2 Election of the Speaker
The new rules
6. The rules for the election of the Speaker
as implemented in June 2009 are radically different from those
by which the previous Speaker, Rt Hon Michael Martin (now Lord
Martin of Springburn), was elected in 2000.[6]
As set out in Standing Order No. 1B, the rules provide for would-be
candidates to be nominated by not fewer than twelve nor more than
15 Members, of whom at least three must have been elected to the
House as members of a party other than that of the candidate (or
as members of no party). No Member may sign more than one statement
of nomination—and if any Member does so, their signature
is invalidated for all nominations. Nomination papers may be handed
in to the Table Office between 9.30am and 10.30am on the day of
the election. As soon as practicable thereafter the list of candidates
is placed in Members' Lobby and published.
7. That afternoon the House meets at 2.30pm.
Standing Order 1B provides that if only one Member is nominated,
the Presiding Member should invite that candidate to submit himself
to the House and then the Question is immediately put that "that
[that Member] do take the Chair of the House as Speaker".
If two or more Members are nominated, candidates address the House
in an order determined by lot. Once all speeches are concluded,
the House moves to a secret ballot.
8. The results of the ballot are announced in
the Chamber by the Presiding Member. If a candidate receives more
than half the votes cast, the Question is put that "that
[that Member] do take the Chair of the House as Speaker".
Otherwise, the House proceeds to a second ballot. At this stage
no new nominations may be received. A new ballot paper is prepared
without the names of (a) the candidate who received the fewest
votes, (b) any candidate who received fewer than 5% of the votes
cast in the previous ballot, and (c) any candidate who within
ten minutes of the announcement of the previous ballot has notified
the Presiding Member of an intention to withdraw. Successive ballots
are held until either one candidate receives more than half the
votes cast or the elimination of other candidates leaves only
one candidate on the ballot paper. The Question is then put "that
[that Member] do take the Chair of the House as Speaker".
If the Question is agreed to, the Member then takes the Chair
as Speaker-elect.
The election of June 2009
9. The election of 22 June 2009 followed the
resignation of Speaker Martin, which was announced a month earlier
on 19 May 2009. This period of notice enabled the House authorities
a little time to put the finishing touches to their preparations
for a Speakership election. In doing so they relied on the procedure
as set out in Standing Order No. 1B and described in the 2001
Procedure Committee report. The current Clerk Assistant, Robert
Rogers, explained that, in translating Standing Order No. 1B into
action, "Any gaps in the procedure that we identified were
filled by extrapolation from existing procedures."[7]
The month's notice also gave would-be candidates an opportunity
to gather the necessary signatures of support and ten Members
submitted valid nomination forms to the Table Office at the prescribed
time.
10. According to the Procedure Committee in 2001,
one of the drivers for change to a secret ballot was that "Where
there are more than two candidates, the [existing] system is fundamentally
flawed", with result that "the House may end up with
a Speaker who has less support than some of his challengers whose
names could not be put before the House".[8]
The number of candidates for the post of Speaker in 2009, similar
to the twelve who stood in the last election under the old system
in 2000, therefore could have been designed to test the robustness
of the new procedures. In the event, three rounds of balloting
were required before the winning candidate emerged. Of the ten
names in the first ballot, one was removed as the last placed
and three others as receiving fewer than five per cent of the
votes cast, leaving six to go forward to the second round. The
second ballot produced two clear leaders, and after the last placed
was again removed and three further candidates exercised their
right to withdraw, these top two names went into a third and final
ballot, which was won by Mr Bercow with a clear majority of 51
votes over his rival. The Question "that Mr Bercow do take
the Chair as Speaker" was put and agreed to without division.
After speeches of congratulation and a brief suspension, the House
attended the Lords Commissioners in the House of Lords to receive
Her Majesty's Approbation of the Speaker Elect. The result of
the last ballot, and thus the House's choice of Speaker, was announced
at 8.30pm, some six hours after the start of proceedings, compared
to seven hours for the result of the 2000 Speakership election
to become known.
