What action he is taking to promote renewable energy. [153626]

What steps he is taking to increase energy production from renewable resources. [153642]

The Government have set an ambitious target of securing 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewables by 2010, driven mainly by the proposed renewables obligation on all electricity suppliers. In addition, we have allocated more than £250 million over the next three years to promote new renewable energy technologies, including offshore wind, energy crops and solar voltaics. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Government have also decided to introduce an order in the House that will allow non-fossil fuel obligation 3, 4 and 5 contracts to change location, so freeing up projects that have been unable to win, planning consent to transfer elsewhere and help meet our renewables target.

The Minister will be aware that the tariff payments to generators of wind power change on 1 April and that sites with wind velocity as low 7.5 m a second will be viable, instead of the previous 9 m a second. Will be do everything possible to encourage wind generators to switch their attention to new sites and remove pressure from environmentally and aesthetically sensitive sites, such as those in my constituency near the Pembrokeshire coast national park?

I am well aware of the beautiful countryside in my hon. Friend's constituency—indeed, I may even visit it with her in the next few weeks. We are anxious to ensure that renewables projects, in particular offshore and onshore wind projects, are sensitively located. I assure her that NFFO portability will encourage transfer of projects to less sensitive sites. In addition, the increased buy-out price for renewables will encourage wind farm projects to be located at lower levels. That should reassure my hon. Friend and her constituents.

Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey published by the Scottish Executive that shows overwhelming support for renewable energy. especially wind energy? Interestingly, there was more support in areas adjacent to existing projects. That reinforces evidence from many surveys that show that a lot of the fears that are raised before a project is installed are unfounded. Will my hon. Friend agree to have a public information campaign to emphasise the benefits of renewable energy, which is better for the environment, uses safer production methods and improves the environment for the staff who work in the area? Will he also emphasise the fact that that massively expanding sector also benefits British business.

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have made £250 million available to support wind projects, solar photovoltaics, biomass projects in better generation and other renewable energy projects that we are keen to promote. Our approach will encourage cleaner energy and environmentally more sustainable energy. I agree that public opinion is often more content with such projects when they are established. When people consider a renewables project on their doorstep. they should bear in mind the fact that it is the cleanest form of energy. Whatever planning issues may be at stake, people should not adopt a Nimby attitude to those projects.

Does the Minister agree with the unanimous view of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs that energy from waste should not be classified as renewable energy?

I read the report yesterday and was impressed with the level of analysis. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in such matters. However, it is important that we give maximum encouragement both to the recycling of waste and to clean methods of waste disposal. New technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis allow the transformation of waste into energy in a manner that is clean and produces few, if any, emissions. I do not rule out bringing the biodegradable form of waste generation into the renewables obligation. We are studying how that might be achieved to give maximum environmental protection while ensuring that the alternative of burying waste in landfill sites is not encouraged. Indeed, we want radically to change that practice.

Given that this is likely to be the last trade and industry questions before Labour has to defend its record to the country, will the hon. Gentleman say how he will explain to the electorate the fact that the Government's target of reducing CO₂ emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010 will be missed by a mile, with Britain achieving just 8 per cent. by 2010 and CO₂ emissions rising, according to the Government's own figures? How will he explain his Department's failure to get anywhere near the target of generating 5 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2003, given that just 2.8 per cent. has been achieved so far, and most of that is hydro-electric? Is not the truth that this is a Government full of grandiose targets that no one believes will be met and with absolutely no idea of how to achieve them?

It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to complain about renewables targets when the Conservatives did virtually nothing to support renewable energy when they were in power. There is the potential for at least two more terms of Labour Government before 2010, and during that time we will drive forward the renewables programme and meet the targets. We have already achieved 2.8 per cent. of generation from renewables towards our target of 5 per cent. by 2003. Today's announcement will help us, and the recent announcement of £250 million will be a huge boost to spending on research and development and capital projects in renewable energy.

Given that the Labour party had a strong commitment to renewables in its last manifesto, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the next Labour Government will strongly support renewables industries—[Interruption.]

Order. Hardly a day goes by when the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) does not shout. I do not know whether he is rattling anyone else, but he is beginning to rattle me.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that there will be strong support for indigenous renewables industries, especially combined heat and power programmes?

Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want a vibrant, expanding renewable energy industry. There is enormous potential for British businesses, with which I have had many discussions in the past few weeks, to take advantage of the fantastic opportunities that exist as part of our strategy for creating the best knowledge-based economy in Britain.

