Business of the House (Hansard, 13 March 2001)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)
I beg to move,
That— (1) at the sitting on 22nd March the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Election of a Speaker not later than Four o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and (2) if proceedings on any such Motion have not been completed before Four o'clock, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at that hour may be proceeded with, though opposed, for throe hours after it has been entered upon.
The motion simply ensures that next Thursday—22 March—the House can reach a decision on a procedure for electing a Speaker. The Government intend very shortly to put down Standing Orders that would implement the Procedure Committee's recommendations.
I am grateful to the Committee for its report and recommendations. A good deal of thought and work has gone into the report. Next week, colleagues will have a discussion on that report; tonight's motion just sets out the framework for that discussion.
Members will note that the business motion will also allow the questions to be put on any amendment selected by the Speaker. The motion will give the House an opportunity to deal with any such Amendments. It may assist the House this evening if I say that an amendment will be tabled to give Members a choice between an open and a secret ballot for Speaker, as recommended by the Procedure Committee.
It may also interest Members to learn that, back in 1972, when the House agreed the current Standing Orders on the election of a Speaker, the debate lasted for an hour and five minutes. Even though, as we age, we are doubtless more garrulous, I do not think that the time suggested tonight for the debate is unreasonable. I am pleased that the House is to have an early opportunity to discuss the Procedure Committee's report.

§ Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)
Although I welcome the opportunity that the House will be given to discuss the election of a Speaker, I have to tell the Minister that I have serious reservations about the amount of time allocated to the debate, and I hope that I may now have the opportunity to develop them a little.
The Minister said that one hour and five minutes was spent discussing the matter in 1972, but one need only look at the Procedure Committee's report to understand what a revolution in our affairs has occurred since then. The Procedure Committee makes it clear that the changes made in 1972 were simply intended to bring some order to a system that had previously been governed by no regulatory mechanism whatever. Indeed, the Clerk, rather than the Father of the House, took the Chair before that date, and there was a free for all, without Standing Orders of any kind. I am sure that the Minister will find it easy to agree that what actually happened in 1972 was that a decision was taken simply to determine, by Standing Order, what should happen in future
974 As we know, at the most recent election of the Speaker, it became fairly apparent that the system that had been set up in 1972, which had previously led to only one contested election before last year's, took a very great deal of time to go through. Not only did it take a long time to go through, but a large number of hon. Members expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the entire system. That is why the Procedure Committee decided to report on the matter. Indeed, it produced an extremely useful and interesting report, which repays careful study.
About 130 Members replied when the Procedure Committee sought our views, but the diversity of opinion expressed in the replies to the questionnaires that were sent out is simply colossal. It covers the full spectrum of choices that individual Members might wish to have. Given that this is completely non-party political matter, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is apparent that no consensus on how best to proceed exists in those submissions.
I do not intend to consider the report this evening; that is not the purpose of this debate or of the motion. However, one has only to consider the diversity of views to understand that there must be enough time for those diverse views to be expressed. 1 am sure that the Minister will also agree that there is always a danger that when a Government, however well-intentioned, table a motion that ultimately expresses their view, a large number of hon. Members will be dissatisfied not only with that motion but with any amendment to it that the Minister says we shall have an opportunity to discuss. Apart from anything else, we do not even know exactly what is proposed for the implementation of the Procedure Committee's suggestions.

§ Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is one thing that makes Members of Parliament particularly vocal, and that is matters that affect them personally? Does he not agree that the election of a Speaker affects all 659 hon. Members? It therefore follows that, particularly given the diverse nature of the responses which my hon. Friend has already described, many of those 659 Members will want to make long and detailed contributions to the debate.

§ Mr. Grieve
I have no difficulty agreeing with my hon. Friend's comments. I am sure that he will agree that we must be careful to ensure that the House is not seen indulging in too much navel gazing. There are affairs of the nation to consider as well as those of regulating the House. I dare say that the public would think it rather odd if we were to devote days and days to discussing how we should elect a Speaker.
However, the issue certainly goes beyond simply the interest of Members. The Speaker has a very special status within our constitution. He is there as the defender of our rights.

§ Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury)
Or she.

