I have to inform the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the resignation of the right hon. Betty Boothroyd, lately Speaker of this House, gives leave to the House to proceed forthwith to the election of a new Speaker.

The House may be assisted if I make a short statement about the procedure this afternoon. The first business of the House must be to elect a Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 1, whenever it is necessary to proceed forthwith to the choice of a Speaker, it falls to the Member with the longest continuous service in the House to preside. It is also laid down that when a motion has been made that a certain Member do take the Chair, further nominations are to be made in the form of amendments to that motion.

The Standing Order therefore means that all I can preside over is the election of a Speaker by the means laid down in the Standing Order. Although that procedure may sound complex, it is exactly the same as that adopted by the House in deciding on any motion to which amendments are offered. First, the motion is moved. If there are amendments, they are then moved and decided on. Once an amendment has been carried, the main question, as amended, is put to the House for decision. If no amendment is carried and no more are forthcoming, the main question is put for decision. I hope that that will be helpful.

Sir Edward, you and I have sat under eight Speakers in 15 Parliaments over 50 years, and you know, better than any of us, the importance of the Speaker to the work of Parliament. We are in some difficulty today. We do not know the names of the candidates because they have never been put on the Order Paper. We do not know who will move them or second them. We did not know what statement you would make until you made it. Officially, we will not know of any proposal of the kind that I hope you will allow me to make until I have the chance to make it.

I draw your attention, Sir Edward, to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 1, which says:

A Member taking the chair—

that is yourself, Sir Edward—

under the provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall enjoy all those powers which may be exercised by the Speaker during proceedings…

Therefore you have absolute power, as the Speaker has, to accept an amendment if you choose to do so.

I am not asking you, Sir Edward, to support the proposal, but the House should have the opportunity to do so. There was very wide consultation at a meeting this morning and out of 150 people, only one was opposed to the idea of a ballot. We are a sovereign body, and when the House wishes it can pass an Act though both Houses in a single day and get Royal Assent, and there is no reason why we should not tackle the question now.

The Clerk advises me that the form of words that I should use in making my proposal are as follows:

That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Election of Speaker), the process of nomination and election shall be as follows:

(a) That nominations for the position of Speaker be opened immediately and be submitted to the Clerk of the House, each one to be supported by a Mover and Seconder and accompanied by a consent form signed by each person nominated.

(b) That Ballot papers be printed immediately containing the names of all the nominated candidates together with the names of the movers and seconders of each.

(c) That each Mover and Seconder be then invited to speak in support in support of their candidate, in alphabetical order by name of that candidate, followed by others who may wish to speak and ending with the candidates themselves also in alphabetical order.

(d) That the House then adjourn to allow ballot papers to be issued in the No Lobby and members having marked them with the name of the person for whom they wish to vote, signed with their own names, would then place them in Ballot Boxes in the Aye Lobby.

(e) That the Clerk of the House would act as the Returning Officer for the counting of the Votes and would report the result to the Father of the House showing the votes cast for each candidate and the names of those members who had voted for each.

(f) That the House would proceed to a division to decide which of the two candidates with the largest number of votes would become Speaker.

(g) The successful candidate would then take the Chair as Speaker Elect in the normal way.

I am not suggesting that that is a perfect system—some Members have suggested alternative votes and exhaustive ballots—but it is practical.

I have given the Clerk nomination forms and ballot papers and know that he has prepared them in case the proposal is carried. I hope that you, Sir Edward, will allow the House to decide. The House must have the Speaker it wants and the Speaker must enjoy the authority that he or she needs to do the job that we are about to elect him or her to do.

May I support the point of view put by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? This is the most important vote that the House faces in this Parliament, and two arguments have been put against altering the procedure in the way that he suggests. One is that there has been a previous opportunity to do so and that the Procedure Committee has considered that. However, I am quite sure that the Procedure Committee did not consider the possibility of there being 12 candidates and the complexity that we face, so that we now have to make a game theory decision on who we vote for at each point.

The second argument is that we should not change the rules midway through a contest. Probably the House was surprised when Speaker Boothroyd chose to stand down—disappointed, perhaps, as well—but it seems to me that it is more important that the House can choose by a transparent and visibly fair procedure that it supports overwhelmingly rather than stick with an antiquated procedure, which would bring the House into disrepute.

May I support the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? We are about to take a momentous decision and I urge you, Sir Edward, not to go down the route of antiquated precedent but, rather, to abide by what I think is a substantial majority in the House who support your allowing us to have a free, fair, open and democratic ballot.

On a point of order, Sir Edward. As someone who does not support this last-minute change to the rules, may I seek your guidance for those of us who are prepared to stick with the existing rules until they are properly changed? I ask you to guide the House as to your thoughts on the sequence in which you propose to put the main proposition and, more important, the amendments. Some indication of that would help those of us who wish to give consideration to the votes that we are about to cast.

I should like to deal with the point that has just been raised, among others. I quite understand the anxiety that many Members have about the present system. I not only understand but have considerable sympathy with it. On the other hand, I believe that my powers under the Standing Order do not extend to presiding over a debate and a decision on other possible methods of election. In any case, even if I had the authority to act in that way, I believe that we would become very confused if we tried to change the rules in the middle of our proceedings. However, as I am sympathetic to the concern of Members, there may be a way in which I can help without straining the limits of my powers.

It may assist the House if I announce in advance the order in which I shall call Members to propose candidates—that is, the order of all those who have notified me that they wish to take part in the debate. I do so with two provisos. First, if any amendment is carried and the main question as amended thereafter is agreed to, no subsequent amendments can be proposed. Secondly, the list that I am about to read out is not necessarily exhaustive. If no amendment moved by a Member whose name is on the list is carried, other Members may catch my eye to put forward other candidates. Perhaps I may now give the list of those who have notified me already.

I will first call Mr. Snape to move that Mr. Martin do take the Chair. That will be seconded and debated. Thereafter, we may proceed to other candidates. Mr. Winnick is to propose, as an amendment, Sir Alan Haselhurst; Mr. Wigley is to propose, again as an amendment, Mr. Beith; Mr. David Davis is similarly to propose Mrs. Dunwoody; Mr. MacGregor is to propose Sir George Young; Mr. O'Neill is to propose Mr. Menzies Campbell; Mr. Maxton is to propose Dr. David Clark; Mr. Wilkinson is to propose Mr. Nicholas Winterton; Mr. Cann is to propose Mr. McWilliam; Mr. Tom King is to propose Mr. Lord; Mrs. Shephard is to propose Sir Patrick Cormack; and Mr. Martin Bell is to propose Mr. Shepherd. That covers all those who have notified me of their wish to speak.

