LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO RULES GOVERNING THE ELECTION
OF A SPEAKER
The process by which the House elected its new
Speaker last month prompted considerable criticism and concern,
both inside and outside the House. In the light of this, the Procedure
Committee has decided to conduct an urgent inquiry into the rules
governing the election of a Speaker. It is our intention to produce
a report in time for any recommendations we may make to be debated
and decided upon by the House before the end of this Parliament.
The current system of election of Speaker dates
from 1972, and was put in place following a review by the Procedure
Committee. This considered radical changes such as election by
secret ballot, but rejected them. In 1996 the Procedure Committee
returned to the subject and in a brief report decided to recommend
no further change to the rules.
The current system is based on the assumption
that the "usual channels" will take soundings within
their respective parties and reach agreement on a single candidate
for Speaker, or failing that will eliminate minor candidates and
allow at most two names to be put before the House. The Procedure
Committee's 1996 report underwrote this assumption when it stated
that "the onus is plainly on the parties concerned to agree
on their favoured candidate and failure to do so cannot be attributed
to procedural obstacles".
It is open to debate whether this traditional
system of relying on the usual channels to produce one or at most
two names is right in principle. What is clear is that, for whatever
reason, the system did not operate effectively in the period preceding
the election of Mr Speaker Martin on 23 October. For this reason
we feel it is right to reopen the question of making a major change
to the rules, especially as there appears to be significant support
for such a change within the House.
It is in order to gauge the extent of that support,
and to canvass opinion on how a new system might operate, that
I am now writing to all Members of the House. I and my colleagues
on the Procedure Committee would be very grateful to receive your
views in writing on this subject. In particular it would be helpful
if you could supply responses to the questions below:
1. Do you support a change from the present
system of electing a Speaker to one based on a ballot?
2. If the House were to adopt a ballot-based
system—
(a) Should it be a secret ballot or an open
one?
(b) Should there be a run-off between the
candidates who secure the top positions in the ballot? And if
so should this be by ballot, secret or open, or by division in
the House?
(c) Should voting be on a first-past-the-post
basis or using the alternative vote system?
(d) What type of majority, if any, should
the successful candidate be required to achieve over and above
a simple majority? Should the successful candidate be required
to achieve that majority in relation to the total number of Members
actually voting or of all those entitled to vote? Should the successful
candidate be required to receive the support of a specified number,
or percentage, of Members who do not belong to that candidate's
party?
3. Should each candidate continue to require
a mover and seconder, and should all three be entitled to address
the House as at present? Could this be replaced—or supplemented—by
a written manifesto to be published in advance by the candidate?
Or by a "hustings" meeting of the kind informally arranged
on 23 October? Should it be a requirement that candidates have
the support of a minimum number of Members to be eligible to enter
the contest?
4. Are there any other comments you wish
to make about the electoral process or the practice of the House
in relation to the election of a Speaker?
9 November 2000
| 
