'Campaigning': manifestoes, hustings
and speeches
49. Any kind of overt campaigning for the post of
Speaker has traditionally been strongly discouraged. This reflected
the view that the Speakership was a post which Members did not
actively seek. As we have seen, in recent centuries at least this
has been something of a polite fiction. Nevertheless, as recently
as 1972 the Procedure Committee re-affirmed the view that "canvassing
and lobbying, especially of new Members, at the beginning of a
Parliament, ... would be undesirable".[32]
In the most recent election it became clear that this convention
had been significantly eroded: several candidates issued written
'manifestoes', and an informal hustings meeting was held on the
morning of the election in one of the House's committee rooms,
which was attended by a number of candidates.
50. Several of our witnesses commented that they
had found the hustings meeting helpful.[33]
They also noted that newly elected Members of the House at the
start of a Parliament would stand in particular need of information
about the merits of candidates whom they could not be expected
to know personally.[34]
Other witnesses expressed grave doubts, particularly about the
desirability of manifestoes. It was pointed out that the Speaker
is the impartial servant of the House, and is not in a position
to deliver on detailed policy commitments given during the course
of an election campaign; it is his or her job to work within the
Standing Orders agreed by the House and other decisions taken
by the House or its committees.[35]
The Chairman of Ways and Means set out this objection in detail:
"I disapprove of the
idea of a hustings. It seems to me that this can only introduce
an element of competitiveness, if not immediately then over time,
which could lead candidates into statements and undertakings which
could compromise their independence in the Chair if chosen. It
must be remembered that whilst the Speaker has some power of initiative,
all matters of procedure are questions for Members as a whole
to determine. The Speaker's duty is to uphold impartially the
decisions of the House whose servant he/she is. Much the same
arguments apply to a manifesto, which is the written equivalent
of a hustings speech."[36]
51. To this argument the supporters of manifestoes
replied that it would be helpful to Members for each candidate
to indicate at least in broad terms, as Mr Peter Bradley put it,
"the principles which would guide their tenure of the office"—for
instance in relation to modernisation of the House.[37]
52. We believe that in a multi-candidate election
some degree of campaigning is inevitable and, indeed, healthy,
but that this should be constrained within strict limits. We do
not consider that a long, formal campaign would be of benefit
to the House, or likely to enhance its reputation with the public;
nor indeed would such a campaign be feasible at the start of a
Parliament, given the need of the House to elect a Speaker before
it can proceed to other business. We propose that all the formal
proceedings in relation to the election should take place within
a single sitting day; this in itself will serve to reduce the
scope for active campaigning. We see no formal role within
the new procedure for manifestoes or hustings, but equally we
do not recommend that they be formally prohibited.
53. We emphasise that we would deprecate unduly
strident campaigning, and that campaigning involving the expenditure
of money would be wholly inappropriate. If it becomes apparent
that any such campaigning is taking place, our successors in future
Parliaments will have the option of recommending the imposition
of formal restrictions on campaigning; but we hope that the good
sense of candidates and the House at large will prevail and that
this will not prove necessary.
54. We acknowledge that many of the Members who attended
the informal hustings last October found it a useful occasion,
and we accept that there is a particular need for new Members
at the start of a Parliament to receive information about the
candidates. However, we believe that the right place for information
to be conveyed is in the Chamber of the House.[38]
We therefore recommend that, at a suitable interval after nominations
have closed, each candidate should have the opportunity to address
the House in support of his or her candidature. This should
immediately precede the holding of the ballot. The order in which
candidates speak should be determined by a draw conducted by the
Clerk of the House. We do not recommend that proposers and seconders
be heard on this occasion; the formal need for proposal is obviated
by having written nominations, and we note the views of a majority
of our witnesses that proposers' and seconders' speeches during
the recent election, though in some cases entertaining, consumed
much time without materially influencing the subsequent voting.[39]
The ballot: secret or open?
55. The most difficult decision in relation to a
ballot is whether it should be secret or open. There are strong
arguments on both sides of the question. The most powerful argument
in support of secrecy is that it would protect those voting from
any form of improper pressure, whether from the party leaderships
or supporters of particular candidates. Several witnesses claimed
that pressure had been brought to bear even in the most recent
election—although it was added that such pressure might
have proved counter-productive.[40]
A secret ballot would have the added benefit that the new Speaker
would have no knowledge of who had voted for or against him or
her in the ballot, and would therefore be free from even the suspicion
of bias in subsequently calling Members to speak in debate. The
Clerk of the House told us that there was a concern that "a
vote cast against a Speaker is remembered", although he added
that he did not know whether this was "paranoia" or
had a foundation in fact.[41]
The former Speaker, Lord Weatherill, said that "there is
always a feeling, I suppose, that if the Speaker does not call
you it is because you did not vote for him or her ... the Speaker
should not know who has voted for him or her".[42]
Lady Boothroyd told us that in order to avoid any such suspicion,
she did not look at the voting list for her election until a year
had passed.[43]
56. The use of a secret ballot to elect a presiding
officer is widespread amongst other parliaments and assemblies:
the House of Representatives in Australia, the House of Commons
in Canada, the National Assembly in South Africa, the national
parliaments of France and Italy, the European Parliament, the
Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales all use
secret ballots for this purpose.[44]
57. The major argument in favour of an open ballot
is that as a matter of principle the electorate is entitled to
know how Members of Parliament have voted on this, as on all other
decisions which are made by the House. Mr Tony Benn stated that:
"Where we vote, as in
a general election, on our own behalf, it is proper that it should
be private, but where we vote in our representative capacity,
namely, as Member of Parliament, I think our constituents are
entitled to know."[45]
58. Several witnesses also argued that allowing a
secret ballot for the Speakership would set a bad precedent, leading
to pressure for secrecy in other divisions on sensitive subjects.