11. The Clerk Assistant reported that "No
questions were raised by Members about the integrity of the procedure
(vetted in advance by Electoral Reform Services) or its fairness."[9]
We are happy to endorse this assessment of the overall procedure
and turn now to look in detail at how the reforms for "a
fairer and simpler mechanism for enabling the will of the House
to be expressed" in making its choice of Speaker, as proposed
by our predecessors eight years earlier, worked in practice.[10]
Nominations
12. The rules on nomination derive from the 2001
Procedure Committee report which recommended a minimum threshold
of eligibility of twelve other Members, of whom at least three
should not be members of the candidate's own party. Further, the
Committee recommended that "in order to discourage 'trophy-hunting'
of names, and the competitive compilation of long lists of names
[...] no more than 12 supporters' names be submitted with the
nomination, and that the names of candidates' supporters should
not be publicly revealed".[11]
This was translated into the Standing Order as "not fewer
than twelve nor more than fifteen".
13. It is evident that the rules were clear and
not too stringent, given that ten forms were received well before
the deadline and all nominations were in order. We looked closely
at whether the number of sponsors required is appropriate. On
the one hand, we heard anecdotally that some candidates may have
found it difficult to reach the minimum number of sponsors and
"borrowed" supporters from others. This would suggest
that the threshold might be lowered. On the other hand, one of
the candidates, Sir Patrick Cormack, suggested that the maximum
number of sponsors be increased from 15 to 20 and that at least
half should come from the candidate's own party.[12]
At the moment, there is a requirement for candidates to demonstrate
opposition party support but not support from their own side.[13]
14. A further suggestion for change to the nomination
process was that the names of sponsors should be published.[14]
Standing Order No. 1B is silent on whether the names of supporters
should be published but the agreement by the House to the Procedure
Committee report was rightly taken to prevent the publication
of these names during the 2009 election. There was some pressure
in the last contest for more transparency: candidates were asked
to reveal their sponsors and most readily agreed. Since then the
House has also received Freedom of Information requests for this
information in relation to the June 2009 election.
15. We have considered a change to the rules
on nomination and to the publication of sponsors as related questions.
We believe that the Standing Order should be changed to allow
the publication of the names of sponsors. This would help inform
the decisions of Members as to which candidate to support in the
contest. It would also reveal the level of support a candidate
has within their own party, thus making unnecessary the introduction
of a requirement for candidates to have a minimum number of sponsors
from that party as well as from opposition parties. We
recommend that the Standing Order be changed to allow the names
of sponsors in future contests to be published.
16. In making the above recommendation,
we stress that we do not believe that the names of any sponsors
in the June 2009 election which candidates have not consented
to release should be published retrospectively since to do so
would go against the decision of the House in 2001 and be contrary
to natural justice in regard of the basis on which sponsors lent
their support.
17. On the detailed rules of nomination, we conclude
that it is clear that all who wished to stand were able to do
so and we would be concerned that lowering the threshold might
result in an unmanageable number of purely speculative candidates
being encouraged to stand. We are more persuaded by the argument
for increasing the minimum number of sponsors. This is a serious
contest for the most important position in the House. Whilst we
accept the advice of our predecessors on the desirability of discouraging
trophy-hunting, we recommend
that the minimum number of sponsors required be increased from
12 to 15 and that this number should be the maximum permitted.
