I also thought that to some degree it might act as a little bit of a rival to the Commons, but that might not be a bad thing, because having a degree of creative tension between two chambers might cause rather careful thought to be given to the volume of legislation, whether a particular bill was really necessary, or could it be saved for another day or relegated to the circular filing tray. So that was my view when I was allowed to have one. As far as what I would like my legacy to be, the short answer in a sentence is that I'd like my legacy to be that I strengthened the role of the backbench member as an inquisitor of government, a scrutineer of government, and a means for delivering worthwhile change in his or her own right, rather than simply through a government majority. That's what I really want my legacy to be. I'd like people to say John was in it for backbenchers and he did something for backventures, not just by words, but much more importantly by deeds, by delivering a sustainable and discernible worthwhile change. Finally, the expenses scandal and the damage it did and the apathy it produced. And how can we rebuild, by the way? I don't wish to be pedantic, but on the whole my view is that people are disaffected from, but not apathetic about politics in Other words, I think people have got strong views about lots of things they don't necessarily fit into a party box. People often think in this consumer age, surely it's more effective to join a single issue campaign and get something done than to join join a bureaucratic structure called the political party. So political parties have got to think carefully about how to make themselves more accessible to the public, to meet at more friendly times, to use technology to communicate, to empower members, to be part of the decision making procedures within the party, and so on and so forth. I think that's a challenge for all of the parties. But what can Parliament do? In short, I think we could have a better petition system to involve the public more. I think that there is something to be said for trying to improve our topical debate procedure so that we debate matters that are much more being discussed in the Dog and Duck rather than things that simply are of interest to the political elite. And I think that Parliament and the speaker have got a job to get out and about. I had the chance to visit about 18 schools outside of the schools I always visit in my own constituency since I was elected speaker and I've had probably half a dozen at least visit me in Parliament. I've visited schools in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since I was elected to meet, to talk to and to hear from young people because I think that they are our future. And I don't think the speaker should sit in the Commons all the time dressed up in a fancy uniform. In fact, I don't dress up in a fancy uniform very much at all. I think the speaker should get out and engage with it people. I've done a function for Rethink the Mental health charity, because I think they've got important messages about the involvement of people with mental health difficulties in the political process. Critically, I had the privilege to chair the first ever meeting of the UK Youth Parliament in the House of Commons last October. Something like 3, 400, if not more NYPS members of the Youth Parliament from right across the country, coming and being the first group of people other than MPs to sit on the green leather benches and debate issues. Now, I think that was a recognition of the importance of the work of the Youth Parliament and a signal to young people that we respect their attempts to involve themselves in and contribute to our democracy. And I would like that to become a regular feature. And basically I just want to do more. I'm speaking as a National Council of Voluntary Organisations conference tomorrow and I've done a whole load of other events these Last few months. It's never enough. But I've done events like this at Essex University, I've spoken at my own university in Buckingham. I'm constantly looking for ways to engage with external audiences and I think parliamentarians have got to be prepared to do that much more regularly as part of the staple diet of parliamentary life and political communication.
- [65:09]
Tony Travers
Three more pornography. Okay, right now over here, and then gentlemen here, and yes, down there.
- [65:21]
John Burko
Okay, very good. Much of the bills that go through Parliament, the public are unaware of until the press release it when it's been voted on. What do you think can be done to let the public know what's going through Parliament before so that they can lobby their MPs? You can, you can't force people to be aware of things, but you can make much more information available on the parliamentary intranet and on the Internet. I am not the most techno enthusiastic person known to humankind, but fortunately some of the people who work with me are. If I can put it this way, I hope you'll understand this. My spirit is willing even if my flesh is weak. So I'm on your side, even though I'm pretty hopeless at these things things myself. So as far as the detail is concerned, I need to be better informed and guided by people who are better informed. But the answer is, you've got to get more information out there in ways that are accessible and we should use every possible technological device to try to familiarize people and, you know, there's a lot more to be done. You said earlier about putting a quota on the equal opportunities of representation in the House of Commons. Do you think it's fair to put a quota on if someone isn't up the job? I mean, I know that loads of people would be up to job, but putting a quota on that could introduce people that aren't necessarily the perfect people for that position. That may well be a fair point. I'd certainly. I think I use slightly loosely the word quotas in the first instance. I think there's a sort of sense that one should look at targets rather than strict quotas and target are probably preferable than quotas. The only caveat that I would insert, I mean, you do make a reasonable point. You've obviously got to have a quality threshold. But the only point I would make when people sort of say, oh, well, you know, we don't want. I'm not saying that you are saying this, but the point I would make when people do say, sometimes very forcefully, well, we don't want these all women shortlists because, you know, we don't want to end up with people who aren't up to it, you know, having substandard people selected just because they're women. I think I would say that over the years, over the decades, over