§ Mr. Grieve
He or she is there as the defender of our rights, so it is important that we get right any changes that we decide to implement. It is important that the public should have the impression that there has been reasoned 975 and, if necessary, leisurely discussion of the options, and it is important that the decision that we finally take commands consensus.
A point that has often been touched upon is that debate in the Chamber should not involve a short discussion and then a vote to decide who is in the majority. By the process of debate, we should at least reconcile those who may lose in the vote to the decision that the House has taken. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about.
I have outlined the basic principles, so I shall now consider the precise motion that has been placed before us. It is apparent that the matter will come before the House on Thursday 22 March. On an ordinary Thursday, we start early with Question Time. Business questions follow, and there is always the possibility of a statement. The motion proposes that we should conclude the discussion at 4 o'clock. The Minister knows that, because of business questions, it is improbable that we shall start any debate before 1.25 or 1.30 pm. I say this neutrally, but sometimes the allegation is made that the Government make statements either for their own convenience, because they want to indulge in a bit of spin, or because they wish to wreck the business of the House for that day by depriving hon. Members of the opportunity for debate. I am not seeking to suggest that they will do that on this occasion—not at the moment anyway. I merely wish to point out that we are facing a national crisis in agriculture because of foot and mouth disease, so it is perfectly on the cards that, for wholly legitimate reasons, a Minister may wish to come to the House on 22 March to make a statement. That usually leads to a further hour of the House's time being taken up, so the debate on the election of the Speaker may last for no more than an hour and a half. I have to say to the Minister that, on the basis of what I said a few moments ago about the controversial nature of the proposals, an hour and a half is wholly insufficient. I hope that he will take that point in the spirit in which it is intended.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
My hon. Friend is setting out a persuasive critique. Does he agree that the supreme irony of the situation that he has just described is that if what he described happened, we would have less time for a debate on the substantive motion concerning how we should operate in future than is potentially available to us this morning for this preliminary procedural discussion?

§ Mr. Grieve
My hon. Friend is right, although I thought I heard an hon. Member say from a sedentary position that it is not yet morning in parliamentary terms. That is correct. It is still yesterday or, perhaps, today, and we can continue with its being today for a very long time if necessary—sometimes for so long that tomorrow disappears. I do not want to inflict that on the House, but my hon. Friend makes an important point.
If we are to have a debate such as that referred to in the motion, it would be sensible to set the rest of that day aside for that purpose. If there is a possibility that the debate might go short—in 1972, as the Minister pointed out, an hour and five minutes proved sufficient—I am sure that the Government can table a host of matters to be 976 debated thereafter, as is their custom, which will not interfere with or curtail discussion of the election of the Speaker.

§ Mr. Bercow
I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. In view of the importance of the election of a Speaker and the respect that all right hon. and hon. Members feel for that high office, does my hon. Friend agree that, even if it were difficult—and it should not be—to accommodate a proper, lengthy and perhaps leisurely debate on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, no right hon. or hon. Member should object to the notion that we might debate the matter on a sitting Friday? It would, after all, be a one-off.

§ Mr. Grieve
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Sitting Fridays are not, on the whole, supposed to interfere with the Government's carriage of their business, so if we were to debate the matter on such a Friday, it could not be suggested that we were putting our priority of navel gazing above the interests of the country at large.
I turn now to another aspect of the problem. I have touched on this, but it bears consideration. At the moment, we do not have the motion that the Government intend to table. We have got the order wrong. We can usually pick up in the Tea Room, the Corridors or elsewhere whether a motion tabled by the Government will command consensus and rapidly identify the issues that are likely to excite hon. Members and make them want to participate in the debate.
Without wishing to stray into the substance of the Procedure Committee's report, and just by way of illustration, I point out that the report contains several proposals. Those on which most hon. Members will focus relate to the system of voting, ballots and their secrecy and whether, at the end, the last two candidates should be presented in the traditional way. However, there are many other little points in the report, and experience suggests that those are points that can sometimes cause as many problems—if not more—as some of the basic issues. I am not clear whether a Government motion would seek to change or regulate the way in which the Speaker is affirmed by royal approval not in the other place, but by Parliament sitting in a single Chamber up the Corridor.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)
Order. Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman that he said that he did not wish to stray too far.

§ Mr. Grieve
It is a timely reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I am getting carried away, it serves as a warning and illustration to the Minister that some recondite issues may excite hon. Members. Our constitution reflects an important historical perspective and, bearing in mind the nature of society and the role of the House and of Parliament in general, they would want those issues addressed. However, I do not know what the Government are going to table.

§ Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)
The issue has a direct bearing on the debate. It is impossible to make a judgment about the suitability of the length of time that we will have to debate the issue unless we have a clearer idea about what the Government intend 977 the motion to contain. If they do not intend to debate all the issues that my hon. Friend raises, there may well be sufficient time. However, I fail to understand how we could have enough time for a more general debate on the detail that is necessary to satisfy the House.

§ Mr. Grieve
My hon. Friend is correct. He touches on the central issue.
It is unfortunate that the matter is being discussed at such a late hour, when many right hon. and hon. Members, especially after last night's late sitting, have no doubt decided that the call of their beds takes priority over our business. When the Minister has heard the arguments—I shall listen with care to his response—he may wish to consider withdrawing the motion and presenting it again when the Government's proposals have been tabled. That would allow them to gauge our response. Once they have an impression of our reaction, they will be better placed to decide the time that should be devoted to the motion.
I am sure that the Government take the matter seriously. If they decide that many right hon. and hon. Members want to participate in the debate to express their views and influence others, they may want co consider allowing more time. They may also want to allow amendments to be considered so that there are other options. I know not. I am not trying to complicate the issue; I am simply trying to explain that it could become complicated. If the Government do what I suggest, they may discover that the matter can be dealt with reasonably expeditiously while allowing time for their business to be transacted on the same day and enabling people to go away with the impression that they have had their say and are broadly satisfied with the result.