If he will make a statement on the role of the nuclear industry in helping to meet Britain's future electricity generation requirements. [153629]

The nuclear industry's role will depend on its cost compared with that of other generation options and on securing public confidence in respect of issues such as safety and the environment. The generators have said that they have no current plans for new nuclear power stations.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the commitment to the industry of nuclear workers in my constituency and their awareness of the industry's contribution to meeting our Kyoto target and giving us security of energy supply. In light of recent press reports of the wish of British Energy and BNFL to investigate further investment in nuclear energy, will he say what is the Government's strategic vision for the industry? Will he support both companies' endeavours to renew our rapidly ageing stock of nuclear power stations?

:The right hon. Gentleman refers to the press reports about comments allegedly made by British Energy and BNFL. Both companies have denied that they have any proposals at present to begin a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Springfields, the facility in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, is a major employer, and he is rightly concerned about the implications of the decline of Magnox in the next few years and its impact on his constituents. It will be another five years or so before the Magnox fuel demands at Springfields will be in decline, so we have time to work out together the new role that Springfields can play . I believe that it can remain a vibrant manufacturing facility, employing many people. I want to work with the right hon. Gentleman and BNFL to make sure that the expertise and talent at Springfields can be used in future, perhaps in a slightly different way. There is huge potential at that facility, and we have time to map out a way to ensure that it can be used to the full.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nuclear industry's importance lies in the people in that industry, and that without clear and coherent policies we shall not attract into the industry the younger people we need not only to develop new generation potential but to manage safety issues, which must always be uppermost in our mind?

:My hon. Friend is right. We have to ensure that public confidence in nuclear is retained, so we need to explain the benefits that can be derived from nuclear, as well as the safety measures that are in place. Nuclear accounts for 23 per cent. of electricity production; even given the projected decline, in 10 years it will still account for 18 per cent. of electricity generation in the UK. Therefore, nuclear will have a strong role to play well into the foreseeable future. We need to communicate to the young and talented people who want to know whether there is a future for the industry the clear statement that yes, there is. We want diversity of generation and nuclear electricity will continue to play a significant role in achieving that.

We heard in answer to the previous question that the Government are way behind on their target for renewable energy. Will the Secretary of State now confirm that even if the Government were to meet their renewable energy target of 5 per cent. and then 10 per cent., CO₂ emissions would start to increase in the medium term because of the decommissioning of nuclear power stations? How can the Government claim to have a rational climate change policy when, according to their own figures, emissions will start to rise again? Is not the truth that the Government have no coherent policy, save for a hope that that future will never arise? Does that have something to do with the fact that the junior Minister responsible for nuclear power is a member of CND, which opposes the civil use of nuclear power? Will the Secretary of State override his junior Minister and CND and conduct a review of nuclear power and the environment policy; or is the Government's entire climate change programme yet another sham, condemned by their own figures in their own document?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that our energy policy has not changed as a result of the appointment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. Our policy remains as it has been for the past few years an energy policy based on diversity and on sustained and secure energy production. The right hon. Gentleman appears to argue that the Government should embark on a new generation of nuclear build, but he must be aware that the two UK companies working in that sector—BNFL and British Energy—have both clearly stated that they have no plans to begin a new generation of nuclear build. Therefore, it would fall on the Government to support such a programme. The last nuclear plant built—Sizewell B, which was commissioned and Completed in 1994—cost £2 billion at 1994 prices. Is the right hon. Gentleman making a commitment on behalf of the Conservatives to fund a new generation of nuclear build? The figures are clear: we project a 5 per cent. reduction in nuclear by 2010 and a 10 per cent. renewables contribution. We shall benefit from the climate change programme to which we are committed. In government, the right hon. Gentleman did absolutely nothing about it.

Would my right hon. Friend care to tell us when he thinks the MOX—mixed oxide—facility at BNFL's Sellafield plant will be given permission? I realise that the responsibility is held jointly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but the matter appears to have been lying on Ministers' desks for some time. Given that some of the problems that BNFL has encountered in recent years have been addressed and that the nuclear installations inspectorate is giving positive signals about the improvement in performance, when is the MOX facility likely to be licensed?

:My hon. Friend raises an important point. The nuclear installations inspectorate has said some positive things about the steps that have been taken at Sellafield in the light of the difficulties that were experienced a few months ago. My hon. Friend is right that my Department and DETR are jointly responsible. Within government, we are discussing closely the progress that we can make. I hope that shortly there will be a proposal from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment that will allow us to make some speedy progress.