Hustings
18. The Standing Order for the election of a
new Speaker makes no reference to the holding of hustings at which
the candidates might set out their manifestos and answer questions
from their electorate. This was discussed in the 2001 Procedure
Committee report but dismissed on the ground that the Committee
did "not consider that a long, formal campaign would be of
benefit to the House, or likely to enhance its reputation with
the public".[15]
The Committee also emphasised that it would "deprecate unduly
strident campaigning, and [emphasised] that campaigning involving
the expenditure of money would be wholly inappropriate".[16]
It concluded that there should be no formal prohibition of manifestos
and hustings but that the right place for information to be conveyed
about candidates was in the House in the form of an address at
the start of the formal proceedings.[17]
19. In 2009 several outside organisations, such
as the Hansard Society, and political groupings such as the PLP,
arranged informal hustings to which all declared candidates were
invited. The Hansard Society event was covered by the BBC Parliament
channel. A natural limit on the proliferation of such events was
provided both by time restraints and by informal agreements between
candidates as to which invitations to accept. In the light of
this, Sir George Young asked us to re-consider the "cautious"
approach to hustings taken by the previous report, commenting
that "As all the candidates attended at least two, I believe
these are now here to stay and should be accepted as part of the
process".[18] Although
we agree with Sir George, we feel that these need not be part
of the formal procedure. It is clear that the informal arrangements
put in place for the last Speaker's election worked well and should
be the norm for the future. We
welcome the part played by outside organisations such as the Hansard
Society in organising hustings for the election of the Speaker
and believe that this is a role best filled by these bodies, rather
than by the House itself.
20. One exception to that rule
is the position when electing a Speaker at short notice or indeed
immediately after a General Election. In such circumstances, the
need to elect a Speaker before the House can proceed to other
business makes the time available for hustings and campaigning,
or indeed gathering nominations, very tight. We consider that
at such times Members and others should accept that the formal
address to the House is the only appropriate time and place for
each candidate to make his or her pitch for support.
Timing of candidates' speeches
21. The provision for each candidate to address
the House in turn in support of their own cause was an innovation
proposed by the 2001 Procedure Committee. Under the previous system,
candidates were proposed and seconded by other Members before
briefly submitting themselves to the House. The current procedure
removes the provision for speeches by proposers and seconders
and places the onus on the candidate him or herself to set out
their qualities, experience and ambitions. The 2001 report suggested
that the order in which candidates speak should be determined
by a draw conducted by the Clerk of the House. In the event, in
2009, the lots were drawn by the Presiding Member on the morning
of the election. The results were notified to the candidates and
then the list was published at mid-day, giving all Members good
notice of the names of those standing and the order in which they
would speak. We believe that this worked well and was a great
improvement on the pre-2001 system whereby the House had no advance
warning of who was to be nominated, or in what order, until an
informal indication was given by the Father of the House at the
start of business.
22. The Standing Orders do not provide for a
time limit on candidate's speeches and the 2001 report is silent
on this point. Taking a pragmatic approach, the Presiding Member
gave candidates an informal guide that in the previous election
for a Speaker, Members had spoken for between four and ten minutes,
with an average of 6 minutes.[19]
Most followed the advice offered that around six minutes would
be appropriate. One candidate, Sir George Young, suggested that
this informal guidance "might usefully be published".[20]
An alternative would be to incorporate a rule on the length of
candidates' speeches in the Standing Order.
23. On balance, we believe that the approach
followed in 2009 is the right one. Notifying candidates of an
appropriate guideline on the length of speeches seems to us eminently
reasonable. We also endorse the suggestion that six to seven minutes
is "about right" for speeches on this occasion, but
we would wish to retain some flexibility for candidates and so
do not see a case for a limit to be incorporated into Standing
Orders. We recommend that
the notification process followed, and the guidelines adopted,
in June 2009 with regard to order and length of speeches be used
as the pattern in future. We see no reason why this information
should be secret, and we recommend the publication by the House
of the guidance to candidates.
Voting procedure
24. The chief difference between the 2009 election
and the previous election in 2001 was that, on this occasion,
the Speaker was elected by secret ballot. The 2001 Report described
the choice between a secret or open vote as "the most difficult
decision in relation to a ballot".[21]
The strength of views on both sides of the argument was such that
the Committee recommended that this be the subject of a specific
and separate decision of the House, although itself supporting
the secret ballot option.[22]
This was achieved by means of an amendment moved to leave out
the word "secret" from the draft Standing Order put
before the House for approval on 22 March 2001. The amendment
was rejected by 82 votes to 84.[23]
Against this background, it is perhaps surprising that the secrecy
of the ballot was not a matter of controversy during the 2009
election process. We
conclude that the use of a secret ballot has been a success and
that the House's decision in 2001 should be maintained in all
future elections.