§ Mr. Bercow
I detect that my hon. Friend comes at the matter, and the motion specifically, completely—or largely—unsighted. Does he agree chat although in no sense under a formal obligation to discuss the matter in advance, it might have been a parliamentary courtesy or propriety for the Parliamentary Secretary to discuss it through the usual channels, thus reflecting the spirit of the issue, which is pre-eminently a matter for the House rather than the Executive to determine?

§ Mr. Grieve
May I remind my hon. Friend that the Minister is always a model of courtesy? We know that that is true both inside and outside the Chamber. I would certainly not wish to criticise the Minister. Of course, the first date on which the Speaker's election is likely to be relevant to the House will fall after the general election. Obviously, I can speculate only remotely on whether there is any link between the imminence of the election and the decision to lay the motion before the House and allow it to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. Who knows? The Minister may care to enlighten us on that when he comes to reply to the debate. That would certainly make it far more informative.
That said, we are clearly unsighted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, because we do not know what the motion will be. We are simply being asked to agree the procedure beforehand. I do not intend to labour the matter further.

§ Mr. Hayes
I can see that my hon. Friend is trying to deal with the matter as concisely as possible. However, he omitted to raise an important issue relevant to our debate—the public's expectation of how we should go about the business. There was a good deal of public debate after the election of the current Speaker, which centerd on the conduct of affairs of the House. The wider public, not just hon. Members, expect us to debate the matter thoroughly and fully when it comes before the House. They will gain a poor impression of the House if we deal with it in a cursory fashion. I invite my hon. Friend to make that point before the Minister replies, as that view is shared by many people outside the House.

§ Mr. Grieve
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who makes an exceptionally good point. He is quite right; enormous interest was generated by the election of the Speaker. Subsequently, there was enormous press coverage and a great deal of criticism of our procedure. When we discuss whatever motion the Government introduce and whatever amendments are tabled and accepted, we must expect a great deal of public interest and attention.

§ Mr. Bercow
I do not wish to labour the point. However, to amplify the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), will my hon. Friend confirm that our concern is not merely with the debate that ensues in the immediate aftermath of the election of the Speaker, important though that is, but with the wider medium and long-term issue—namely, the fact that the Speaker effectively performs a critical ambassadorial role for the House?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is wandering far and wide of the remit of the motion.

§ Mr. Grieve
I shall resist the temptation offered by my hon. Friend to go too far down the road of exploring the Speaker's ambassadorial role, save to agree wholeheartedly that there are a multiplicity of issues relating to the Speaker's election and role which hon. Members have close to their hearts and which they wish to be considered.

§ Mr. Hayes
I have no desire to wander anywhere—neither far nor wide. I want to be specific about the nature of the debate. My point was not a wide point. It was a narrow point. The wider public will look at this debate and the judgment that we make now about the amount of time that we allocate—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating points already made during the debate. The motion is clearly about timetabling.

§ Mr. Grieve
As I said before I gave way, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not intend to labour the matter further. After 25 minutes of debate, we have covered, albeit at a slow pace, a number of pertinent issues relating to the wording of the motion. How on earth can the House do justice to the matter when the substantive motion will have to be dealt with in two and a half hours at best? The time allocated is not enough. We therefore cannot support the motion.

§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
Here we are again, with a motion on the Order Paper inviting us to limit the time for debate, possibly to as little as an hour and a half, if a substantive statement is made on Thursday 22 March. We do not have the terms of the motion that we will be invited to discuss on that day, relating to the election of a Speaker. The Minister said that the motion would endorse the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure, but that report is not a single, take-it-or-leave-it set of recommendations. There are choices to be made, such as the question whether there should be a secret ballot or an open ballot for the election of the Speaker.
Those are fundamental choices. I expect that hon. Members will come to the House without having made up their minds before they listen to the debate. The subject is one that the House should properly consider. On the single question whether the ballot should be secret or open, a variety of views was received by the Select Committee from members of all parties, each of them offering a different prescription. This is not a party issue.
The matter cannot be decided on the basis of a simple motion tabled by the Government. There must be consideration of the motion, which lends itself to substantial debate. Unusually in the House, that debate would have the capacity to change people's minds or to allow them to make their minds up according to the discussion that they hear.
Without knowing what motion the Government will table for Thursday, we cannot agree to tonight's motion, which would end discussion at 4 o'clock on Thursday. The Minister referred to the precedent of 1972, when the House took only an hour and five minutes to discuss the procedure for the election of Speaker. I draw attention to the conclusion that the Committee reached in paragraph 44(iii). It stated: The 1972 system is based on the assumption that the Government of the day and the 'usual channels' will operate behind the scenes in order to present the House with a single candidate, or at most a choice between two or three. Since at least 1983 it has become clear that this assumption is no longer correct. It is clear that the House is no longer willing to entrust the choice of candidates to the party machines. This means that (except in the special circumstances of the start of a Parliament when the sitting Speaker has been returned to the House) multi-candidate elections are likely to become the norm.
That demonstrates how the debate has changed. There was no controversy about the system in 1972. Indeed, it appears from the Committee's conclusions that there was a degree of trust that the usual channels would produce the correct candidates, probably because there would be only one, two or perhaps three options. In the election of our current Speaker, however, there has been a wholesale change. I think that that is a good thing, as it might suggest that the House is beginning to get up off its knees in its relationship with the Executive. It is good also in respect of the interaction of the two Front Benches.