Notwithstanding the statement that you have just made, Sir Edward, I hope that you recognise that when the procedures of the House do not even reflect the views of its Members, let alone those who send us here, we have a problem.

As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said, the Procedure Committee examined the question following the previous election of a Speaker in 1992. I was a member of the Procedure Committee. It was then thought inappropriate to examine the issue soon after a large majority had elected the Speaker—the bulk of the House voted in that Division. I put it to you, Sir Edward, that it is always an inappropriate time to do so; it is no more inappropriate today than it was then. Indeed, we all have a collective responsibility for not examining the issue at the time. Even the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who spoke in the previous debate, did not raise questions about the procedure.

This time, it is clearly the view of the House that the procedure that we are about to follow is not likely to result in a clear statement. Even if we proceed as you have indicated, Sir Edward, we are likely to leave a sense of dissatisfaction and frustration in the House, whoever is elected. I know that I will not be popular with whoever takes the Chair some time this afternoon—or, perhaps, in the early hours of the morning—but I still believe it is important that we review the procedure.

We are fortunate that we are likely to be back in the Chamber electing a Speaker following the dissolution of Parliament in a matter of months, so the appointment is a temporary one. I hope that, during that period, the House will agree that my colleagues on the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons should be given a remit to look again at the procedures and make them more democratic.

Usually, I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), and I do so on this occasion with one proviso.

We are approaching the season of gunpowder, treason and plot, as always at this time of the year. I estimate that as many as 100 Members of Parliament, including Ministers, cannot be present but ought to be aware of any proposed change to the procedure. I know of at least three Ministers who have had to go abroad on Government business and very much regret that they cannot be present.

There is no proxy vote; there is no pairing system; there is nothing on the Order Paper; and nothing has come from the Whips to say that the change will be made or the debate will be held. There has been no indication other than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield's rising to his feet. Making such a change would be out of order in any other parliamentary business. Suddenly, the House, ad hoc, says that it is going to debate and vote on the issue. I put it to you, Sir Edward, that that would be out of order. We should carry on and debate any changes later.

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I believe that there is almost certainly a majority in the House now in favour of a change in the rules to allow the ballot to go ahead on a fully democratic basis. That being the case, and although you have said that you are not permitted to allow a debate and a vote to take place on the proposal of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), we in this House make our own rules: Standing Orders exist only to guide us. Therefore, I should like to move that we set aside Standing Order No. 1 until the House has had an opportunity to arrive at a view and vote on the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that such a motion requires notice.

On a point of order, Sir Edward. May I ask you a question of fact? On what basis and by what criteria was the sequence of names decided?

It was done at my discretion. That has always been the case, but my predecessors have never announced in advance who has been chosen and where they are placed. I was hoping that my doing so would be helpful to the House.

On a point of order, Sir Edward. It is indeed helpful for the House to know the order in which you will call the candidates, and it is, of course, open to you to use your discretion. However, the problem with comparing today's procedures with those over which your predecessors presided is that they are not comparable—today, the House faces an unprecedented number of contenders for the speakership. That is why I support the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that, because we face an unprecedented situation, the House itself should control the way in which this extremely important matter is handled.

On a point of order, Sir Edward. We know that you are in an extremely difficult position, but, on the important issue facing us today, it would be entirely wrong to go ahead on the stated basis when it is quite clear that the majority of the House is not in favour of doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Some Members say no, but let us put it to the test and have a vote on the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

If you cannot do that, Sir Edward, I put it to you that when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), resigned on the lawn of No. 10 Downing street, several points of order were raised and it was ruled from the Chair that it was in order to move, as an emergency resolution, That this House do now adjourn. Would it be possible to move such a motion in the event of your not allowing the House to divide on the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield?

I am sorry, but I am not prepared to accept a dilatory motion; I am sure that the House as a whole does not want that.

On a point of order, Sir Edward. You control the batting order, which is crucial, and you have read out the names of the candidates and those who are proposing them, but I am none the wiser as to what informed that decision. You say that you have discretion; indeed you do, and that is what is wrong with the system of election. The system we use should be open and transparent, and people here and outside should be able to understand it.

An hour or so ago, we held hustings in Committee Room 10. We carried out a straw poll among the approximately 150 Members present, the result of which was an almost unanimous decision—there was one exception—that there should be a ballot of the candidates. People do not want to elect the new Speaker using a discredited system that would not have been out of place in eastern Europe before the wall came down.

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I suggest that we are confronted with a matter of principle. It is also a matter of democracy. Further, it is a matter that unites Members on both sides of the House. It is important, too, that the people who are looking in on our proceedings—those who send us here—understand and recognise the way in which we comport ourselves in this place, which should conform to their understanding of democracy.

I urge you to accept, Sir Edward, that it cannot be in conformity with the spirit of the Standing Orders that you intend to operate this afternoon that we should elect the champion of Back Benchers and the champion of the House through a system of smoke and mirrors. That person could not expect to command either the respect or authority following such an election. I urge you to think again, Sir Edward, and to bear in mind the fact that almost unanimously those who have spoken this afternoon would urge you to ensure that we have a free, open, democratic and accountable form of election.

I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and say that there is a majority either for or against what you have proposed, Sir Edward, or for or against what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has proposed. It has become clear to me over the past 20 minutes that the House is deeply divided on the matter. I have no idea where the majority lies, but, given the fact that the House is divided, there is a real risk that unless the House expresses where its majority lies, whatever system we use will undermine the very person that we must not undermine when we come to choose the next Speaker.

I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). You tried to be helpful, Sir Edward, by announcing the batting order for the candidates, but, far from being helpful, it will undoubtedly mean that this afternoon's proceedings will cause more of a problem.

Both you, Sir Edward, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) have two last duties to perform on behalf of the nation and this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has given you the opportunity to listen to what the House is saying and to accept that his proposition is made in the right sense, will result in the right decision and will enable the right person to occupy the Chair. I fear that anything short of that will seriously undermine the credibility of the successful candidate.

