Points of Order (Hansard, 25 July 2000)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a substantial point of order in relation to the procedure for electing your successor as Speaker. It follows points of order raised on Thursday and by me yesterday.
My credentials for raising the matter are that, under the present rules, if the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris) were in any way indisposed or unable to be present, the task of pointing to a colleague on 23 October would fall to me.
The task would be invidious to the point of being impossible. It would be deeply unsatisfactory to leave the crucial running order of choice to the prejudices, predilections and taste of myself or, much more likely, the taste that the right hon. Gentleman or my right hon. and learned Friend may show towards the candidates for the Speakership.
I have been involved in the choice of Speaker since Horace King succeeded Sir Harry Hylton-Foster all those years ago—in the first instance in the very lowly capacity of parliamentary private secretary to RHS Crossman.
The situation that confronts the House on 23 October 2000 is totally different from anything that has gone before. It is entirely novel because there are a multiplicity of credible candidates—at least a dozen at the last count. I know that the Canadian House of Commons has a system whereby everyone is a candidate unless they rule themselves out. [Laughter.] I make it clear that I fall into the latter category.
If the established rules are to be changed, it will have to be done in the next couple of days. There is no solution that any of us can see that does not have some downside, but perhaps the least bad would be a secret ballot by elimination so that three candidates are left who would then be submitted to the established procedures of the House. In such a situation, under the existing rules the person acting as Father of the House would have the guidance of colleagues on what to do.
My point is that at least the matter ought to be discussed; it should not be a matter that is undiscussed. The only practical way of doing so, Madam Speaker, is for you to postpone your date of going until early November, so that the House can make up its mind in a sensible fashion.

§ Madam Speaker
I know that one or two other Members have similar points of order.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall at the last election of the Speaker in 1992 that, although an hon. Member was proposed and there was an amendment—proposing yourself—it was generally regarded that there was at least one other candidate who was talked about as being in the running. Yet, the matter was settled and you won with a handsome majority of—I think—372.
It is true that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has said, there will be more candidates in the field this time. I do not know how the problem can be resolved. There is one way if there are 915 fewer than six candidates. There are six desks in the two Lobbies and each desk could represent one candidate. People who wanted to vote for a candidate could go to one of the desks. That method would deal with six or fewer candidates, although it would almost certainly result in no overall majority and the process would have to continue.
The alternative, which you have probably looked at, is a little more messy. If the Father of the House calls first one candidate, then the second and there is an amendment, the net result would be people having to sit on their hands, abstaining, until we reached the final candidate. A Speaker might eventually manage to get elected at the end. That is the alternative to having different desks for fewer than six candidates and dealing with the matter in a subsequent ballot.

§ Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It might help the House if you shared with us your assessment of whether you believe that a democratic and fair system is in place for the choice of your successor.

§ Madam Speaker
To answer the last point first, yes, I do believe that a democratic system is in place. I also believe that all Members of Parliament are sufficiently experienced to carry out that procedure and I am sure that they will eventually arrive at the right choice.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes a rather unique suggestion, which I find interesting. To respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I am aware of the concern felt on both sides of the House that hon. Members should be informed about the procedure for the election of my successor. I have been using my best endeavours, and shall continue to do so, to ensure that, before we rise for the summer, each individual Member of Parliament receives a letter that fully sets out the procedure for the election of the Speaker. I want to do that as soon as possible. The matter does not rest wholly with me, but I have the responsibility for it. I want each and every Member to have a letter, couched in the simplest possible language, explaining the procedure.
916 I assure the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) that the process will be democratic. The House has long experience of electing Speakers and I like to think that, throughout our history, we have always come up with the right person.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. However great the wisdom enshrined in the letter, ought not the matter to be discussed by the House? We face a novel situation and no one can think of an answer that could be embodied in a letter, however learned those who write it—even one that will, no doubt, be signed by you. Should there not be a debate in the House of Commons, so that views on the procedure of the election can at least be aired? In the circumstances, I ask you, quite seriously, to consider postponing by a few days your departure from us.

§ Madam Speaker
The wisdom of the House will enable it to follow the procedures. The situation is not unique. The hon. Gentleman tells me that there are many candidates. I read the newspapers as much as he does, and I do not know whether they are right about all of the names that have been bandied about in recent days, but there is some time to go yet and the House should await the letter that is coming to Members. That letter will not be signed by me, as, according to existing procedures, the election will not be my responsibility. I am as concerned as the House to ensure that we carry out the proper procedures and I am doing everything I can as quickly as possible to achieve that end.

§ Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham)
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I shall only take a point of order that does not relate to the previous one, because there is nothing more that I can say about that matter. We await a letter being sent to all hon. Members explaining the procedures, and I cannot take the matter further at this stage. It is not for me to change the business of the House: that is a matter for the Leader of the House, in accordance with the will of the House.