§ Mr. Bercow
You have just reminded us, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the narrow terms of the motion, on which everybody accepts your guidance. With that in mind, does my hon. Friend agree that the central point of issue, which we invite the Parliamentary Secretary to take 980 on board, is that the nature and extent of the debate for which the motion provides will be crucial not only to the credibility of its outcome, but to its perceived legitimacy?

§ Mr. Blunt
I agree thoroughly with my hon. Friend. It is easy for hon. Members to think of halcyon days when the House was independent of the Executive—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Once again, I remind hon. Members of the narrowness of the debate and the motion.

§ Mr. Blunt
I am very aware of the terms of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is important for arguments to be advanced on the time scale that it proposes. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that an hour and five minutes was sufficient in 1972. He was asking us to accept that as much as an hour and half—or two and half hours, if there is no substantive statement—is unheard-of generosity on the part of the Executive.

§ Mr. Tipping
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, I did not use any of those words.

§ Mr. Blunt
But the implication—

§ Mr. Tipping
There was no implication either.

§ Mr. Blunt
I am happy to accept that the Parliamentary Secretary was not implying the suggestions to which I referred. However, his body language during the debate has given me some hope—it did so especially as he listened to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—that our arguments are persuading him to accept that the time scale to which the motion refers, which extends until 4 o'clock on Friday 22 March, might not be sufficient in the light of the complexity of the issues. If that is the case, I do not know what he will do in the time that is available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, Opposition Members will oppose the motion. I do not know what the Government can do if they accept that it allows insufficient time.

§ Mr. Hayes
Will my hon. Friend confirm that our point about credibility relates specifically to the timetable issue? If we do not allow sufficient time for the election of the person who personifies its credibility and legitimacy, hon. Members and the wider community will not regard the House and the lonely office of Speaker with the reverence that they deserve. Is not that a critical aspect of the timetable motion, as people will expect the House to give proper time and attention to its own affairs?

§ Mr. Blunt
If only people did regard the House with some reverence. I fear that it is not held in the highest regard outside. The reaction to the current proceedings for the election of a Speaker rather confirm that that is the case, certainly in respect of the response of the media and commentators.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)
It is a great pity that we are discussing this important matter at this time of night. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are discussing whether sufficient time is being given for debating the method of electing a future Speaker, when 981 the issue should be whether we should have a timetable motion at all? This is an important matter on which the House should be able freely to express its views, to the extent that it wishes. This is not an appropriate matter for a timetable.

§ Mr. Blunt
My hon. Friend has made an essential point. This is, by definition, completely a House of Commons matter. It is outrageous that the Executive should table this motion to limit the amount of time, in principle, and also that they should seek to limit it to such an extraordinary extent.
We have just been through the process of an enormously controversial election of a new Speaker, which has generated this report. Given the report's recommendations and the fact that no, sitting Speaker has been challenged since 1835, there should be no great rush to put the provisions in place before a general election on 3 May, if that is what is determining the Government's motion to constrain discussion of the matter.
This is an immensely important issue, and the views of Members of the House on the matter should not be constrained by an absurdly limited amount of time for debate. We should have the opportunity for our opinions exhaustively to be canvassed. The Procedure Committee has done that, to a degree, in the questionnaire that it sent out. However, that questionnaire, and the responses to it, raised as many questions as it provided answers. The Committee has made the best possible stab at a solution. It has not produced a completely prescriptive solution that would lend itself to a yes or no decision on the basis of the recommendations that it received. Some form of multi-option motion will be put before us.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
I shall put this question in as unpejorative a way as I can. Does my hon. Friend agree that if this overbearing Executive carry on constantly producing these timetables, particularly on matters such as these, which are House of Commons matters on which Members may vote freely according to their diktats, they will ultimately bring the House into disrepute? Does he also agree that the public will, ultimately, not have the regard that they should have for their Parliament?