There will be many in the House and outside who will not understand why we have come to the decision that we have. The only sensible way forward is to accept the proposition of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, listen to what the House is saying and at least test whether the right hon. Gentleman, for once, is speaking for the whole House and for the majority of the country.

If there were ever a sitting of this place that needed prayers before it, this is surely it. I hope to have an opportunity to propose the name of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). As he is 12th in the batting order, I fear that it is unlikely that I shall be able to do so. As we should be a model of democracy, can we not now choose a democratic procedure for the election of Speaker?

On a point of order, Sir Edward. It strikes me that anyone who comes through the process this afternoon under our current rules will have the support of the House. The problem is that with a plethora of candidates it is extremely likely that we shall arrive at a point when there are no more amendments to be made, and the main motion may be lost. That may be the situation, given the number of candidates. If at that stage it was clear that we could then re-examine the rules, the House could then adjourn. Is that a potential way forward?

On a point of order, Sir Edward. There is no doubt that the House is master of its own procedure. It is therefore open to you, under Standing Order No. 1, to accept the proposal in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). There is plainly a great deal of support for it, even if there is also a good deal of opposition. May I ask you, Sir Edward, to accept the proposal and put it to the test?

I am probably unique in that I am the only candidate who has withdrawn. However, that leaves 12 other candidates to be proposed and seconded.

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) had the courtesy to telephone to discuss his proposal with me, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. The only problem that occurs to me—from a dispassionate point of view, as I now have—is that under his proposal, the two leading candidates could, even together, receive only minority support in the House. We might have two significant minority candidates going forward to the final selection. That does not seem a suitable solution, so we may have to consider a system of additional vote, which I would not normally support, but it seems that even the proposition of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is flawed.

Some of the complications of the proposed system are now emerging clearly. For us to go over to a new system will take considerable time and a great deal of investigation. What has been proposed so far as a simple solution is not simple at all. On the other hand, providing the names of those who wish to be considered and their proposers and seconders, as I have done, gives the House far more information than it has ever had in the past and provides a foundation for taking decisions today. Therefore, I cannot accept the proposals that have been made from various quarters. We should get on with our business, and I call Mr. Snape to propose Mr. Martin.

I beg to move,

That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.

All of us present today recognise the importance of the matter before us, even if we cannot agree on the procedures. As elected Members of the House, we recognise the primacy of the occupant of the Chair and the formidable powers that we, by our decisions today, will grant to that person.

Many of us on both sides recognise that the power and status of the House have diminished considerably over the years. That process did not start in 1997 or even in 1974, when I was first elected. It has been going on for many years. All of us are aware of the feeling often expressed by our constituents that we are somehow out of touch and have no real knowledge of society's problem. To refute that premise is one of reasons that I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) today, for understanding the problems of poverty and deprivation perhaps comes easier to my hon. Friend than to others.

My hon. Friend was born at the end of the second world war in a Glasgow tenement as one of the five children of a mother who faced life as a single parent after the break-up of the marriage, and following the awful experiences of a father who was three times torpedoed during the second world war. My hon. Friend was an apprentice sheet metal worker before coming to the House, although he says that at the time he would have preferred to be a carpenter. Going to work as he did then, clad in a second-hand boiler suit and a pair of boots, gives him a deep knowledge of some of the problems facing many of our electors and many people in the United Kingdom. Although I am glad that his sartorial awareness has improved since those days, his experiences are not ones that can readily be put aside.

My hon. Friend was elected to the old Glasgow corporation in 1973. It is understandable, given his own experiences, that the provision of decent housing was his major political passion. My hon. Friend helped to form a housing association in the city that is one of the biggest community-based associations in Glasgow today.

Since being elected to the House in 1979, my hon. Friend has served on many of the House's Committees. All hon. Members know that much of the work of those Committees is unreported, unheralded and unobserved by a media obsessed with plots, counter-plots, trivia and tittle-tattle. As Chairman of the Administration Committee in the last Parliament, my hon. Friend knows that the duties and responsibilities of the Chairman lie outside as well as inside the Chamber.

My hon. Friend insisted that proper child care facilities were provided in the building for the many members of our staff who have child care responsibilities. Some hon. Members may believe that that is not the main or even a primary responsibility of the Speaker. [Interruption.] "Hear, hear" say some of the chauvinists opposite. Many Labour Members believe that the provision of proper child care for the staff of the House is no less a responsibility of the Speaker than any other. [Interruption.] Well, Opposition Members need not listen if they do not want to, but they will have to hear me in the end. Thanks largely to my hon. Friend's efforts, the Parliamentary Commissioner approved a voucher scheme to provide child care in the House.

Hon. Members who have come to the House comparatively recently know how confusing it all too often is. Although we talk about training and modernisation, we leave many new Members to find out what goes on for themselves. My hon. Friend's consideration for others, his fairness when occupying the Chair as Deputy Speaker and his willingness to assist us all with advice and guidance have convinced me and many of my colleagues of his attributes.

There has been much press comment on our procedures today. Doubtless there will be even more tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has already given his view of our proceedings. It sometimes seems that no proceedings are complete without a dissenting view from my right hon. Friend. As one of his great admirers for all the years that I have been here, I tell him that he has had almost 50 years as a Member of Parliament to change some of those procedures. I concede that he has been distracted by his membership of many Labour Governments during that time, but it seems that every time a procedural matter arises, my right hon. Friend, albeit adroitly and lucidly, finds some reason for us not to proceed.

The candidature of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn has not been without criticism from the press, anxious as always to give us their opinions. On Sunday, one distinguished scribe claimed that my hon. Friend, by his action as Chairman of the Administration Committee in banning unaccompanied journalists from the Terrace, had

prevented journalists from buying hon. Members a drink.

If that were true, it would be a very serious matter. My hon. Friend's actions actually prevented them from buying each other drink. He perhaps also inadvertently prevented them from putting the wrong name on their expense accounts when they got back to the office.

My hon. Friend would agree that, while preserving the best of our traditions, we need to modernise some of our procedures. The sight and sound of the occupants of the Chair announcing at 11.30 pm, "the Ayes to the right: 245; the Noes to the left: 3," convinces many people outside that we need our heads examining for behaving in such a manner. Such behaviour does nothing to convince the people of this country that we are a 21st century Administration, and that the House is capable of updating its procedures. No one wishes to stifle debate; indeed, it is usually the only weapon available to Back Benchers. However, we need a Speaker who will confront and change some of our more absurd practices.