25. There is a view, however, that the names
of those participating in each round of the election should be
published in Hansard, without recording how Members voted. Indeed,
the House has received a Freedom of Information request for this
information in relation to June 2009. We have given serious consideration
to the suggestion for change in future contests. We recognise
that it has the attraction of transparency in making it clear
which Members were present in the lobby. That apart, it is not
easy to see what would be gained from publishing such a list.
It would reveal who did not participate but any Member doing so
out of principle is likely to make an open statement to this effect
and others may well have genuine reasons for not doing so, such
as other parliamentary responsibilities, illness or the constraints
of ministerial convention, which might give a false impression
of their commitment to their duties in the House. We also understand
that a participation list might be difficult to compile, certainly
retrospectively, since the ballot papers are anonymous and any
marked register would only show those who had entered the lobby,
rather than those who actually cast a vote. Publication also cuts
against the secrecy of the ballot and it could breach the confidentiality
of the vote, for example where a Member ceased to participate
in rounds after their preferred candidate was removed from the
ballot paper. We conclude
that neither the names of those participating in each round of
voting nor those voting for each candidate should be published
either in future contests or for 2009.
26. As with the FoI request
for the 2009 list of sponsors, we consider that it would be wholly
unacceptable to release the names of those who participated in
2009 since those voting did so in the belief that their names
would not be revealed.
27. The electoral system set out in Standing
Order No. 1B is the exhaustive ballot, with a provision that candidates
polling fewer than 5% of the total votes cast be eliminated. Sir
Patrick Cormack suggested that this should be changed to allow
Members to list their top three (or six) preferences.[24]
The Procedure Committee considered the comparative advantages
of the Alternative Vote and the exhaustive ballot in 2001 and
concluded that "the benefits brought by the Exhaustive Ballots
are sufficiently great as to outweigh the inconvenience in terms
of time brought by the need to have multiple ballots".[25]
These benefits included the ability of Members to amend their
preferences in each round after the results of the previous round
are known and the opportunity offered to candidates to withdraw
at any stage, thus speeding up the process. Advice from the Electoral
Reform Society to that inquiry also indicated that with the exhaustive
ballot the winning candidate was far more likely to have more
than 50% support of all Members than under AV.[26]
We believe that these arguments still hold. In particular, we
have been told that candidates and Members valued the provision
for candidates to withdraw when it is clear that they have insufficient
support to have a realistic chance of winning. It is also undoubtedly
the case that the winning candidate commanded the majority support
of the Commons. When coupled with a desire to change the system
only where necessary in order to ensure continuity, these benefits
persuade us that the current
electoral system remains the best option for this purpose.
28. We have also looked at the length of time
allowed under the rules for each ballot, where the widespread
perception is that half an hour was too long and the time for
voting could be reduced.[27]
This became apparent even during the proceedings of 22 June 2009,
with the result that the Presiding Member used his discretion
to reduce the time to 20 minutes after the second round. The Clerk
Assistant gave evidence that a formal reduction of this scale
would "still give plenty of time for Members to vote",
whilst reducing the time taken in each round and speeding up the
results.[28] The time
could perhaps not be reduced any further (to the length of a normal
division, say) without compromising the ability of all Members
to participate, including those making use of the arrangements
made for "nodding through". On a related point, we have
heard no criticism of the ten minutes set down for candidates
to withdraw. Indeed, two candidates involved in the 2009 election
have specifically told us that they found such provision "helpful".
We therefore consider this to be about right. We
recommend that the Standing Order be amended to allow 20 minutes,
rather than 30 minutes, for voting in each round.