§ Mr. Blunt
My hon. Friend brings me to the context in which this debate is taking place. I hope that we have made the case on its merits as to why one and a half or two and a half hours are insufficient time for debate on this matter. That is because it is a House of Commons matter, because of the complexity of the debate, and because of the inability properly to canvass opinions of hon. Members in that abbreviated time.

§ Mr. Hayes
The motion is about the length of time that we shall have to debate the matter, and also about the time when it will be debated. We have not yet focused on that second point. It might be more appropriate to debate the matter in a new Parliament. Given that we face a likely general election—I put it no more strongly than that—it is possible that the new Parliament with many new Members, very many of them Conservatives, rather than the old one, should decide about the election of its Speaker. It seems odd to be debating this matter at the 982 end of an old Parliament rather than at the beginning of a new one, given that we are talking about a significant change of procedure.

§ Mr. Blunt
That is the point that I was trying to make. We could face a general election on 3 May, so perhaps the motion is being rushed through so that the House can agree to the new recommendations before prorogation. I understand that the House may prorogue on 5 April to meet the deadline for a 3 May election, with the Prime Minister seeking a dissolution from Her Majesty on 28 March.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Once again, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing a particular timetable for a particular motion.

§ Mr. Bercow
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has raised an interesting point in debate and has expressed his opinion about what would be the appropriate procedure in a new Parliament. May I seek your guidance on the constitutional position? Let us assume that the Government do not accept his suggestion, but take the view, entirely reasonably and properly perhaps, that the procedure should be determined in this Parliament. Would you be good enough to confirm whether a subsequent Parliament could revoke that judgment?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Each Parliament is sovereign.

§ Mr. Blunt
The date in the motion—22 March—is important to our discussion. There has been wide speculation as to the date of the general election, when the Prime Minister will seek a dissolution from Her Majesty and when the House will prorogue to meet the deadline for a 3 May—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no mention in the motion of a date for any general election. Once again, will he please confine his remarks to the motion?

§ Mr. Blunt
I accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am slightly puzzled as to why it is not possible to discuss the context in which the motion has been tabled.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion refers to a specific date—22 March. I seek your guidance. Surely it is in order to consider that date in the context of a forthcoming election.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
A passing reference is acceptable, but the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was beginning to debate the issue.

§ Mr. Blunt
You are correct, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I was trying to debate the context of the motion, which must be considered in respect of the wider 983 reputation of the House. We are being invited to accept the motion without knowing the content of the substantive motion to which it refers. That is unacceptable.

§ Mr. Hayes
Does my hon. Friend agree that it has emerged that—in your words, Madam Deputy Speaker—each Parliament is sovereign? We know that a Parliament can last a maximum of five years, so if we debate the matter according to the Government's suggested timetable, this Parliament's judgment on the election of a Speaker will last a maximum of about a year. Given that it is highly unlikely that we shall elect a new Speaker, the next Parliament will be saddled with rules agreed by this Parliament under which it will have to elect its Speaker. Indeed, it may want to change those rules, so debating the matter today according to such a timetable is nonsense. Let us wait until we have undertaken full consideration and discuss it in the next Parliament, which can take a view as to whether it wants a new Speaker.

§ Mr. Blunt
I profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend. The procedures and precedents established in previous Parliaments govern how we operate. It is perfectly proper to discuss the matter thoroughly in this Parliament and to set out the procedures for which future elections of Speakers. We must do that at some stage and there is no reason why it should not happen on 22 March. However, there is every reason why the debate should not be limited to perhaps an hour and a half.

§ Mr. Bercow
Rarely do I dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has to say, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) agree that, at least on this occasion, there is a lacuna in his argument? There is an important distinction between constitutional impropriety—the existence of which my hon. Friend is, I think, wrongly suggesting—and the anti-social character of a debate held at this late hour. The latter may be undesirable, but in fairness to the Government—it irks me to be fair to Ministers—there is nothing constitutionally improper about it.