My hon. Friend continually demonstrates his even temper, calmness and gentle humour. Occasionally, when hon. Members get carried away, his oft-used phrases, such as "The hon. Gentleman should know better" or even "It's no' nice", have calmed hon. Members, as well as bringing smiles all round. My hon. Friend is held in respect and affection on both sides of the House. His apprenticeship as Deputy Speaker has demonstrated his skill and ability. I commend his candidature to the House.

Since my election in 1997, I have always regarded it as an honour to address the House, but today it is even more so, as I rise to second my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). It is easy for new Members to be over-awed by the House, and I am only one of many hon. Members elected at that time who were made to feel more at ease and valued because of my hon. Friend's patience, understanding and, of course, knowledge.

One of the first things that I did when asked to second my hon. Friend's nomination was to read the report of the election that took place in 1992. There are few with greater experience and knowledge of parliamentary procedures than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). That has most certainly been demonstrated today. I hope that he does not mind that I shall refer to the contribution that he made at the election of the Speaker in 1992. He said that it was the first task of the new Parliament to elect a Speaker. The disadvantage at that time was that the large number of new Members had not been able to enjoy the experience of judging the contenders' ability for that post.

Today, however, every Member has been able to witness the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn to calm the House, which frequently needs that ability, and to do so in such a way that helps all Members in difficulty rather than putting them down. He has always shown fairness to those holding different political views. He has also shown his loyalty to Parliament. That is why he has such large support today.

In 1992, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield rightly asked for a Speaker who would not only chair proceedings in the Chamber, but look after the interests of the staff who work in the House and on whom we rely so heavily. Many of the staff, in more than one discipline, say that if they could do so they would support my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn. I believe that that is because they know that he respects them. He listens to them and they have confidence in him. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to the introduction of child care vouchers. They are very important, and are appreciated by the staff of the House, but there is much more to do.

Finally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said in 1992 that he wanted Parliament to be a workshop, not a museum. I put it to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn fits that bill completely. He has served an apprenticeship as an engineer, a trade union official and, finally—most certainly—as a Deputy Speaker. He will ensure that the House is efficient. He will ensure that Back Benchers, the Opposition and minority parties are given their deserved rights in this workshop. He will ensure that this workshop is modernised. My hon. Friend has a record of representing the underprivileged. He has always had to work hard for improvement and change, and he will not stop doing so now. I am proud to second his nomination.

I want to speak to the substantive motion and the principle behind it, rather than the amendment, which I shall deal with later if necessary.

I am sure that all the candidates would be impartial and totally fair in exercising their duties, but impartiality is not enough in the Speaker that we seek today. The powers of the House are widely considered to be in decline. That perception is real; history and politics have ensured that the House's powers are in decline. That decline must be arrested and reversed. That is the task of the person we elect today.

The balance of power between Parliament and the Executive has tipped against this House even more in recent years than the long-term trend would indicate. There is also a disparity of power between Front-Bench Members and Back-Bench Members of the House. Putting that disparity right is also a task of the Speaker whom we elect today.

The bypassing of Parliament is well understood. Ministers go to television studios or on the "Today" programme and announce matters before they appear before the House. A Speaker can do something about that. Private notice questions, applications under Standing Order No. 24, and the right of individuals to raise questions that could be debated in emergency by the House are all matters with which the Speaker can and should deal.

What, even when the Tory Government were in power?

I shall shortly give way to the pensioner from Bolsover.

The disparity of power between Members on the Front Benches and those on the Back Benches has been very apparent in past years. Decisions are made on the timetabling of the business of the House. Many believe, with reason, that timetabling is a reasonable approach to the business of the House. This is just about the only House in the western world where such timetabling is done not by the Speaker but by the Executive. That practice has long been wrong—it was wrong under a Tory Government, just as it is under a Labour Government.

Many aspects of recent legislation have changed the rights of our citizens—the right to trial by jury, the right to freedom of information and to a number of other matters, including a passport. Those issues should be decided by the House, and a future Speaker should take that matter in hand.

My point is simple and short. I have said already that our candidates will all be fair, but they should also have strength, independence, integrity and a passionate commitment to the House of Commons. That is what we need from any candidate whom we elect today.

I shall continue the theme that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has introduced. This will be one of my last speeches in the House of Commons before I go into politics and, if I may, I want to put to the House my fears for this place. I do not attribute them to any one Government or any one Prime Minister, and I do not want that to be misunderstood.

The people who elect us to Parliament ask us certain questions. They ask, "When we go to war, do you have a say in it?" and the answer is that we do not. We were not consulted, in terms of a vote, about the bombing in Iraq or Kosovo—[Interruption.] No, statements were made. There was also Sierra Leone. That is a royal prerogative. We could not even start electing a Speaker without instructions from the Queen, so the royal prerogative is very strong.

Then we come to the laws made in Brussels. I have been on the Council of Ministers, and was its President once. When Ministers go to Brussels and agree to laws in secret, they repeal the laws that we have made and we have no say, either before the Minister goes or when he comes back.

Patronage is on a massive scale. Every Prime Minister has done it—almost 1,000 peers have been made by Prime Ministers since the war. There is no consultation with the House of Commons about the patronage exercised by the Prime Minister of the day. We must face the fact that we are, to a large extent, an impotent House of Commons. I can give a practical example of that. We have been in recess since July, and during that time there has been a fuel crisis, a Danish no vote, the collapse of the euro and a war in the middle east, but what is our business tomorrow? The Insolvency Bill [Lords]. It ought to be called the Bankruptcy Bill [Commons], because we play no role.

I am very concerned because many young people believe that this is an impotent Parliament. They go on the streets in Prague or Seattle rather than come to the Palace of Westminster, because we do not do the job that we were elected to do. We have a president, and we do not have a House of Representatives.

I fear that, in the world in which we live—I lay no blame at anyone's door, because that is not my purpose, certainly not during this period of my political life—globalisation means that multinational companies have much more power than countries. Ford is bigger than South Africa; Toyota is bigger than Norway. When I went to America last year to celebrate my golden wedding anniversary, I met an old Governor of Ohio, who said "You will never have democracy when big business buys both parties and expects a pay-off, whoever wins."