the centuries been quite a lot of fairly mediocre men have been selected and elected. And so it seems to me that there's quite a strong case for trying to redress the balance. And just as a lot of mediocre men have been selected over the years, a lot of very, very, very good women have not been selected as a result of the sort of cultural bias of parties. So, yes, we need to tread fairly carefully and we mustn't sacrifice quality. But I think that the case for positive action is a strong case. I was just wondering, do you think, are there dangers in having such a high profile speaker really? And do you see Odron as being something will go on in the future against the things going back to a much more low key situation in the past year? Well, that's a very good question. Is there a danger in having a really high profile speaker and do I think that things will go on this way or might we return to having a more low key approach? I mean, ultimately it's a matter for the House and of course it's impossible to predict the personality who will get the job in the future. But I think in general terms, I'm not a believer in historical determinism, but in general terms I think that, that we're on the track now of a more assertive role for the speaker on behalf of Parliament and I think that successors are unlikely to retreat into a Parliamentary shell. But you make a very interesting point which I would just like to pick up on. We've got to be clear about what it is worth doing, what it isn't. I don't think the speaker should be appearing on Sky News every day or even very often at all. And I remember when I was the first out of the starting blocks in the Speakership election, I think I was the first candidate to declare and I think the first to publish my manifesto. I made the case for the speaker to be an ambassador for Parliament, neutral, impartial between the parties, but an ambassador for Parliament and a robust advocate of democratic politics, being willing to engage, to go to public gatherings and so on. And this was slightly sort of caricatured by my opponents as being, oh well, we don't want to speak who's on Sky News on a daily basis. And of course, if I had been saying that I would have been wrong, but I wasn't. So I wasn't. And I think one's got to say, yeah, that would be a mistake. Just popping up all the time, you know, on a sort of remorseless basis sounding off would be a mistake. And I think the speaker should be selective. And it's precisely because I think the speaker should be selective that one chooses to appear at the London School of Economics, an obviously good case for doing so, rather than just sort of popping up all over the place. And I think the other thing you've got to be clear about is what's the purpose? It shouldn't be about self aggrandizement. That's a very fair point. You haven't asked that. But it shouldn't be about self promotion. And you know, I don't mean this discourteously, but it is unlikely, on the law of average, it is unlikely that any of you lives in the Buckingham constituency. Maybe some person will pop up and say, well, actually I am registered to vote in Buckingham constituency, but you are probably not, so I don't have a direct vested interest in trying to get your vote. And equally, it is unlikely there is a sitting member of Parliament in this audience who will determine whether I continue as speaker after the election. So do you see what I mean? I'm not bidding for your support in that sense. Sense. For me personally, what I am doing by appearing in public from time to time, in particular circumstances in front of chosen gatherings or to do certain interviews, what I am doing is trying to bolster Parliament. It mustn't be about self aggrandisement. But I think I am entitled to say, let me try to be an effective spokesperson for Parliament. Tony, it would be discourteous in the extreme for me to try to appropriate your role, but I am conscious as one person in the audience who's been sitting very patiently. And I don't say she will pop, but if she's not given a chance, she might pop. And she's sitting there with the black hat with sequins, I'm very happy to know.
- [71:26]
Tony Travers
At least I can do after your kindness for coming. So before you.
- [71:31]
Audience Member (Female Independent Candidate)
Thank you, John. Yes, I have been sitting patiently, the one woman amongst all these men getting the first word in. I'm very pleased to hear you speak up so much for backbenchers. And I have a very personal interest in this because I am planning to stand as one of those dreadful people, an independent. Okay. And I am concerned that if I do get in, and of course you have no help if you're an independent, you've got no party behind you, so the chances are a bit thin, but I.
- [72:03]
Tony Travers
Where are you standing? I can. Because he can't promote you, but I can at least give you the chance to do a bit of gentle campaigning. Where are you standing?
- [72:10]
Audience Member (Female Independent Candidate)
Oh, yes. All help, financial and personal. Which constituency would be delightful?
- [72:17]
John Burko
Where are you standing? Where are you standing?
- [72:19]
Tony Travers
Which part of the country?
- [72:21]
Audience Member (Female Independent Candidate)
West London? Brentford. Isleworth.
- [72:24]
Tony Travers
Brentford and Isle. And Chiswick. And Chiswick.
- [72:27]
Audience Member (Female Independent Candidate)
So I've got the Labour Party at one end and the Conservatives at the other, but anyhow, that's not what I'm about. What concerns me is that if I do get in, my expertise will be totally lost because I shall be a backbencher, I shall never be a minister. And when you look around and you see that the Minister for Defence, for example, has never been to Afghanistan and if you look. Look at the three ministers to do with children, young people, schools, higher education and colleges are all three men and their background is as accountants and lawyers and they don't really know anything much about the subjects on which they are there. So if I came in with that kind of expertise or a defence expertise, I would be even less likely to get a word in edgeways. I've had experience of that this evening because it seems to me that people are appointed to ministries and then moved round very quickly before they've had time to learn the job without. They might kind of.
- [73:36]
Tony Travers
Can I use your kindly put point to make the general question how. How do you give the. There are one or two individual independents in the Commons. How do you, as speaker, judge to let them have a fair say as compared with the Labour and Conservative parties?