§ Mr. Blunt
I agree with my hon. Friend.
The point I want to make relates to the context in which the motion appears, in relation to similar motions tabled by the Government. It raises an important issue concerning the reputation of the House and its ability to do its job properly.
I am a member of Standing Committee F, which has been considering the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. Motion 67 relates to action that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and three other Conservative Members felt it necessary to take because of the curtailing of discussion of that important measure, which contains 130 clauses.
When the Government presented timetable motions relating to Committee stages, Third Readings and so forth, we had at least seen the Bill, because it had been published and had received a First Reading; but when the motion relating to this Bill appeared on the Order Paper, the Second Reading debate had not taken place and the Government were not in a position to change the 984 motion—to be taken immediately after Second Reading—to make some sort of allowance for the interest expressed on Second Reading and the controversy generated about the importance of the issues involved.
I think that the Government are making a profound mistake. I say that in all seriousness to Ministers, and to the deputy Chief Whip. This is not some silly point to be made at 1.30 am. I sincerely believe that to restrict debate on the process by which we are to elect a Speaker to, possibly, an hour and a half, in the context of the curtailing of debate on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill—that is one example, but it is now happening to every piece of legislation—is extremely deleterious to the reputation of this place. We are not doing our job as legislators or as scrutineers either of legislation or of the Executive, because the Executive are using their majority to prevent the rest of the House from doing that. The motion is another example—a most unfortunate example—of the Government's tendency to want simply to drive legislation through.
This is a House of Commons matter. The Executive should not be trying to limit time in such a way. I hope—although I am not sure that it is possible—that at some time and in some way the Government, if they have listened to the debate, will conclude that it is over-egging the pudding to expect the whole House to debate the election of a Speaker during a period of between one and a half and two and a half hours.
We have been much criticised in respect of our conduct of Opposition day debates. The Opposition Front Bench has sometimes decided to split Opposition days into two three-hour debates, to highlight two separate issues. In the case of home affairs debates, for instance, the result has been that the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have managed to take half the debate between them. Once the two Front-Bench spokesmen have summed up, precious little time has been left for Back Benchers on either side to participate. That is what happens when debate on an individual issue is limited to three hours. I believe that it has been a mistake to use Opposition time in that manner. It has prevented us from addressing, at length and with full Back-Bench participation, the issues that we wish to raise. Similarly, in this motion, the Government are saying that we shall have at most two and a half hours for debate.

§ Mr. Hayes
I appreciate that my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) do not share my desire to have such a broad debate, over quite such an extended time, on the matter. However, I think that we agree that the matter goes beyond the usual conduct of Government business and the usual guillotining of Government legislation. The motion and this debate have hit a much deeper and richer vein—the very business of Parliament. That is a matter of legitimate public concern and requires a full and thorough debate. I believe that, perhaps typically, my hon. Friend is understating the case.

§ Mr. Blunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I note that the motion has been tabled only by the Leader of the House. I am sure that that was a deliberate decision, as the motion deals with a House of Commons matter. I ask the Minister to convey to her our belief that it is not sufficient for her, as Leader of the House, 985 to propose such a short time to consider such an important matter. I therefore hope that, before we divide on the motion, the Government can find a way of reversing their position on the matter. I profoundly believe that the Leader of the House should find a way of doing so, and I hope that the Minister will tell her that.

§ Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)
I do not wish to detain the House unduly on this matter. In fact, I had not intended to speak in the debate.

§ Mr. Bercow
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Hayes
I must make a little progress, if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
I have become animated, not to say angry, as I have listened to the debate. I do not want to use hyperbole, but I believe that the motion is more than simply another example of the Government abusing their position so as to curtail proper debate on their business. I believe that the motion is about curtailing the rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House who want to express a wide range of opinions on the matter. We know from the election of the current Speaker—who is a very good Speaker—that hon. Members on both sides of the House hold a variety of views on the subject. We also know that the election of the Speaker is important both to the House and to the public. As I said in a brief earlier intervention, the public would judge us harshly if we were to deal with the matter in a cursory fashion.

§ Mr. Bercow
Entirely inadvertently, I am sure, my hon. Friend has traduced me. Does he accept that full debate on these important matters and debate in the next Parliament should not be regarded as mutually exclusive? It is even entirely possible to envisage a comprehensive and perhaps even leisurely debate on the matters being conducted before this Parliament concludes.

§ Mr. Hayes
That may indeed happen. My point is that a general election may be imminent—I do not want to get into a debate on the date of the general election—and it would be bizarre for this Parliament to agree a procedure for the election of the Speaker that would then be foisted on a new Parliament, which may be very different in its composition from this one. It might contain a different range and set of views.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)
Order. We are simply debating whether the amount of time indicated in the motion is appropriate.

§ Mr. Hayes
I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but are we not also debating the date on which the motion should be discussed? My point is that the time allocated is inadequate, and that the motion may be set for debate on the wrong date. It may not be appropriate to debate it next week, as the speculation is that we may be coming to the end of this Parliament. My point is that it might be appropriate to have a wider, public discussion of the implications of the Procedure Committee's report, as happened after the election of our current Speaker. That should be followed by a thorough and full debate in the House.
986 Neither the time allowed on the day by the Government, nor the timetable that they have set, allow for full public debate or proper exploration of the matter before a possibly imminent general election. A curtailed debate, a limited timetable in the House and inadequate wider discussion among the general public, who will have views on the report, would be followed by a general election. An earlier occupant of the Chair suggested that the new Parliament would be sovereign and entitled to debate the whole matter again. There is therefore a legitimate point to be made about the date set for debate of this matter, as well as the time allocated for its discussion.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Hayes
Yes, but I am due to be evangelising my party's cause at 8 o'clock in the morning. I do not want to be much later going to bed.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
I am sorry to keep my hon. Friend up for another 30 seconds, but I wonder whether he has considered an important point. The motion is in two parts, and they are different in their application. The first part does not protect debate, and so the Government can put as many statements on before it as they choose. I hope that the Minister will indicate whether any statements will be scheduled for that day. The second part of the motion protects the debate to be held on the private business regarding the Kent County Council Bill and Medway Council Bill. Would not it be reasonable for the Government to allocate greater time for the first section of the motion?