I believe that it is our job to reverse that. It is for the Commons to decide. Whoever becomes Speaker—I think all the candidates have qualities that they would bring to the job—we must use this period, that of the first Parliament of the 21st century, to restore the power of the people who elected us. We must not be content to be managed and to become a sort of audience, as if we were on the BBC's "Question Time".

For that reason, I hope that some part of the debate will go beyond the personal qualities of which we have heard from proposers and seconders, to the whole central question of whether the House of Commons can survive if it allows itself to be powerless in the face of the really big decisions that will influence the future of this country.

I had not intended to speak, but I think that a mistake is creeping into the debate: a sense that, somehow, the future of the House depends either on the attitude of the Government or on the qualities of the Speaker. In fact, what the House's future depends on is the quality of Back Benchers. Because both—or all—the major parties are trying to tighten their control over the selection of candidates and the way in which they are preferred, and seeking above all this mythical quality of loyalty, individual Back Benchers are ceasing to feel able to say and do what they want.

I am a fine one to talk. I have been far too loyal to my party for far too long. As my impending retirement approached, however, I realised rather too late how much power an individual Back Bencher, or a group of individual Back Benchers, can exercise when using this place as it could be used. I regret that it took me so long to realise that, but I am a slow learner.

We must not fool ourselves into thinking that the future of the House depends either on some magic Zebedee of a Speaker leaping in to solve all its problems, or on some change of heart on the part of Governments, who will always try to control the House of Commons. What we need is a much clearer perception of what Back Benchers can and ought to achieve, and the fact that their prime loyalty is to their constituency associations and not to their parties.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has been proposed and seconded. I now give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House.

I submit myself to the House, and welcome you to the Chair, Sir Edward. Certainly, every time you are in the Chair you achieve a better turnout than any of the Deputy Speakers.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his kindness, and also for his friendship during the 21 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) for her kind words. When it became clear that a Speaker was required, she was a very staunch supporter.

I pay tribute to Speaker Betty Boothroyd. Betty's advice was, "Be firm, especially with the senior Members. Don't let them pressurise you and try to pull rank", but the thing that I remember her for is that, every day at conferences, her concern was always about the House. She always put the House of Commons first. I wish her every success.

As hon. Members know, the last election brought in many new Members on both sides of the House. I felt a deep obligation to give assistance and help to those new Members, regardless of the party that they came from. I feel that I carried out that duty to the full. I do not think that I could be criticised for denying anyone any help or assistance, either from the Chair or in the Tea Room. I would like to be remembered as a Deputy Speaker who was always fair and helpful.

My apprenticeship has been one of serving the House as a Chairman of Standing Committees, the Administration Committee and the Scottish Grand Committee. I have never sought to be a Whip, a Front-Bench spokesman or a Minister.

Quite right.

Come to think of it, no one ever invited me to take those posts. I have enjoyed defending the rights of the House.

Modernisation has been talked about a lot in the current Parliament. I will match the hours that any hon. Member keeps in the House because, when hon. Members leave, the Deputy Speakers still have half an hour of Adjournment debate to go, but I am not proud of the fact that, when we go to New Palace yard, men and women who work for us in this building go to their homes and many of them as parents know that their sleep will be broken because they have to get their children out to school. Whenever we talk about hours, we must always consider the staff who work for us so well in the House.

There are new proposals from the Administration Committee to look at creche facilities. The Modernisation and Procedure Committees are looking at our voting system. Back Benchers should fight for these changes. I as Speaker will never interfere with those matters. I give the assurance that I will embrace the democratic decisions of the House. Change for the sake of change is no way in which to conduct our affairs, but, by the same token, to oppose change for the sake of tradition is equally wrong.

A Speaker has a clear duty to every section of the House, especially to Back Benchers, the minority parties and the Opposition parties. The House must hold the Executive to account. I am firmly of the view that the Speaker's duty is to serve the House, not the Executive power.

It says much for the House—and, indeed, for the political system to which we all belong—that someone from the poverty of Glasgow can stand before you seeking the great office of Speaker. My origins should be no reason for me being elected; nor should they be a reason to debar me. I submit myself to the House.

I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Sir Alan Haselhurst".

Let me make it clear that I do not disagree with a single word that was said about my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin); moreover, I, like the rest of the House, listened with much interest to what he said. My hon. Friend and I have known each other for 21 years, and I hope that our friendship will not be broken by the fact that I am not supporting him today. There is only one vacancy: no one—not even my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—is suggesting that there should be a job share.

I do not wish to argue about whether we should continue the practice of the past 30 years of ensuring that the new Speaker is from a different party from that of the previous one. Although I realise that that practice dates back only 30 years and not to ancient times, I simply say to my right. hon. and hon. Friends that we should perhaps bear it in mind.

Why am I nominating the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst)? As hon. Members will know, he was first elected as an hon. Member in 1970. Although he lost his seat at the 1974 general election, he returned to the House faster than some of us retreads, being returned for Saffron Walden in 1977. I have seen in some press reports comments by one or two hon. Members suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman has been too strict an occupant of the Chair. Conversely, one leader—I think that it was in today's edition of The Independent—said that he had occasionally not shown sufficient force in that role. Although hon. Members can make their own judgment on the point, I believe that, occasionally, the occupant of the Chair has to show some strictness—and I say that as one who has occasionally been the subject of that strictness.

What basic qualities are required of a Speaker? I agree with the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that decisions on the House and its future are not for the Speaker, but for hon. Members, and that it is for the House to decide our practices and policies. Therefore, we should not take the view that it is the occupant of the Chair who will decide how we conduct our business.

The first and foremost quality for a Speaker—hon. Members have said it before, but it should be said again—is absolute impartiality when occupying the Chair. At the same time, the Speaker must be in full control, even at times when the House is in a very bad mood, as sometimes happens. The Speaker must also be able to understand the changing mood of the House.

The Speaker must also defend the rights of Back Benchers. Although that point has been made many times before, I make it again because it is important. The Executive—whether this one or a previous one—are strong, and, as hon. Members know, the Executive can largely control the business of the House. Back Benchers need to be defended, and I hope that whoever occupies the Chair in this place will do just that.

