Points of Order (Hansard, 20 July 2000)

§ Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At business questions, I unintentionally misled the House, and I would like to take the earliest possible opportunity to correct that. I ascribed wrongly to the Prime Minister references to £24 billion yesterday. I know why I made the mistake, but I should not have passed it on to the House. I apologise unreservedly.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)
There is no need for me to respond to that point of order. The whole House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance in the matter of the forthcoming election of a new Speaker, because of the rather unusual circumstances, in that the House will be in recess for a long time and then come back directly to face that election, and because my impression is that there may be a number of candidates. Can you help the House, not necessarily today, but certainly before we rise, by letting us know exactly what procedure will be followed when we come to elect a new Speaker on 23 October?
It is essential for Members, and indeed the candidates, to know the basis on which the resolutions will be put to the House and the sequence in which amendments may be introduced, so that we can make an assessment in the intervening period of candidates and of proposers and seconders, and then of the procedure to be followed. Otherwise, there is a danger that the House will be faced on 23 October with what might amount to a lottery, which would not be in the interests of the House, its Members or our future Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his helpful suggestion. The Speaker is giving the matter careful consideration. I have been asked to assure the House that Members will be given clear advice in good time about the procedures to be used on 23 October.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You mentioned that the Speaker would give us clear advice in good time. Could I ask you to address the Speaker on the subject to ensure that we have clear advice given to us before the House rises for the summer recess? Could consideration be given to a more democratic and open procedure than the current one, under which a person is nominated and faces a series of Divisions with any other candidate? Is there anything wrong with having an election? The rest of the country does—why not have one here?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
At this point I cannot add to my earlier statement. The House will note the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, seek your guidance. As the forthcoming election is a matter for the legislature 568 and not the Executive, and in view of growing concern that the Government Whips will seek to browbeat people into voting for their preferred candidate, can we have guidance on the possibility of ensuring that the election will be conducted by secret ballot?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. As I understand it, these matters are all laid down in the Standing Orders. As I have said, Members will be given clear advice before the date concerned.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spoke to the Speaker in the Chair earlier, and I am aware that she does not take points of order during proceedings. However, I would be grateful if you could refer this matter to her. Today, as is normal practice, the Chancellor decided to answer two questions at the same time. He gave notice of that to my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). The two questions were dissimilar, except that they did deal with the issue of the single currency. The House will see from Hansard that the Chancellor did not attempt to answer the second question at the same time as the first and appeared, by a device, to avoid taking that individual question.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman to understand his point of order. He well knows that the Chair does not have responsibility for ministerial answers.

§ Mr. Bruce
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have dealt with that point of order.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Reverting to the points of order on the subject of the election on 23 October, one of the problems is that the Procedure Committee met after the last election in 1992, when there was a proposer and an amendment and the amendment in the name of the current Speaker was successful. Arising out of that, on Wednesday last, I sought the advice of the Clerk with a view to seeing whether the Procedure Committee had made any recommendations for change, because of concern at the time that at least one candidate—a previous occupant of the chair as Deputy Speaker—was not allowed to stand. It seems that the Procedure Committee has discussed the matter, but has come to no conclusion, other than that we will carry on with the current procedure. The Speaker should look into the question of how to overcome the Procedure Committee's recommendation because there is no doubt that there is a groundswell of opinion in the House that there should be a multi-choice election in which people can vote openly for their candidate.
Reference was made earlier by the Opposition to a secret ballot. We do not want secret ballots in the House of Commons. Every single vote that is cast in the House of Commons is cast in the Lobby so people know exactly how we have voted. I find it fanciful that a Tory Member is now recommending secret ballots in the House of Commons.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I do not think that I can 569 add to the response I gave initially to the point of order. I am sure that everybody will have heard the points that have been made.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it a different point of order?

§ Mr. Bruce
Well, it is the point—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No. I have dealt with that point.

§ Mr. Bruce
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it a different point of order?

§ Mr. Bruce
It is a different point of order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Entirely different?

§ Mr. Bruce
It is entirely different because it is the original point that I wished to make.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If it is the original point, it can hardly be a separate—[Interruption.] Order. If it is the original point, it can hardly be a separate point of order. I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's initial point of order and I am not prepared to listen to him any further on that point.

§ Mr. Bruce
On a completely different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We must now move on to the main business.