§ Mr. Hayes
My hon. Friend's intervention was so convoluted—untypically, as he always speaks with great acumen and lucidity—and my own desire for bed and cocoa is so great that I cannot deal with it—

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Hayes
Yes, but my hon. Friend must do better this time.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
I am conscious of being censored by my hon. Friend, but there has been so much hilarity and barracking in the Chamber that I have not been able to address the point seriously. However, I do not understand why my hon. Friend fails to grasp the point that the first part of the motion is very different from the second part.

§ Mr. Hayes
I think that it was G.K. Chesterton who said that people who have the impatience to interrupt the words of others seldom have the patience to choose good words of their own. I do not want to ascribe that fault to my hon. Friend, but he is right to suggest that we might end up with only an hour and a half in which to debate the motion. The matter is profoundly important, and it stimulates a variety of views across the Chamber. To have so short a time for its discussion is inadequate and scandalous. The seriousness and breadth of the Committee report is such that I suggest that many right hon. and hon. Members will want to contribute to the debate. We will be faced with a situation that I have seen before in my short time in the House in which right hon. and 987 hon. Members will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will be disappointed. Not only will they be disappointed but their constituents and others will feel that they have not had an opportunity to make their views known properly.

§ Mr. Bercow
My hon. Friend is making a cogent point. Did he notice a moment ago that when he suggested that many right hon. and hon. Members might wish to contribute to this important debate in future, hand gestures from the Deputy Chief Whip appeared to cavil at that suggestion? Will my hon. Friend accept from me that there is a great difference between a debate at 1.40 am, resulting necessarily in a relatively modest attendance, and debate at a proper hour on a normal working day of the House, which would probably attract a great deal of interest from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber?

§ Mr. Hayes
I suspect that such a debate would attract not only full attendance in the Chamber but a good deal of public and press attention. Indeed, I am convinced of it. I suggest that it would also be one of the more interesting debates in the Chamber from the perspective of the wider public. Unusual views would be expressed, and I suspect that those views would cross the party divide. We have had a taste of that in the debate that followed the election of the Speaker.
It seems unwise of the Government to curtail debate with this timetable motion. I have known the Minister for many years; we have known each other man and boy—well, almost. I know him to be a reasonable and decent man. I suspect that he wants the matter to be explored in the most extensive manner. I do not know whether he has been pushed into this, but it is unwise of the Government to curtail debate in this way because I think that the public will judge them harshly for so doing.
The debate is proposed to take place on the wrong date and at the wrong stage in the Parliament. There is certainly not enough time in which to debate the issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said with regard to the detail of the motion, the nature of the private business to be debated that day and the pressure that it puts on other business on the Order Paper renders the time allocated for debate on the election of a Speaker even less suitable. It is a bit of a pig's breakfast—a dog's dinner. [Interruption.] The Deputy Chief Whip laughs. It is a testament to the House that we can deal with this matter with a degree of good humour, but there is a serious point at stake.
The Speaker is in many ways the personification of the House's legitimacy.

§ Mr. Bercow
The embodiment.

§ Mr. Hayes
The embodiment and the personification. I do not think that the two are mutually exclusive. The way in which we elect the Speaker is therefore critical to that legitimacy. The way in which we debate that election is itself of great importance. That is why it is not simply the debate that will take place in a week's time which will attract public scrutiny but tonight's debate on timetabling that important business.
988 If the House ceases to take itself and the election of its Speaker seriously, I suspect that it will cease to be taken seriously. It is not too late to think again about this. We know that the motion as such has not been laid before the House so there is a certain amount of flexibility. It is not too late to think about the wider consultation and discussion that might take place on the Procedure Committee report before the House considers it.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, given our long and friendly relationship, to consider the matter again, take on board the comments made from what are, as I think that he will agree, some of the rising stars on the Opposition Benches, and do what I am confident that he will feel to be right: allow the fullest and fairest discussion of the matter when it comes before the House by relaxing the restriction that he is seeking to impose on us this evening.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)
I wish to argue one clear, simple case, which I was unable to get across to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), and to secure a concession from the Parliamentary Secretary on the timetable motion.
As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend, the timetable has two parts. The first relates to the debate on the mechanism by which we are to elect a new Speaker. The second protects debate on private business—not private Member's business—and relates to the Kent County Council and Medway Council Bills.
The two parts of the motion are worded differently. The first does not name the length of the debate, but merely states that proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion by 4 pm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, if we have a business statement, a private notice question and another ministerial statement, we might have only one or one and a half hours in which to debate a matter that is critically important for the House—how it is to elect its next Speaker.
We do not know when those proceedings may be brought into effect—it might be in the next Parliament or the following Parliament. Nevertheless, these are critical and important matters for the House. To have them timetabled for only one and a half hours seems highly unsatisfactory. I wonder whether I can wring this concession from the Parliamentary Secretary: that we will not have any ministerial statements on that day. If he cannot give us an answer now, perhaps the business managers will consider it before 22 March. It is not within the Parliamentary Secretary's gift to control private notice questions, because those are in the gift of the Speaker, who will perhaps have heard what I have said.
It is wholly unsatisfactory that we should have such a short time in which to debate the first matter when the second part of the motion protects three extra hours of debate, over and above the time that is taken on any preceding votes. Often, timetable motions provide that time for debate should include the votes.
On the one hand, the Government and the business managers are being very generous to the private Bills, but on the other they are being very parsimonious about the amount of time that they are allowing for debate on this other important matter. The Parliamentary Secretary has 989 been nodding. I hope that my proposals will be seriously considered and, on that basis, I need not detain the House any longer.

