Examination of Witness (Questions 114
- 119)
TUESDAY 23 JANUARY 2001
MRS ANGELA
BROWNING
Chairman
114. May I thank you for coming to give evidence
to us today as part of our inquiry into the procedure relating
to the election of the Speaker in the House of Commons? As you
know, the current system of electing a Speaker, set up in 1972,
has been quite heavily criticised throughout the House and this
is the reason for our inquiry. May I ask you what you consider
to be the strengths and what you consider to be the weaknesses
of the existing method of electing a Speaker? Do you personally
wish to see a change and if so what system would you prefer? Does
the Conservative Party which you represent as Shadow Leader of
the House, have a collective view on this?
(Mrs Browning) It would be over ambitious to suggest
that the whole of the Conservative Parliamentary Party has a collective
view. I do think there are some common themes which come through
in the Parliamentary Party and they can really, I suppose, be
put under certain headings. One is that I believe there is an
overwhelming feeling that the election of the Speaker should be
a secret ballot, secret in terms of how individuals cast their
vote. There is also overriding concern that the way in which the
Speaker is chosen by the Members of the House should not in any
way be under a procedure which gives patronage either to a member
of the executive or, for that matter, in terms of the proceedings,
to the Father of the House. That is no disrespect to the Father
of the House, but we all witnessed on 23 October last year and
the Father of the House himself felt that the proceedings which
he had to oversee were very unsatisfactory. Hence, I imagine,
some of your deliberations have looked at his own comments on
the procedure he had to administer. For example, the way in which
names were put forward. Clearly whatever procedure is agreed by
the House and whatever your Committee recommend, it is very important
that where there are several candidates—and we had several
in the ballot on 23 October—the order in which they come
forward or the procedure under which their names come forward
does not give an advantage to any one candidate over the other.
However many candidates come forward in a future ballot, there
is a sense in the Conservative Parliamentary Party that there
should be a sense of equality of opportunity for all of those
people to be fairly adjudged and for the method of the ballot
to be such that it does not disadvantage any one Member. Perhaps
I might, if I may, touch on just one or two issues which have
come forward. The Committee may be interested to know that my
constituency predecessor, Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, who gave evidence
to that 1972 Procedure Committee has written to me and drawn my
attention to the Committee's report of that time, although I am
sorry to say the Vote Office have yet to bring it forward. One
of the points he made was that in that 1972 Committee the people
at the time who gave evidence to that Committee felt even then
that a secret ballot was really very, very important. I must emphasise
that that is something which is seen to be unfinished business.
115. So you do not agree with Sir Peter Emery's
Committee when it reported in 1996, when they recommended no change
on the grounds that "there is in our view no better system
and many worse". I refer to paragraph 22 of the report of
the Procedure Committee of 1996.
(Mrs Browning) No, I do not agree with that. The system
which comes forward now must be seen first of all to be a democratic
system. It must be one where there is not seen to be any preference
to any one candidate. Also, from the point of view of the Members
who vote, it is deemed to be—and this is no disrespect to
any one Speaker who has served this House—important that
when the process is over it is in Parliament's interest that the
way individual Members support one candidate or another is not
on the record of the House for all to see because that in itself
gives cause for concern, particularly to back benchers. I would
certainly personally endorse that view. I have studied some of
the papers which I know this Committee has seen about procedures
in other countries. I was also fortunate enough recently to have
a meeting with the Leader of the Canadian Parliament when he visited
us a fortnight ago. I was very struck by some of the procedures
they follow, not exactly replicated, but for example they deem
that anybody who is not a member of the Front Bench, unless of
course that person withdraws from the Front Bench in order to
become a candidate, is automatically deemed to be a candidate.
I would not go that far. There has to be a system of nomination,
although that of course could be self-nomination so long as it
was seconded by a Member of the House.
116. Proposed and seconded or just seconded.
(Mrs Browning) Just seconded. Self-nomination would
certainly be something I would find quite acceptable, so long
as there was a seconder to that. The procedure of their ballot,
as you will be aware, is that in the case where they clearly have
quite a number of candidates—and I understand in Canada
sometimes people fail to have their name removed from the list
just to test the water and I am not suggesting we go down that
route but a nomination so that clearly the people we are looking
at want the job, but in order to remove a lot of the people who
would clearly be in a very secondary position, we might consider
the Canadian approach—on the first ballot any one candidate
who does not command five per cent of those who actually vote
should be eliminated from the list. The Canadians tell me that
does help to reduce the list quite dramatically on the first ballot.
Then, to come to the methodology as to how the rest of the list
is voted upon, I should personally favour—and this is not
a party view, it is just a personal view—the exhaustive
ballot process whereby there is a runoff between the various candidates
so that you proceed with however many ballots are necessary until
you get a candidate who has commanded over 50 per cent of the
House. I know the Electoral Reform Society have put forward a
paper which I felt was a very good paper where they examine the
difference between the exhaustive ballot and alternative vote
system. The principle encapsulated in that is very important and
that is that no vote is wasted on any ballot. My preference would
be for the exhaustive ballot rather than for AV, but the principle
they have spelled out, that no vote is wasted, is an important
one to consider if you are going to have a runoff of the remaining
candidates who have commanded more than five per cent of the number
of people who actually vote in the ballot. If it is to be a secret
ballot, then clearly somebody has to administer the proceedings
and I would again have no objection to the Father of the House
administering those proceedings but with the Clerk of the House
actually being responsible for the counting of the vote. In the
Canadian Parliament they tell me that even the Father of the House
would not be given the percentage breakdown of those individual
votes as they go forward. It would only be the Clerk of the House
who would have that information. I would agree with that. That
is the right way forward.
Mr Illsley
117. The 1972 Committee did not advocate a secret
ballot. It was urged upon the 1972 Committee by Mr Maxwell-Hyslop
and others, but they actually recommended against a secret ballot
on the basis that it would lead to canvassing and hustings and
lobbying.
(Mrs Browning) I appreciate that and the letter Sir
Robin has written to me does emphasis what a shame it is that
they did not take his advice in 1972 on a secret ballot. In terms
of hustings, for the benefit of new Members of Parliament, particularly
where the ballot comes right at the beginning of a new Parliament
where many Members may not know the individuals concerned, certainly
would not have worked with them sufficiently to get a feel as
to the sort of Speaker the individuals would make, there should
be some opportunity, perhaps not for a hustings—it seems
almost too vulgar for the position of Speaker—but certainly
perhaps some form of written statement so that Members can see
what the priorities of the Speaker are and how philosophically
they approach the job in terms of their protection of the House
of Commons. The Speaker is a pivotal person in terms of the back
benchers particularly and the rights of the Chamber.
118. As well as a speech, a nomination in the
House as well?
(Mrs Browning) Yes; I would not be opposed.
119. The situation we have now where there is
a mover and seconder.
(Mrs Browning) Yes, I would not be opposed to that.
I do think this is an important job and it is important that people
have a clear understanding as to how the candidates view the job
and particularly if we were to go to a self-nominating system—one
could say in a way all our candidates now are self-nominating
because they would not stand if they did not really want the job—it
is important for us to have a feel as to how they see the various
responsibilities of the Speaker.
|
