---

Election of Speaker

Although it is a pleasure to follow the eight distinguished colleagues who have already addressed the House, I have the nasty feeling that there is a certain amount of print through in the remarks that have been made. Undoubtedly, this election is taking place in extraordinary circumstances. With greater public interest aroused, I think that we as candidates should be thankful that only Members have the vote. To we who know what is and what is not possible, the media expectation for the new Speaker has got more unrealistic by the day. However, there can be no doubt that change is in the air. I welcome change; I have argued for change; and if chosen, I will work for change. Although never having seen myself for one moment as part of the establishment, I do believe that I have the necessary experience to guide the House through the current changes and those that will arise in a new Parliament. But of course, some change will come with whoever is chosen—the style and the personality of the new Speaker will ensure that. Now, the House has seen me in action. I have shown that I can bring about more vitality and greater inclusivity in our proceedings. I have been known to favour brevity, and I would favour it even more from those on the Front Benches in the future. I have shown that it is possible to get to 20 questions. So I say to the House that I know the job; I believe that I could do it well; and I promise not to bark too much at the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope). Without more ado, the authority of being Speaker would allow fuller use of discretion, over urgent questions, over emergency debates and over the timing and length of statements—the purpose being to achieve a better match between our proceedings and the issues of the day, which are often out of sync. The Speaker, nevertheless, as we have been reminded more than once, remains the servant of the House and not its master, but we have put our Speaker into a position of greater impartiality than any other Speaker in a Parliament in the world, and I believe that we should follow the logic of that and grant the Chair more discretion in the reform of procedures. More extensive reform must have the agreement of the House. The party leaders are all talking reform. They would find me proactive in encouraging them towards consensus. If they falter, I certainly have plenty of ideas. Yes, a business Committee giving the House more say on the arrangement of business would help to achieve a better balance between Back Benchers as a whole and the elected majority. Select Committees have become, and are becoming, an ever more important part of the scrutiny function of the House, so, at the very least, the House should elect their Chairmen. Private Members' motions should be restored, thus allowing a Member to table a substantive motion with the expectation of a vote at the end of the debate. I believe that we could copy the example of the Finance Bill, by allowing the Opposition parties to select those parts of Bills that they believe should be considered in Committee of the whole House, leaving the rest to be dealt with upstairs in Committee. Fridays should be altered, with set slots to allow sensible debate on private Members' Bills, with Divisions on a deferred basis the following week. Westminster Hall is now a fixture; we could use it much more imaginatively. Heavy on our minds, however, is the subject of our allowances. I appreciate the hurt that many hon. Members feel, and it makes me all the more determined to ensure that we must get this right. I would engage with Sir Christopher Kelly to encourage an integrated approach to salary and allowances. The allowances problem—and, let us face it, the cost of administering it—shrinks if salary becomes a greater component of the remuneration package and the additional costs allowance a lesser one. Now, without wanting to become a media turn, I believe that there is a role for the Speaker in speaking up for the House. It is important to accentuate the positive: independent research showing that, on average, Members regularly work 70 hours a week on behalf on their constituents. There is genuine public interest in what our role is and we should explain ourselves better. I will aim to be an accessible Speaker—accessible to all Members from any part of the House—and I will seek regular input from colleagues on a systematic basis. Overall, my aim will be to help the House to up its game, not only through how we, as Members, present to the public, but through how we do our work on the people's behalf and how we discharge our duties designed towards the better governance of our country. For all that has been said of late, I firmly believe that the House remains the cradle of our democracy. This is the place to which so many people from overseas look for advice and inspiration. The outcome of today's proceedings must carry with it a determination to renew this House's reputation, and it is in that spirit, and with that resolve, that I submit myself to the will of the House.