Hon. Members can decide for themselves whether it is a virtue for a Speaker not to have held ministerial office. My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn said that he has not held such office. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, too, has not held such office. Hon. Members can decide for themselves whether such a person is better able to appreciate the difficulties and frustrations of Back Benchers than is someone who has held such office.

The Speaker is also our ambassador and representative at parliamentary gatherings overseas, and on other, similar occasions.

I believe that we need a Speaker who respects the history and traditions of this place. I am not one of those who believes that we can say that the House's traditions are not important and cast them aside. At the same time, however, we need a Speaker who appreciates the need for change. In the past few weeks, we have had many lectures from the media on that subject and on our business. Although the media never take the opportunity to lecture themselves, they have been lecturing us on all our weaknesses and blemishes. We should never forget, however, that the importance of this place cannot be underestimated, and that, if it did not exist, all our freedoms would not last for five minutes.

Finally, it has been suggested that the House of Commons requires a figure of glamour—someone with tremendous charisma. I have looked back at previous Speakers over the past 30 years. Betty Boothroyd is indeed a hard act to follow: she was an outstanding Speaker. However, if I were asked who were the other two best Speakers in the past 30 years—who best defended the right of Back Benchers and showed the greatest impartiality between Back Benchers and the Executive—my reply would be Selwyn Lloyd and Lord Weatherill. Before they were elected, would the press have said that Selwyn Lloyd and Lord Weatherill were glamorous figures of great charisma? Probably not. They would have been written off, like a number of today's nominees. Yet in the Chair, they demonstrated impartiality. Moreover, like Betty Boothroyd—and this is not to criticise any of the other Speakers of the past 30 years—Selwyn Lloyd and Lord Weatherill showed how to defend the House of Commons from the Speaker's Chair.

It is my view that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden is in the same tradition. He has all the necessary qualities as Speaker, and I believe that he would serve the House without fear or favour. I therefore have much pleasure in putting his name before the House for consideration as Speaker.

Mr. Peter Brooke to second.

You, Sir Edward, will be pleased to hear that the last time I followed the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in this Chamber, it was on Second Reading of an ageism Bill. It is an equal pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman's eloquence today.

There is a sentence in "The Wrong Box" by Robert Louis Stevenson, to the effect that "it was a bottle of the worst whisky in Hampshire"—and only those familiar with that county could recognise the full force of that superlative. Whatever our opinions, this election is the greatest event to occur in this constituency today—and only those familiar with this constituency can recognise the full force of that superlative.

The speakership of this great House is the greatest gift this House can bestow on any Member. Many are called, yet few are chosen. Yet so great a gift is it that to be runner-up in this contest is a greater privilege than to be the Speaker of 100 other legislatures. Because it is so great a gift, it is a serious business on which we are engaged.

I read in the public prints that the principle of the office passing evenly from party to party is now enshrined in our constitution. If it is, it clearly stands to the advantage of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst). However, if the principle had been so enshrined eight years ago, I wonder why we held an election then. Surely no one would wish to sit as Speaker in this House unless they were the best man or woman to do so, which, over the past eight years, Speaker Boothroyd pre-eminently turned out to be.

So it is by the test of excellence and appositeness that our candidates must be measured, not by the more usual coinage of party label. By these nobler tests, my right hon. Friend starts with the considerable advantage of having been already long tested in the Chair. The opportunity afforded to us by Speaker Boothroyd of holding this election in this Parliament was specifically intended for an informed electorate to use its knowledge of already familiar candidates. Unlike that moment in 1972 when The Wall Street Journal reported that the recession was now so bad that the Mafia had had to lay off two judges in New Jersey, a deputy speakership of this House is no sinecure.

Because I have been taking a controversial private Bill through the House, I can testify that my right hon. Friend yields to no prior holder of his office in upholding by a robust and upstanding firmness the principle of the rules of order and the embargo on repetition. Yet I can also testify that he strains the cricketing principle of the benefit of the doubt to the extremities of scepticism before he intervenes on a fellow Back Bencher. He owes those qualities to his long Back-Bench experience and, appropriately, to his enjoyment of the confidence of colleagues who retained him as secretary of the all-party cricket group, even after his ascent to the Deputy Speaker's Chair.

My right hon. Friend and I share the coincidence of having been elected to the House in 1977 for our present seats, in seats in which there had also been by-elections in 1965, although my right hon. Friend had also served in the 1970 Parliament, when you, Sir Edward, were Prime Minister.

When we choose a Chairman of Ways and Means, beyond the acceptability of the candidate must lie the desirability of that candidate's being a foil to the Speaker. Not for nothing did our last two Speakers proceed to the Chair from a deputy's role. In all human affairs, there is virtue in a successor's not being a precise simulacrum of the predecessor whom he or she follows. In such variety do institutions breathe, live and grow. To borrow an analogy from cricket, our most recent Speaker was, mutatis mutandis, an Ian Botham—colourful, and an all-rounder with a perpetual capacity to surprise. My right hon. Friend, however, is a Leonard Hutton—neat, tidy, solid, classical and a central figure of immense reliability.

We must come to the point of making up our own minds. When Professor Joad—as he then was not—sat his scholarship exam at Oxford, he was asked to write for three hours on the question, "Can a good man be happy on the rack?". He wrote a single sentence in a minute and a half: "If he were a very good man and it were a very bad rack, yes; if not, no." The rack, which, like the inventions of the White Knight in Alice, is of our own devising, is, for that reason, a very good rack, to which my right hon. Friend has volunteered to subject himself. Like Joad's character, he is a very good man indeed. Most important of all, he is his own man, and I am delighted to second his nomination.

Sir Alan Haselhurst has been proposed and seconded, so I give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House.

I last spoke in the House on 29 October 1996, so I hope that hon. Members will recognise that I may be a little rusty. I could not then have imagined that my next speech would be made in these circumstances. I feel obliged to acknowledge the endless uncertainties of political life, which conspired to make me the 63rd Chairman of Ways and Means. That wholly unexpected elevation brought me for the first time into regular contact with Speaker Boothroyd. In the previous Parliament, judging from afar, I had never had cause to doubt her qualities in the Chair, but having gained the privilege of seeing her conduct of the office of Speaker close at hand, I soon became aware of the diligent and conscientious way in which she approached her many duties. The love that Speaker Boothroyd expressed for the House when she accepted nomination eight years ago was always evident in our working meetings. She coupled it with intuitive human insight and lashings of good sense. Betty Boothroyd was a huge personality, and a great Speaker.

