Question: How do you view the way the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party handled the election for speaker?

Andrew MacKinlay: If I had been chair of the PLP I would not have indicated support for any particular candidate. I wouldn't disguise my preferences but I certainly wouldn't have supported somebody who so recently was an ex-minister, so my objection to Sir George Young wasn't that he is a Conservative, it's the fact that he was so recently a minister and as a matter of principal I'm opposed to former ministers becoming speaker. However, in addition to this, given that Sir George Young's stewardship of the railway privatisation is a matter of current debate and scrutiny, it would seem to be to be invidious that you should have George Young sitting on the chair with those of us saying 'who are the guilty men', in respect of railway privatisation. I think that a prudent chairman of the PLP would have realised that it is not only not a particularly good idea to indicate a preference to one particular candidate but above all else, certainly not Sir George Young. It is not anathema to me that you should consider for the speakership a Conservative or a Liberal, I believe you should have the best person for the job, what is unacceptable to me is that you should consider a person who has been a minister recently, that's a general principal, but specifically Sir George Young for the reasons which I have outlined.

Question: What's the level of backbench concern over Clive Soley's record as chairman of the PLP?

Andrew MacKinlay: You have to ask others because I'm not standing so much against Clive Soley or anybody else, I'm trying to get elected to this office because I see a particular way and style and function for this office. I want to bring a new approach to this important office.

Question: What role should the chairman of the PLP play?

Andrew MacKinlay: The chairman of the PLP, in my view, has two important functions. One is basically a shop steward for the backbenchers and there's a very important issue about the facilities of MPs, staff, technology and resources to represent their constituents both in Westminster and in the constituency, and that hasn't been adequately addressed and its now becoming an acute problem and democracy is diminished by the inadequate resources, which MPs face. Let me stress I'm not talking about pay, I'm talking about resources to do the job and my view is that this has been neglected. So I believe that with my background as a trade union official that perhaps I would be able to argue for improved resources.

Question: For Labour MPs?

Andrew MacKinlay: No, for MPs generally. As we are in the lead, decisions, which are taken by us, others will benefit from. I think that on these issues there's a need for people to talk with the chairperson of the Liberal Democrat MPs and the chair of the 1922 Committee. I think that it's absurd not to try and have a dialogue on those things where there is common interest. That is matter of style and approach but clearly the representation of interests by the chairperson of the parliamentary Labour Party on MPs resources is the lead person, the chair of the 1922 Committee and the chair of the Liberal Democrat MPs are acolytes.

The second function. With the growth of a presidential style of government, there is no pretending that one, that is not happening, and second, it's absurd to suggest that it can be reversed. I don't think it's brought about by any particular individual, just the nature of modern politics, 24 hour news coverage and decisions have to be made quickly in foreign affairs, defence and in terms of our relationship with the European Union, so the presidential system is now with us. We need to alter our arrangements to match that and I believe there is a need for both the Labour Party to have but also in a sense for the British Constitution to have, a party caucus leader. It's not so revolutionary; I understand this happens in the Federal Republic of Germany. So you'd have this person to whom the prime minister must give some deference but, and I want to stress this, to whom the prime minister would welcome giving some access and opportunities to articulate the views and perhaps even for their to be a mutual sharing of the problems, I think that's absolutely essential.

Question: So what powers would this new style chairperson have?

Andrew MacKinlay: It's the expectation and presumption that he would have access to the prime minister on a very regular basis and have the opportunity of articulating the views of the backbenchers and/or listening to the problems. In other words, he would be a two-way conduit and that's what happens in many of our sister parties, in parliamentary systems elsewhere around the world. I think it would make for better decision-making, it would actually avoid some of the banana skins, it's in my view plain commonsense and bearing in mind, if I'm elected, I'd make this quite clear in my manifesto, that is the basis on which I'm standing, I believe that if I'm elected I've got a mandate to try and shape and mould the post in the way I've described.

Question: Isn't that happening already - that level of communication?

Andrew MacKinlay: I don't think so.

Question: What sort of support do you think you'd receive from your backbench colleagues over your plans?

Andrew MacKinlay: I'm getting considerable support and let there be no misunderstanding, I haven't been canvassing, I haven't solicited support, I've waited for people to come up and volunteer it. One of the advantages of me declaring my candidacy some time ago was that I didn't have to rush around, being a phoney; having cups of tea with people I normally don't have cups of tea, bumping into them and saying wonderful things about their speeches. I just announced my decision to stand, I've written to every Member to say why I'm standing, I've outlined the two points which I've referred to you, the shop steward and the party caucus leader role and everyone understands and people have come up to me volunteering support, including ministers.

Question: When MPs come up and talk to you - what are they saying their worries are?

