UNITED KINGDOM
The Question can be opposed and, if it is opposed, a division is held in the normal way with the names of Members voting “Aye” or “No” recorded by the clerks and made public. If the motion is voted down – or if there is no incumbent Speaker – then a secret ballot of Members is held to determine the new Speaker. The fourth of the motions
tabled by the Government on 25 March would have replaced the initial division on whether an existing Speaker take the Chair with a secret vote. It was interpreted by many in the press and in the House, as an attempt by the Government to pave the way for the voting out of the incumbent Speaker, Rt Hon. John Bercow MP, at the start of the new Parliament. The four motions were due to be debated together for an hour on 26 March as the last substantive business of the Parliament before an opportunity for retiring Members to make valedictory speeches. The debate was due to begin at around 10:30am, but the Speaker granted three urgent questions – on the findings of an inquiry into the provision of contaminated blood by the NHS, on undercover policing and on the day’s business itself – delaying the start of the debate by around two hours. It was later argued by some Members that this had a decisive impact on the outcome. The Urgent Question on the
day’s business was tabled by Sir Gerald Kaufman MP (Lab). If re-elected in May, Sir Gerald will become Father of the House (the longest-serving Member) in the new Parliament.
It would fall to him to make the arrangements for the Speaker’s election. In asking his question he was the first of a number of opposition Members to accuse the Government of “grubby, squalid, nauseous”
behaviour in tabling the motion at the last minute. The Conservative, Philip Davies MP, accused the Government Whips Office of “keeping the [Conservative] parliamentary party here for a meeting so that as many people would be here as possible in the hope that the Opposition parties would have left so the motion could be sneaked through at the last minute.” The Shadow Leader of the
House, Angela Eagle MP (Lab) wanted to know: “Why did the Government, who had so resolutely refused to allow the debate for three and a half years, suddenly change their mind on Tuesday? Why did the Government decide that this motion was so sensitive that it would not and could not be discussed with Opposition Front Benchers, the Chair of the Committee or even the Speaker himself? Why did the Leader of the House wait until the last moment yesterday before tabling it, without any warning or notification to anyone?” In defending the Government’s position, the Leader of the House, Rt Hon. William Hague MP (Con) argued that the Procedure Committee had recommended earlier in the Parliament that the House should be asked to decide whether it wished to make the change. He said the motions had only been tabled once the Lords and Commons had completed their deliberations on the Modern Slavery Bill as it was only then it was clear there would be time. He stressed that the question would be decided on a free vote and that he considered that it was in the interests of the House that the question be decided before the next Parliament. He set out the arguments for and against a secret ballot: “The arguments in favour of the status quo are that it is a familiar procedure, that it is a
quick procedure, and that the Speaker stands for election as the Speaker in his or her constituency in expectation of continuing in office and is therefore in a different situation from other officeholders. But […] whenever voters elect someone to a position of power and authority over them, the principle is that they should be able to do so without fear or favour. It is how we elect our party leaders, it is how we elect our Select Committee Chairs […] It also frees MPs from pressure from the Chair or from their parties.” Members on the Labour side attributed the bringing forward of the motion to dislike of the Speaker by the Conservative front bench and, particularly, by the Prime Minister.
Barry Sheerman MP (Lab)
said: “This is a politicisation of the role of the Speaker, because this is a Speaker who has opened up this Chamber as never before, and what the Prime Minister cannot stand is that he has liberated Back Benchers in this place.” The speech that drew most attention was by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, Charles Walker MP (Con), who recommended first in 2009 and then in 2011 that the issue should be debated by the House but concluded that the motion should be an amendable one for no change. Mr Walker became emotional as he spoke of the way he felt he had been kept in the dark in the run up to the debate: “This week, I went to the leaving drinks for the Leader of the House. I spent 20 minutes saying goodbye to his special adviser yesterday. I went into his private office and was passed by the Deputy Leader of the House yesterday. All of them would have been aware of what they were proposing to do. I also had a number of friendly chats with our Chief Whip yesterday, yet I found out at 6.30pm last night that the Leader of the House was bringing forward my report. I have
been played as a fool. When I go home tonight, I will look in the mirror and see an honourable fool looking back at me. I would much rather be an honourable fool, in this and any other matter, than a clever man.”
As he sat down, he was applauded by Labour MPs. Applause in the Chamber is very rare – previous examples of applause in the Chamber included at the end of Tony Blair’s final Prime Minister’s Questions and following the resignation speech of the former Foreign Secretary, then-Leader of the House, Robin Cook prior to a debate on the second Iraq War. With the exception of the
Leader of the House, every Member who made a speech in the debate spoke either against the motion or the way it had been brought forward. This prompted the Conservative Jesse Norman MP, a critic of the Speaker over the proposal to appoint the Australian official Carol Mills to be Clerk of the House, to raise a point of order to “express my sadness and regret that you [Mr Speaker] have not seen fit to call any other Members to speak in support of the motion?” The Speaker replied by saying that the Government had set the hour time limit and that it was out of his power to extend it. At the end of the debate, the Government’s motion was defeated by 228 votes to 202.
Rt Hon. John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons
The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue Two | 133
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76