Hon. Members often come to the Chamber with speeches in our hands that we may never have the chance to deliver. That feeling has been hovering around me—and, I suspect, others—today. I have always found speaking in the House an extremely daunting experience, because I respect this place above all as the most formidable of democratic debating chambers. I bow to the experience and knowledge that the hon. Members around me collectively represent.

I have, however, never had any doubt about wanting to be part of this place. It was a tremendous moment for me when, in the early hours of June 1970, with my parents present, I was declared to be the Member for Middleton and Prestwich—towns now represented respectively by the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis). I have to say, however—with no disrespect to the people who gave me my first chance in public life, and for whom I have the greatest affection—that what I felt then could not match the emotion and thrill I felt on being returned for Saffron Walden, because by then I had knowledge of what this House was all about, what it meant to me and how important a place I believed it to be.

Thus, Sir Edward, in 1977 I was able to resume my meteoric career on the Back Benches. Never privileged with nor burdened by office, I have had plenty of opportunity to observe and understand the frustrations and constraints of Back-Bench life. I have always been restless to see improvements in the support given to Back Benchers. The power of the Executive has grown and grown, while the capacity of the legislature to check it has not increased commensurately. Arguably, it has diminished. The constituency work load has become steadily more demanding. More and more Members have found it difficult to cope while spending a proper amount of their time undertaking the scrutiny process.

There is another factor: that is family life. When I was originally elected, I was a bachelor. In my first Parliament, I revelled in being here all hours. By 1982, when I had three small children, I took rather a different view and was not always the first to be looking for overtime. I firmly believe that those are issues that the House must address, if only to demonstrate to the public that we are doing an effective job on their behalf and that this is the place—above all others—where their interests will be served.

However, it is for the House as a whole to determine the way in which it wishes to go forward. It is not easy to find a prescription that unites us all—and certainly not one that an individual Speaker can impose. The Speaker should seek only to be a guide—perhaps a catalyst. The Speaker can, however, be a conductor and try to ensure that the pace of our proceedings is more lively, to maximise opportunities for Back Benchers.

So I present myself to the House, Sir Edward, as a moderate moderniser, hopefully gauging the mood of the House and anxious to work with the grain of reform and renewal; as someone who passionately believes that debate and argument over the affairs of this nation must be joined pre-eminently here and not elsewhere; and, I hope, as a convinced champion of individual and minority interests in this House.

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for their willingness to put forward my name and for their generous remarks.

In the 1970 Parliament, I shared with Harold Wilson the distinction that we were the only two Yorkshiremen to represent Lancashire seats. It is asking much, I know, for the House to contemplate two Yorkshire-born Speakers in a row, so it is perhaps in the guise of Essex man that I should, in accordance with ancient custom, submit myself to the will of the House. If chosen, I will serve it faithfully and with resolution.

The original Question was, "That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker", since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert "Sir Alan Haselhurst".

I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. Alan Beith".

I crave the House's indulgence in allowing someone who once broke the Speaker's Chair to nominate someone to occupy it. It is a reflection on the House that those of us who entered as revolutionaries are in danger of departing as mere reformers. I also hope that the House will see that the fact that I shall stand down at the coming election does not detract at all from the idea that I should propose a Speaker, but adds weight to the nomination, because I cannot be said to stand to gain in any shape or form if the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is successful.

I have an excellent perspective from which to commend the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I have sat behind him on this Bench—as he has sat in front of me—for the last 26 years. In that length of time, one overhears quite a few conversations, and I can say quite honestly that I have never heard the right hon. Gentleman say anything malicious about any Member in any part of the House.

Equally, I have a certain insight. Mind you, Sir Edward, the process of overhearing works in two ways. When I was a young Member and new in the House, I said to my colleague Dafydd Elis-Thomas—now a Member of the other House—something less than complimentary about the then leader of the Liberal party, Jeremy Thorpe. It was quite a shock for me when the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed very gently chided me—in perfect Welsh.

In fact, I have a choice today between supporting a Welsh-speaking non-Welsh Speaker, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and a non-Welsh speaking Welsh Speaker. the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—among many other non-Welsh possibilities.

I advocate the election of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for three reasons, which I am sure that he, as a lay preacher, will appreciate—and none of them is to do with the Welsh language. First, I believe that, as part of the checks and balances in this House, the speakership should move around the House and not just be shared between the two largest parties.

It was my belief in such checks and balances that led me last week to support as Deputy Presiding Officer in the National Assembly for Wales our Labour colleague, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I have no doubt that Labour Members in this Chamber will recognise the merit of having a Speaker from the other side of the Chamber, and if they do not do so now, they may see the benefit in future. It is certainly valuable to have such checks and balances, so that not everything goes in one political direction.

I further believe that Members from the smaller parties should not automatically be ruled out for our most senior appointment if they are worthy candidates. In the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed we have such a candidate.

My second reason for proposing the right hon. Gentleman is his experience, which equips him to do the job. He has been a Member of the House since 1973, and represents a constituency in north-east England, so he is aware of the challenges that face so many Members whose constituencies are well away from the home counties. He has 20 years' experience on the House of Commons Commission, and as a reformer, he has successfully fought for the principle that the House, not the Government of the day, should run the buildings in which we work.

In that capacity, the right hon. Gentleman helped, in the face of Treasury opposition, to secure the allowance that provides pensions for Members' secretaries and researchers. We need a Speaker who takes the side of the House against the Executive, whichever party is in power. The right hon. Gentleman has fought to make this a more family friendly House, supporting the provision of a creche and a child care allowance, and advocating sensible working hours. In that capacity, he has developed good working relations with Members from all parties, which is a prerequisite for being Speaker.

The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, a candidate for his party's leadership, and the very characteristics that may have detracted from that candidature may equip him to be an effective Speaker. He is a patient person, he has a balanced view, he can see both sides of an argument, and he can dispassionately form a considered judgment. Those are not necessarily the main attributes necessary for a party leader, but they are essential qualities for the Speaker of the House.

Thirdly, I propose the right hon. Gentleman on account of his strength of character and personality, which equip him to do an outstanding job. He is transparently fair, and that is essential for any Speaker. His strength of character grows out of his deeply held personal convictions, and that is a strength that any Speaker needs to withstand the pressures of the Executive, of vested interest, and, indeed, of political colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman has the deep, quiet strength to do the job.

