Whether or not you believe the rumours already circulating Westminster that a Conservative victory at the next general election could spell an early end to the career of the House of Commons’ new speaker John Bercow, there is little doubt that he cuts a controversial figure. The Conservative MP for Buckingham’s political odyssey from the far right of his party to its left has earned him many enemies; reports suggest only a handful of his fellow Tory MPs voted for him last week, while some of his former colleagues are now saying privately that they plan to unseat him should the Conservatives take power.

Yet there is also a sense among MPs from other parties that the new speaker will bring a fresh zeal to the process of remaking the institution of parliament. With public confidence in the House of Commons at an all-time low, Bercow’s supporters believe that an inclination to stand up for backbench MPs, coupled with the reformist ticket on which he fought his campaign, put the new speaker in a strong position to restore some respect to a troubled House.

“He was head and shoulders above any other candidate in terms of a genuine commitment to radically reforming the arcane way that this place still continues to do its business,” says Labour MP Martin Salter, who managed Bercow’s speakership campaign. Malcolm Bruce, Liberal Democrat MP for Gordon and chairman of the international development select committee – on which Bercow sat until becoming speaker – adds: “He is very much the backbencher’s speaker, and he will want to strengthen the legitimate role of backbenchers and indeed the opposition.”

Bercow became an MP in 1997, winning the safe seat of Buckingham on his third attempt at entering Parliament. Over his 12 years as a member, Bercow’s views have transformed from belligerently right wing to a mellow brand of social liberalism – a process that many ascribe to his marriage to Sally Illman, a Labour activist.

Bruce, who was one of Bercow’s nominators for the speakership, reflects on this transformation: “I signed his nomination form as a candidate for the speakership and said to him: ‘If you’d said to me when you arrived in the House that I would sign your nomination form to be speaker, I would have said you were insane.’ The John Bercow that arrived in Westminster did not appeal to me; I saw a rather arrogant, bombastic, rightwing style. But he really has undergone a Damascene conversion that I think is absolutely genuine.”

Now that Bercow has achieved his goal of securing the speakership, all eyes will be on him to see how he manages to push through his proposed parliamentary reforms. During his campaign, Bercow published a six-page prospectus detailing his aims, covering areas such as the use of parliamentary time and the role of select committees.

Among his specific proposals, Bercow said he would press for pre- and post-legislative scrutiny to become the “norm, not the exception”, requiring government to submit all of its bills in draft form to be fully debated by Parliament. And he outlined proposals for greater formal powers for select committees in calling witnesses and demanding evidence, and for Parliament to be able to debate and vote on committee reports.

According to John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley and a member of the modernisation of the House of Commons select committee, Bercow’s proposals on select committees would result in greater accountability and transparency among ministers and civil servants.

 “You often find in the public sector there’s a lot of bullying, and a lot of avoiding responsibility for anything, because if you’ve got any responsibility for anything you’re at risk – so it’s best just to hide,” he says. “If we want creative people working in public services, we’ve got to give them leeway to work creatively and accept that not everything works, but at the same time ask that people don’t cover things up. You won’t be able to cover things up as much under these proposals.”

Martin Horwood, Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham and chair of the all party group on tribal peoples – of which Bercow was treasurer – adds that the new speaker’s proposals will increase the onus on civil servants to respond to select committee reports with concrete action; currently, he says, reports sometimes fail to elicit real movement from departments. “There will be more scrutiny, more cases to answer, and that will mean responding and changing policy,” he says. “The process is going to change, it has to change, and that is going to impact on civil servants.”

The two MPs are equally supportive of Bercow’s proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny. With some exceptions, Hemming says bills tend to appear in Parliament already drafted as legislation, leaving the house to debate and amend specific clauses. Under Bercow’s plans, Parliament  would be given the opportunity to debate the ideas and possible policies behind an issue before they are put into the language of law-makers.

“It would be nice for legislation to be a more open process and not just civil service-driven,” Hemming says. “In Parliament we work on a bill, not on ideas, so we end up with a pig’s ear of legislation. We don’t actually say: ‘What are we trying to achieve, and why?’ When you’ve worked that out and debated it, then you should be drafting the legislation. So instead you’d say to the civil servants: ‘Draft your policy objectives, but not as a bill; draft them in [standard] English. You can only do that if you have pre-legislative scrutiny.”

Such a shift would inevitably have a bearing on
the work of civil servants, says Horwood. “It will
mean civil servants will have to respond to more amendments and more changes to legislation as it progresses, and then more assessment and review of the impact of legislation afterwards,” he says. “I hope it won’t mean more work overall, but it might mean legislation done better.”

Of course, in driving through the changes he has proposed, Bercow has only limited powers, and he’ll have to gain the support of Parliament to make them happen. But his supporters believe that with the reputation of the House having received such a battering in recent weeks, support for reform should not be in short supply.

“There’s a feeling among backbenchers and minority parties, and even government and frontbenchers, that we need drastic reform,” says Horwood. “Bercow can’t dictate the pace of change, he can’t dictate what changes take place, but I think he will be there as a driver of change and I would be disappointed if, after his time in the chair, very substantial changes haven’t taken place.”

Bercow in his own words

“Governments frankly need to be saved from themselves, otherwise a minister is analogous to someone driving a car at 100mph with no brakes: the exhilaration of the scene is one thing, but the almost certain fatal consequence is another.”
Hustings speech, 15 June.

“I am asking people to vote not for a Conservative but for a speaker who has what it takes to restore trust in Parliament and politicians. We must make no mistake: Parliament is broken.”
Lobbying letter sent to MPs during speakership campaign.

“My commitment to this House is to be completely impartial between members of one political party and another.”
Speakership acceptance speech, 22 June.