Mr David Maclean argued:
"Once we start on the
secret ballot route for Speaker we are on a slippery slope to
demanding secret ballots for a range of other things; and the
day will come, we will be able to say to our constituents, 'Well
I can't tell you how I voted on the Embryology Bill; it's a secret,
you know.' It maybe seems far-fetched at the moment, but we can
be heading on that route."[46]
The Clerk of the House commented that "if you
are going to go for a secret ballot, ... I think you have to explain
what is so special about this decision ... which makes it distinct
from any other decision the House takes".[47]
59. Of those Members who responded to our questionnaire,
a clear majority supported a secret ballot: 63% were in favour
and 24% were opposed (the remainder were agnostic or opposed to
having a ballot at all). In oral evidence, the Shadow Leader of
the House, the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the Chairman of the
1922 Committee, the former Speaker, Lord Weatherill, Mr Peter
Bradley and Mr Alan Keen told us they supported a secret ballot,[48]
but the Father of the House, the Chair of the PLP, the former
Speaker, Lady Boothroyd, Mr Tony Benn and Mr David Maclean supported
an open ballot.[49]
60. We have considered carefully the arguments for
and against a secret ballot. On balance, we are persuaded that
the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. We note that over many
years the House has regarded the election of its Speaker as an
occasion quite apart from the usual run of parliamentary events,
requiring special and unusual procedures. We do not believe there
is any danger of setting a precedent which would be carried over
into other areas of parliamentary activity. We also note the long-developing
tradition that this pre-eminently is a matter for the House and
not for the Government or the party leaderships, and believe that
the institution of a secret ballot would represent a desirable
culmination of that tradition. Finally, we note that major parliaments
elsewhere in the world, both within and without the Westminster
tradition, have regarded this procedure as appropriate to the
election of their presiding officers. For these reasons we
recommend that the ballot be secret.
61. We hope that the House will accept our recommendation.
However, we are conscious that this is an issue on which there
are strong views in the House on both sides of the argument. Although
we have sampled the opinion of Members through our questionnaire
and by taking evidence, we are not confident that we know what
the majority view in the House is. We therefore recommend that
the question of whether the ballot be secret or open should
be the subject of a specific and separate decision by the House.
7 See Annex 1. Back
8
QQ 114, 130, 83, 85, 89, 169 and 165. Back
9
Q 143. Back
10
QQ 167, 88. Back
11
See, for instance, Ev. p. 2; Q 56; questionnaire response from
David Tredinnick MP; Q85. Back
12
QQ 2, 6, 82, 88, 114. Back
13
QQ 6, 55. Back
14
QQ 55, 89. Back
15
Ev. p. 2. Back
16
Q42; questionnaire responses from Tess Kingham MP and Tom Levitt
MP. Back
17
Q 143. Back
18
HC (1971-72) 111, Q 141. Back
19
See QQ 20, 35, 61, 91, 120, 131, 142-43 and 169. Back
20
Ev. p. 61. Back
21
Q 56. Back
22
Questionnaire response from Jane Griffiths MP. Back
23
Questionnaire response from Sir Alan Haselhurst MP. Back
24
Ev. p. 15. Back
25
Questionnaire response from Phil Woolas MP. Back
26
Ev. p. 15. Back
27
Q 9. Back
28
Q 10. Back
29
Q 165. Back
30
QQ 4, 12-13. Back
31
Ev. p. 71. Back
32
HC (1971-72) 111, para 20. Back
33
Ev. p. 2; questionnaire responses from, inter alia, Sir
Patrick Cormack MP, Jane Griffiths MP, Tony Worthington MP. Back
34
Q 127. Back
35
Ev. p. 16; questionnaire responses from Richard Ottaway MP. Back
36
Questionnaire response from Sir Alan Haselhurst MP. Back
37
Q 19; see also Q 24. Back
38
See QQ 77, 83. Back
39
See QQ 24, 67, 73, 74, 76, 85 and 89. Back
40
Q 14, 85. Back
41
Q 210. Back
42
Q 171. Back
43
Ibid. Back
44
See Annex 1. Back
45
Q 9. Back
46
Q 64. Back
47
Q 210. Back
48
QQ 114, 133, 85, 169, 10 and 14. Back
49
QQ 170, 83, 170, 9, 64. Back