May I also refer to the strength and dignity that the right hon. Gentleman showed when he suffered two tragic bereavements, in which he had the sympathy of the whole House. He ably demonstrated at that time that he could ride the storms of life and still carry the responsibilities of office. He also has respect for this institution, while not being blind to its shortcomings. He is a reformer at a time when reform must surely be high on our agenda.

Finally, as I am the retiring Member for Caernarfon, a seat held by David Lloyd George for 53 years, it gives me great pleasure to propose that we elect a Liberal— well, at least, a Liberal Democrat—as Speaker. My grandmother, who was for 13 years president of Pwllheli Liberal association, would be smiling from her grave. I have not had a political change of heart, but I hope that we all recognise a good person when we see one, and I urge fellow Members to elect the right hon. Gentleman as a worthy Speaker of the House.

It is my privilege and pleasure to second the nomination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). As Members have heard, he has been a Member of this place since 1973, which is long enough to know the institution. He is a natural parliamentarian and has become part of the institution, but he has not become institutionalised, and as someone who still thinks of herself as something of a revolutionary, I think that that is particularly important.

In this media and image-conscious age, sometimes the image and the person do not match, but my right hon. Friend's image is one of reliability, of being a safe pair of hands, of loyalty and of competence. In this case, the man matches the image, but two more qualities should be added to that list: he has a keen sense of humour and a passion for democracy. Both are much needed in the Speaker of this place.

As a Member from the 1997 intake and a Back Bencher, what I hope for most in the Speaker is someone who will defend the rights of Back Benchers and of the House against any overbearing Executive. When I was elected, I appreciated the encouragement and advice of Speaker Boothroyd and I know that my right hon. Friend has the ability and the commitment to give such encouragement and advice to all Back Benchers. As a Liberal, he is used to being independent of mind and of action. That is also essential in a Speaker.

In my view, the House needs not modernisation but something much more radical. The House needs to reform itself, and we can do that with the help of a reforming Speaker. However, we must judge the candidates today not on their verbal commitments to reform, but on their past practical commitment and examples. My right hon. Friend has a track record that will withstand any scrutiny. He was a distinguished member of the House of Commons Commission for many years, but even before that he showed a commitment to the welfare of the staff of this place when he successfully moved an amendment to a Government motion on Members' allowances to create a ring-fenced allowance for pensions for Members' staff.

My right hon. Friend is a fair-minded man, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has said. He is an open-minded man and, in my view, admirably suited to the Speaker's Chair. I am proud to support his nomination and hope that he will have the support of all Members of the House.

Mr. Alan Beith has been proposed and seconded, so I give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House.

I begin by warmly thanking my kind proposer and seconder and by echoing the tributes to Betty Boothroyd and her speakership. I had the privilege of working with her for about 20 years in various capacities, but particularly in the House of Commons Commission. It is sometimes not recognised what a large, submerged portion of work the Speaker engages in—work that is not apparent when the Speaker takes the Chair. I saw a newspaper report that there was a cushy job going in the House of Commons involving three hours work a day. Well, I can testify from Speaker Boothroyd's hard work—day and evening long—that there is a lot more to it than that, and that much work goes on behind the scenes.

Indeed, in those capacities it was my pleasure often to meet and work with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), whom I count as a friend. I have worked with him for many years, especially when he was Chairman of the Administration Committee and I served on the Commission. We did not always agree, but I have to say that in those days, the Administration and Accommodation and Works Committees were not hotbeds of reform or modernisation. I have a great and warm respect for his personal qualities, so it is rather strange to have entered what seems a little like a fairground boxing ring to contend with him. That is the nature of the procedure: we are proposed in turn, one by one—although I advise Members who want an early tea that the proceedings can be brought to a close quite quickly by electing me. By doing so, they would elect the first Speaker from the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency since 1656—and he had the benefit of a bit of help from Oliver Cromwell, which is not available today. Indeed, we had our last Liberal Speaker in the 1920s, and he probably had a bit of help from Lloyd George. That is not available, either.

The Speaker is the servant of the House, so all the commitments that we make at hustings, meetings and in the Chamber about reforms that we should like to achieve are subject to a proviso: it is the House that decides. In my experience, there are many roadblocks on the way to reform in the House. It is my hope that the Speaker will not be one of them. The Speaker should enable the House to release its potential to be more effective in the service of our constituents, in the scrutiny of legislation and in holding the Executive to account. Frankly, some of our ways do not assist that. The Speaker who is ready to support the House in seeking to make the procedures more effective would do the nation a service.

We should use time productively and effectively. I express personal views, which any Speaker would have to submit to the House, as the House makes the decisions, but I do not find the notion of very long debates attended by very few Members, which are little regarded outside the House, particularly contributive to effective scrutiny. Such debates are one of the factors that discourage some people from serving in the House, and make it difficult for some to continue to do so. We must not be an exclusive institution.

Although the Speaker is dependent on the will of the House concerning some changes that can be made, Speakers can do other things. There are private notice questions, emergency debates and procedures to stand over debates when the range of opinion has not been properly represented. Some of those have not been used all that often in recent times. There are opportunities for the occupant of the Chair to make use of those procedures to help Back Benchers and to give them the chance to express their concerns. A reforming spirit behind the way in which we use our Standing Orders can do some good.

Whoever wins this election will as their first duty lay public claim to the liberties and freedoms of the House of Commons. There must be some substance to that claim. We are not simply reclaiming the 16th and 17th-century freedoms of the House. We must lay claim to freedoms that make the House effective and enable it to challenge the Executive and legislate well. Some reforms are necessary to that task.

I have been honoured to serve in this House and look forward to continuing to do so. It is an honour and a privilege. I am proud to be a Member—but one can be proud of an institution and still recognise that it needs to change, to make itself more effective and to renew itself. The House is not our property; it is the legislature of the people of the United Kingdom. It is not run for our benefit as Members; it is their institution, in which we should stop regarding them as strangers and recognise them as the people who elect us and whom we are here to serve. I have sought in 27 years to work for parliamentary democracy in this place, and I pledge myself to continue to do so.

I call Mr. David Davis to move the amendment in favour of Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.