§ Mr. Tipping
We have had an interesting debate that has focused on time and the timetable, which have been high on the minds of Opposition Members. They are concerned about when the general election will be held. I do not blame them. When one looks at the opinion polls, the phrase, "Lord, make us chaste, but not yet", comes to mind. I hear the Opposition saying. "Lord, give us a general election, but not yet, because we face real difficulties."
I will not be drawn on those matters.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Tipping
No. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's question in a minute.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was described, uncharitably, as being unsighted. Let me make it clear to hon. Members—I am unsighted as to the date of the general election.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield was not unsighted about the report of the Procedure Committee. He has clearly read it and knows that the election of a Speaker is an evolutionary matter. I noted his comment that the 1972 election was radically different from the current state of affairs. Hon. Members who have considered the report will realise that things have changed dramatically at various points over time.
The issue before us is clearly one of time and timetabling. Three substantive points were made. There has been some fair criticism that the motions were not laid before the House. I remind hon. Members of what I said in my opening remarks; the motions will be laid shortly. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) takes a close interest in when motions are laid, so I shall not make him a commitment that the motions will be laid today, tomorrow or the next day. They will, however, be laid shortly—certainly in good time for Members to consider them and to table amendments.

§ Mr. Blunt
The misfortune is that the motions were not available before this debate, because we are trying to make a judgment about the time for their debate. The substantive point is not about the motions, because I am sure that the Minister will put them before the House as soon as he can.

§ Mr. Tipping
I shall do so. There are motions in existence, but they need a little more polishing and refining. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not a take-it-or-leave-it matter—there will le choices. As I said earlier, the only issue that divided the Committee was open and closed voting. An amendment will be tabled to enable the House to make a choice on that matter.
990 That brings me to the central point. Hon. Members have noted the great variation of view on this matter. Certainly, there is some variation, but what struck me when I read the Committee's report was the degree of consensus that had emerged—it voted on only one matter. One of the Committee's members is in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill).
The Committee has provided a firm framework within which the House can discuss the matter. The motions that we table will mirror as closely as possible the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. I make that point directly to address those hon. Members who challenged me on the matter.
In fairness to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, he is right to note that the time for debate will be limited. We heeded the advice of the Committee on that matter—especially the fact that its Chairman had asked for an early debate to be held on the election of a Speaker. Hon. Members referred to the various demands on the time of the House, so I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to arrange an early debate on the matter.
It is conceivable that the time for the debate could be restricted—hon. Members have said that it could be only an hour and a half. I got the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), although I did not understand some of his points—I think that some of his colleagues had difficulty in understanding them. He asked me to try to ensure that the time was not eroded by statements and private notice questions. Of course, private notice questions are a matter not for me but for the Chair. However, I heard what the hon. Gentleman said and we will do our best to protect the time available. That is not an absolute guarantee: we will do our best.
That desire to protect the time—

§ Mr. Bercow
The hon. Gentleman is as mellifluous as ever.

§ Mr. Tipping
Emollient, I think—[Interruption.] Give me some more—I am on a roll. However, with a Whip and a former Whip sitting on the Treasury Bench beside me, I had better make some progress.
The Procedure Committee has given us a good basis to work from. It has provided a consensus. Every effort will be made to lay the motions as quickly as possible. They will mirror as closely as possible the Committee's report.
I have heard the plea of the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Beaconsfield that we try not further to erode the time available. I simply remind the House that, back in 1972, this debate was concluded in an hour and five minutes. Although we have not had the opportunity to discuss the substance of the report tonight, we have already spent a longer time examining these issues.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members
No.