Practicalities
29. There remain a few issues which were raised
with us about the practicalities associated with the process for
electing the Speaker. For example, the Clerk Assistant reported
that the counting process could be speeded up by moving to a larger
room. This would also allow the count to be observed by Members
without infringing the principle of a secret ballot.[29]
The Clerk Assistant estimated that, taken with the reduction in
time allowed for each round under the Standing Order as advocated
above, this would reduce the minimum time per round to 1 hour
and 25 minutes, compared to 1 hour 57 minutes from the opening
of the first ballot to the opening of the second ballot and 1
hour 42 minutes between the opening of the second and the third
in 2009.[30] In the interests
of the sense of occasion, we believe that these time-savings are
worthwhile and we would support a move to a larger room for the
counting.
30. Secondly, the Clerk Assistant referred to
certain papers indicating support for a particular candidate which
were placed in the voting lobby by some Members and removed on
the authority of the Presiding Member after the first ballot closed.
This provides a precedent for a ban on such unofficial papers
in the lobbies on future occasions.[31]
We are content that this approach is correct, although we hope
that a lifting of the restriction on publishing the names of sponsors
would remove the incentive to Members to produce such papers in
the first place.
31. Finally, Sir George Young questioned why
"An informal rule appeared from nowhere, allowing prayer
cards for the candidates but no one else".[32]
Prayer cards for supporters were removed. This policy seems to
have developed ad hoc as a result of the convention that prayers
are not read on the day of the Speaker's election. We
can see no reason why prayers should not be read in the usual
way. This would enable the sitting to open with a due sense of
decorum and would also enable prayer cards to be used to allow
Members to reserve places. We recommend that this be done in future.
Conclusion
32. As can readily be seen, our suggestions are
for minor improvements, tweaking the detail of the process, rather
than wholesale reform of the procedure by which the House elects
its Speaker. We
are satisfied that the system devised by our predecessors has
withstood its first test in enabling the House to reach a decision
in a fair and transparent way and that the procedure will continue
to enjoy the confidence of Members. We are sure that the House
will welcome this conclusion. Whilst it is right to reflect on
experience, we believe that procedures adopted by the House, especially
for such a serious purpose, should not be altered lightly and
there is great benefit in continuity and consistency.
33. In addition, we are happy to endorse the
Clerk Assistant's conclusion that, in practical and administrative
terms, "it was an excellent co-operative operation".[33]
It is clear from the smooth
running of events on the day that a great deal of work had been
put into preparing for these elections behind the scenes, and
we congratulate all those involved on their success in foreseeing
and forestalling difficulties.
6 The old procedure saw successive candidates nominated,
without notice, the first by means of a motion "That [Member
X] do take the Chair of the House as Speaker" and subsequent
candidates by means of amendments proposed to that motion. Each
such amendment was voted on in turn, and then, when all amendments
had fallen, the main Question was put. See HC (2000-01) 40 for
a detailed explanation and analysis of the process. Back
7
Ev 3 Back
8
Second Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000-01, Election
of a Speaker, HC 40, para 44 (iv) Back
9
Ev 3 Back
10
HC (2000-01) 40, para 87 Back
11
HC (2000-01) 40, para 48 Back
12
Ev 2 Back
13
See also evidence from the Opposition Studies Forum, Ev 2 Back
14
Ev 1 [Sir George Young] Back
15
HC (2000-01) 40, para 52 Back
16
Ibid, para 53 Back
17
Ibid, paras 52 and 54 Back
18
Ev 1 Back
19
Ev 3 Back
20 Ev
1 Back
21
HC (2000-01) 40, para 55 Back
22
Ibid, paras 55 to 61 Back
23
CJ 257 (2000-01), 254 Back
24
Ev 2 Back
25
HC (2000-01) 44, para 69 Back
26
Ibid, para 66 Back
27
See for example Ev 1 Back
28 Ev
3 Back
29
Ev 4 Back
30
Ev 3, 4 Back
31
Ev 4 Back
32
Ev 1 Back
33 Ev
4 Back
| 