- [73:53]
John Burko
That really is the nub of it. And the answer is, I'm always looking out for the independents as to how governments are constructed and what experience people have got and who's appointed that is well beyond the ken of the speakers. Completely out with my ambit or my authority. But what I can do is try to make sure that all sorts of different voices are heard. And what I can say to you, I think, colleagues, is that there's a small number of independents in the House of Commons at the moment, of whom, for example, Dr. Richard Taylor, who's a medical doctor who was elected on a campaign against the closure of Kidderminster Hospital in 2001, is prominent. Andrew Pelling, who used to be a Conservative MP and is now an Independent, is very active in the House. And I mean, there are two examples and there are others as well. I'm always looking out for them. And if Tony says to me, as he's just done, well, how do you decide whether to call them? It's important not to be able completely to anticipate who the speaker is going to call. So I have to express myself guardedly here, but obviously on any day there are sizeable numbers of Conservatives and Labour members and usually quite sizable numbers of Liberals Democrats trying to get called and I try to ensure they are called in significant numbers if push comes to shove. I'm always keen to try to get an Independent in somewhere in the question time session, precisely because they are on their own and they've got such small numbers, it's a pity for them to miss out. Can I guarantee getting the same one in every day? Well, of course not, because nobody can be guaranteed to get in and ask a question every day. But I'm always looking to the Independents to try to protect their rights and if they apply to speak in debates, they may not always be as high up as the members of larger parties, but I'm always looking to safeguard their rights. I think the best test is for people in a sense to ask Andrew Pelling, Richard Taylor and the other Independents. Di Davis, do you think Speaker Berker gives you a fair crack of the web? I hope they'd say I do. If for some reason they said, well, not yet, we don't think he does, then I must redouble my efforts.
- [76:07]
Tony Travers
Right. I think we probably should now draw this to a close. Just in closing, I didn't say at the beginning I did touch on the importance of the speaker within the House of Commons, therefore within Parliament and therefore within the unwritten British constitutional arrangement. The speaker is an office which I think has existed since the 14th century, hasn't it? Or arguably before, in some shape or form. Not all Speakers have ended well, have they? I mean, in the distance past some things, but in modern times it's been better, I think it's fair to say. And I think what I detect from what you're saying, and indeed the way you've described the way you're going out and about, is there is a desire within Parliament which does predate the Expenses scandal, but has been intensified by it, which I think is to make Parliament more open and accessible. And clearly I hear that from what you're saying and I do think Parliament probably has got that message. Just as one final question. It requires government though, doesn't it? Government, Whatever party, the government of the day, with a majority, assuming it has one in the end to go along with to accede to the kind of modernisation of democracy that I think, in its own best interest, Parliament needs. Is that true?
- [77:48]
John Burko
Yes. As my sort of parting shot, I think perhaps I can say this. It has been suggested that I'm shortest person ever to be Speaker. It doesn't bother me. I've always been relaxed about being vertically challenged. But it's not true. Sir John Bussey, speaker of the House from 1394 to 1398, Sir John Wenlock, speaker from 1455 to 1456, and Sir Thomas Tresham, speaker of the House in 1459, all believed to have been shorter than I am. Although I do have to admit that this was true only after all three of them had been beheaded. And to pick up on Tony's point, no fewer than seven of my predecessors met their end on the executioner's table. One was killed in battle and a further poor, unfortunate soul was brutally murdered. So you will understand that this does enable me to view the present ways which afflict the House of Commons with some sense of proportion and in essence, Tony, you're right. It does require the government to be the agent of, or the willing receptacle for change. I can change things like, and you may say, not very important things. They are quite important, but they are limited. I can change things like the speed of progress at question time. I can change things like granting urgent questions, or penalising ministers who fail to watch statements when they should offer statements to the House, or who leak things to the media when they shouldn't before the House is told, and so on, those things are within my gift. But substantial institutional change, like select committee empowerment, select committee election, like establishing a business committee that will take control of a greater part of the timetable of the House, those are things that need government backing or a vast coalition of backbenchers to overthrow the government's position, overturn the government's position. In practice, I think you do need government backing, so you have to work at it. All I can hope is that, however slowly and belatedly, there is now a recognition across the parties that we do have to reform our politics. And that does not consist solely or even predominantly of the expenses system. That's the first step to get an audience with the electorate. But we've got to do something much more. And I would just conclude with the observation that, yeah, okay, I want to reform Parliament and strengthen backbenches and make Parliament stronger and serve the country, but it shouldn't be viewed by governments as an enemy force. What I would like to plant in your minds is that actually a stronger parliament is ultimately the interests of good government and of governments. Because if you don't have a strong parliament, you are really in a situation analogous to that of someone driving a car 100 miles per hour with no brakes. The thrill of the speed might be exhilarating, but the result is likely to be fatal. Governments need to be scrutinised, questioned, probed, kept in check, and even now and again, exposed. And it's good for them.
- [81:06]
Tony Travers
Okay, I think we can agree on that. Right. I'd like to definitely thank you enormously for coming here and taking so many questions and answering them in such an open and free way. The role of the speaker is hugely important to us in Britain, probably more than overwhelmingly, people know. So perhaps I can just thank you on behalf of students and staff and others here assembled tonight. Thank you very much.