APPENDIX 1
Letter from the Chairman of Ways and Means
to the Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 9 November inviting
comment from me to assist your inquiry into the way in which the
Chairman of Ways and Means and other Deputy Speakers are chosen.
The first thing to say is that I know next to
nothing about the circumstances of my own appointment in 1997.
On the day following the Speakers' re-election, I was approached
by the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip and was asked if I would be
ready to accept nomination. It was not until the day before the
State Opening that the Opposition chief Whip was in touch to say
that I would definitely be named in the Leader of the House's
motion on the following day. Two hours after the approval of the
motion, I was in the Chair for the first time, I assume that my
nomination was the outcome of discussion through the usual channels
the purpose of which would be to test whether a potential nominee
would be acceptable across the House. It could be contended that
at the start of a new Parliament, especially one in which there
is a high intake of new members, the whips are in as good a position
as anyone to understand the nature of the duties involved (the
Chairman has particular responsibilities over and above the other
deputies) and how the team (Speaker plus deputies) can be best
balanced.
Whilst such a process is by no means open the
question to be determined is whether the House has been ill-served
by it. There is very little evidence of manifest discontent in
the names chosen over the past several years. In any case the
method of election in no way governs how a Deputy Speaker performs
in practice. However, if there is initial antipathy to a name,
it should be remembered that the Leader of the House's motion
is both debatable and subject to division. So there is a long-stop
in place now should a nomination attract immediate opposition.
The last occasion of significant controversy was in 1968-69 when
Members expressed some opposition to, but in the end did not divide
against, a proposal to appoint Mr Harry Gourlay as a Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means on the grounds that he had just come from being a Government Whip.
No similar objection was raised when Bernard Weatherill moved
from Government Deputy Chief Whip to the post of Chairman of Ways
and Means.
The closed process is obviously not impenetrable.
In 1997, according to newspaper reports, there was an objection
in Labour Party circles to a name which was apparently being canvassed
for one of the Deputy Speakerships. If these reports are to be
believed, another name was preferred by the time the Leader of
the House moved the motion. This suggests that the soundings taken
by the whips are not simply incestuous.
It is perhaps the enhanced perception that the
post of Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means might be
a stepping stone to the Speakership which gives a new significance
to the appointment to these posts. However, it should be stressed
that any recent pattern in this regard does not constrain the
House in any way when choosing a new Speaker in future. Yet, if
the Speaker is to be chosen by secret ballot, I can understand
the parallel argument that this process might also extend to the
Deputy Speaker. There are, I suggest, some grounds for hesitation
in supposing that such an extension is entirely appropriate:
(a) a ballot process for three separate,
but interrelated posts would be extremely cumbersome and long-winded.
It could not begin until the election of the Speaker was completed,
because unsuccessful candidates for the Speakership might reasonably
wish to be considered for election to the deputy posts;
(b) an entirely open election would not necessarily
produce the present Government/Opposition balance between the
occupants of the Chair. This balance is important in maintaining
the perception of the impartiality of the Chair and could also
be of intense political significance in a hung Parliament or a
House with only a small Government majority. I might add from
a personal point-of-view that this effective pairing of the occupants
of the Chair is very helpful to a Deputy Speaker in explaining
to his constituents why he is unable to vote;
(c) a ballot process could take no account
of the wishes of the Speaker. The Speaker and the Deputies have
to function as a close and cohesive team, often under considerable
pressure. It is natural that the Speaker should wish to be consulted
about the appointment of those with whom he is going to have to
work on a daily basis to ensure that there is the necessary degree
of trust and mutual compatibility; and
(d) should we depart from the present arrangements
some mechanism would have to be devised to ensure that the Speaker
was supported in his duties in the Chair while the election process
was continuing.
If your Committee, despite these considerations,
feels that the operation of the House would benefit from some
change in the system for electing Deputy Speakers. I offer the
following thoughts:
(i) Motions for the appointment of Deputy
Speakers might be moved without notice only on the first
day of a new Parliament where deputies from the previous Parliament
are being re-appointed. It is after all the case that Standing
Order No 1A(1) gives a similarly free run to a sitting Speaker.
Your committee might bear in mind that a return to political life
on the back benches is not easy in our House for someone who has
been cocooned in the neutrality of the Chair;
(ii) by contrast a motion to appoint a Member
to a Deputy Speakership for the first time should require notice—perhaps,
on the precedent of Select Committee membership, a minimum of
two days notice (S.O. No. 121(2) refers); and
(iii) on the occasions (rare) when no Deputy
Speaker from the previous Parliament is available for re-appointment
on the first day of a new Parliament, a Member could be appointed
on a strictly temporary basis to assist the Speaker pending the
tabling of a notice of motion for the appointment of permanent
deputies.
The Rt Hon Sir Alan Haselhurst
22 November 2001
|