Andrew MacKinlay: We all need to remember that Tony Blair has something which all the previous leaders of the Labour Party and prime ministers would have given their right hand for, that's a very united party. Historically, it's a very united party. My colleagues and myself overwhelmingly support Labour's electoral programme but I actually see backbench MPs being the custodians of the manifesto and clearly that gives a particular job to the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, to see that the Government keep to the manifesto, or if there are difficult decisions to be made about priorities, they should be shared with the parliamentary party. There's been great frustrations over our failure to bring forward to Parliament legislation outlawing hunting with dogs, there has been frustration at the conduct of some Ministers who spin against one another and write books, they are seen as being prima donnas, so diverting from some of the very considerable successes of the Labour Government, of which we are very proud. In fact, I'm amused to see that my traducers try and imply that Andrew MacKinlay's election would be somehow confrontational to the prime minister and also of course an embarrassment, I wholly refute that, indeed my whole purpose in standing has been to minimise conflict and misunderstanding, it's to stop things blowing up.

Let me give you two examples, this evening there is a debate about the Commonwealth War Commission, the cutting back of the resources to the British employees in Northern Western Europe, in the great sweep of things it's a drop in the ocean the expenditure involved, but it has all the potential to embarrass the Government. The other area is the compensation for the prisoners of war in Japanese camps. The fact that we've promised to bring forward a compensation scheme and haven't done so is a source of embarrassment.

Also if you'd had a greater frankness behind closed doors, we might have avoided the 75p pensions fiasco which was not only wrong in terms of fairness to pensioners but was also presentationally and politically maladroit.

Another thing I think backbenchers are really irritated about, we've just come back after Parliament being closed down for a quarter of a year, overwhelmingly backbenchers have been terribly busy during the recess, they are irritated when people insinuate that they've been on holiday, which is not true and the majority of backbenchers believe that the distribution of the parliamentary year should be different. I believe the chairman of the Labour Party should be reminding journalists and those people who traduce MPs that the British Parliament sits more than any other Parliament round the world and has longer sittings. He should also be saying to the Government business managers that it's wrong in principal that we close down for a quarter of a year and have everything concertinaed up. If you had a more even distribution of Parliamentary sittings for both Houses, one it would take some of the pressure off so actually it would be family friendly and secondly it would be good for democracy because there is no scrutiny in the quarter of the year when we are closed down. I personally think there's a case for having at least a week of Parliamentary sittings in September, it doesn't have to be law-making, indeed Parliament is only allowed to sit when Government wants legislation, that they try and avoid Parliament sitting if it's just there to just scrutinise their conduct of things, so this is another example of what I think should be articulated. I would be pressing the prime minister and Margaret Beckett to make a declaration in the Parliamentary session 2002/2003 at the latest that we should have a much more even distribution of the parliamentary year. I think that we could announce that the intention is to close down to allow for the Scottish school holidays, closure in August, but there would be sittings in September and much more sensible distribution of the parliamentary year.

Also we ought to be able to put down parliamentary questions when the House is not in session, which we can't. It really is amazing how we can defend even for one day the archaic situation of where for three months there is no scrutiny, have noticed how people go to war, despots hold coups and despots fall during September and October, Domes go bust, there are train disasters, there a submarines sinking with enormous environmental problems, this year there was a Royal Navy submarine disabled in the Mediterranean, there were British soldiers in combat situations in Sierra Leone and there had to be a major rescue attempt of British soldiers involving loss of life, all of these things would have justified statements and questions on the floor of the House. It hasn't happened because we've been closed down and I think that's indefensible and I know that the overwhelming majority of backbench Labour MPs do not believe that is defensible.

Question: You said that ministers have approached you to stand - what's your appeal to them?

Andrew MacKinlay: They know what I'm saying is right. I have a particular style of saying things. I've always been known for my candour. I think also that many of them know I've been in the Labour Party a very long time.

It reminds me how my traducers are implying that I might put in jeopardy the opportunity for people holding their marginal seats. I deeply resent it and also I'll tell you why I think it's untrue. I need no lessons in the need for there to be responsible statements by those of us in Parliament, I need no lessons about the need for cohesiveness and to sing from the same song sheet. It's not me who's spinning against ministers, it's ministers against ministers, it's not me who publishes memoirs it's ex-ministers and people acting as a proxy for ministers. I bear the scars of four General Elections which I lost before I got elected to Parliament. I know how deeply disappointing it is to be in defeat, I know how when you've given 100 per cent, how it hurts when you see people having made irresponsible and selfish statements in the press, that I have never done and I will not do. The whole purpose, in my view, to get this office is in fact to minimise washing disagreements in public, it is to persuade the prime minister that he'd actually have better decision-making if there is the access of the backbench views. We hear often about focus groups being run from Millbank. The best focus group is the Parliamentary Labour Party. These are people who are in their high streets every week, they have a vested interest in trying to get re-elected, so their views are ones which the prime minister ought to defer to more.