To ask the Leader of the House what arrangements exist for discussions on the role of the Lord Speaker between the Leader of the House, the Lord Speaker and Back Bench Members.

My Lords, there are no institutionalised arrangements for discussions on the role of the Lord Speaker. The most recent Select Committee on the Speakership of the House, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in 2005, did not propose such arrangements. This is a self-regulating House and it is open to any Member to submit proposals on the role of the Lord Speaker to the Procedure Committee.

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the survey of Members carried out over the past 12 months on the Lord Speaker’s role in the Chamber. Can we now have a review of that role in light of the fact that of the 317 Members who responded to the survey, many in long letters detailing their concerns, some 242 were in favour of a review; while 58 were opposed, 18 took a neutral view, and over the past few days a further seven Members have approached me in the Lobby opposing such a review? The House might wish to know that there was support from all parts of the House for such a review.

My Lords, I was aware of my noble friend’s own survey and his statistics are interesting. Let me say first that the Lord Speaker provides an excellent service to this House—

Hear, hear!

Personally, I agree that at some point after any new post has been created, there should be a review. However, I believe that more time is needed before the role of the Lord Speaker is properly embedded, and I suggest that at the moment a review would be precipitate.

My Lords, I suspect that the words of the noble Baroness will be welcomed throughout the House. Is it not true that Speakers have served the interests of this House for many hundreds of years, that we reviewed the situation only three or four years ago, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, does an excellent job of presiding over our activities? Is it therefore not far too soon to review her role?

My Lords, I have answered that question; I think that there should be a review. At the moment it would be precipitate, but there should be a review.

My Lords, has the Lord Speaker been consulted about the proposition of Secretaries of State in this House answering questions in the House of Commons, and what was the result of that discussion? If she has not been consulted, why not?

My Lords, the Lord Speaker, all leaders in the House and the Procedure Committee have considered this issue, as is proper. The Procedure Committee is the right place for these matters to be considered. We had a discussion in the Procedure Committee two days ago—or maybe yesterday—on the basis of a short paper that I presented. We are going to take this further at the next meeting of the Procedure Committee.

My Lords, we strongly support the thrust of the request of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. In the review, would the Lord President—I am sorry, she is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—look at the demarcation line between the role of the Lord Speaker as Speaker of this House and the Lord Chancellor? It seems to some of us that the Lord Chancellor gets into his tights with surprising enthusiasm and turns up in the most surprising places. There is a need to make sure that what was once the role of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of this House should be retained by the Lord Speaker of this House.

My Lords, when a review takes place, if I am at the Dispatch Box, I shall certainly do what I can to ensure that those aspects of the role of the Lord Speaker are properly considered.

My Lords, if the Leader of the House should have any discussions about self-regulation, will she bear in mind that, in my view, this House has not practised self-regulation properly in the past 10 years? The first thing we ought to do is draw up an aide-memoire of what self-regulation means, because I fear that a great many noble Lords have not got the remotest idea.

My Lords, that is an interesting idea; I shall certainly take it on board. I have looked at the Companion to see how self-regulation is described. In essence, the House makes its own decisions, and that is what self-regulation is. It would be useful to have a definition, as the noble Lord suggests, but perhaps I should ask the House first.

My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, while we describe ourselves as being a self-regulated House, in one part of our activities that is not 100 per cent true. I refer, of course, to Question Time, when there is, quite properly, a degree of regulation—there has to be—exercised by the government Front-Bench. I ask my noble friend a rhetorical question: is there any other assembly, anywhere on the planet, before or today, or any other club or organisation, where the person responsible for determining who the next speaker should be is someone with their back to half the audience?

My Lords, my noble friend makes a strong point. I know that some people in this House believe that Question Time is dysfunctional; I do not think it is. If you compare our House to the House at the other end of this Parliament, I think we do a jolly good job in this House. However, I take on board what my noble friend has said about our backs.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this particular Peer finds that the Government choosing when people should speak is completely and utterly fair and that they do the House a good service? Is she further aware, however, that people ask much too long questions and Ministers give very long answers? The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, gave a perfect example. Her answer to the last Back-Bencher should have been “Yes”, and not a repeat of the question.

My Lords, we would all do well to heed the words of the Companion and ensure that we have both short Questions and short Answers.