:If he will make a statement on his Department's support for the business incubation programme in the north-west. [153630]

:The North West Development Agency will spend nearly £4 million over the next two years to initiate the north-west incubation programme.

Organisations in the north-west will have the opportunity to bid for the Small Business Service's £75 million business incubation fund.

:I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for her Department's support for the business incubation programme in the north-west.

Campus Ventures, which is a Manchester-based company, is playing a leading role in the development of the programme. It recently initiated discussions with key players in the region with a view to establishing a seedcorn capital fund. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to underline the importance of such a fund to new enterprises and encourage public and private organisations to contribute to the fund once it is established?

:I readily respond to my hon. Friend's question. Seedcorn funds of the sort that he mentioned are enormously important in helping more businesses to start up and to grow. I congratulate Jim Keaton, the chairman of Campus Ventures, and the vice-chancellors of many of the universities in the north-west, who have collaborated in different ventures, including the Manchester challenge seed fund, which was helped by the first round of university challenge funding that we provided.

:What assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on UK manufacturing industry's competitiveness. [153632]

:The climate change levy is an environmental protection measure designed to avoid damaging the competitiveness of UK manufacturing. The levy's impact on individual businesses will depend on the extent to which they take advantage of the various levy exemptions, the new scheme of enhanced capital allowances for energy efficiency, the energy efficiency advice and support from the new carbon trust, and whether their sites qualify for a discount from the levy. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are offering an 80 per cent. discount to energy-intensive industries exposed to international competition in return for their commitment to challenging energy- saving targets.

:Has the Minister seen the report published last week by Ernst and Young, which was commissioned by the Engineering Employers Federation? Will he comment on the remarks of Nick Turner of Ernst and Young, who said:

"There is no doubt that the climate change levy will penalise a number of manufacturing enterprises in the UK, particularly those that have made considerable improvements to their energy efficiency prior to the introduction of the levy."?

Is it not important that we do not have policies that damage the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of manufacturing?

Will the Minister comment also on the remarks of Martin Temple, the director-general of the EEF, who said that he believes that the levy is

"one of the most badly designed economic instruments in recent times."?

Will the Minister reconsider the effect of the climate levy on manufacturing industry?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the levy is one element of a national climate change programme, which was published in November. Our answers to earlier questions make it clear that we want to approach energy in the most effective way and to stop damage to the environment. The levy is one of the instruments that is being used to address the Kyoto targets, with which I think the entire House agreed. We have made major concessions in discussions with organisations such as the Engineering Employers Federation—I listed some of them in my main answer—and dialogue continues with them. The tax will take effect in April. It must be seen as part of the Government's attack on damage to the environment.

Is it not the case that the Government have given many millions of pounds of relief to the British steel industry on the levy? Corus repaid the Government's generosity by giving £700 million back to its shareholders and promulgating 4,000 job losses in Wales, including 400 in Shotton steelworks in my constituency. Bearing in mind the fact that the Shotton steelworkers went, with Corus, to see the Government to ask for the levy on steel to be lessened, my steelworkers think that that is a disgrace.

:Some of my right hon. Friend's questions about Corus should be directed at the company itself. However, the climate change levy was not a major factor in the decisions that were made, rightly or wrongly, on the present restructuring. That was clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry by the chairman and chief executive of Corus.

How is it that the Department of Trade and Industry has the professed aim of helping manufacturing industry and improving competitiveness—that appears in its so-called mission statement—but in reality is so weak and ineffective that it allows the Treasury to impose a new energy tax, which will come into effect in less than two weeks, at a time when energy prices for industry are already rising fast? Will the Minister confirm that the new tax will be particularly damaging for manufacturing industry, which has already lost more than 350,000 jobs since the general election, and that it is an unwelcome additional burden on the steel industry, which is already suffering severe job losses? The damage caused by the new energy tax has been confirmed by the chairman of Corus.

Will the Minister also confirm that the tax is an extremely clumsy and inefficient way of tackling climate change, which could be dealt with much better by other means, such as emissions permit trading, and that the tax has been condemned by business groups, all of which have declared that it is ridiculously complicated and an additional stealth tax? Above all, will the DTI start to stand up for the interests of British business instead of constantly being ignored and overridden by the tax-raising ambitions of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I repeat what the chairman and chief executive of Corus said: the climate change levy was not a major consideration in the company's decision to restructure, as has been said at the Dispatch Box before.

The levy is part of the Government's attack on the question of damage to the environment, and of our responsibilities as a Government. The DTI has been extremely active on behalf of British industry, including manufacturing, in our discussions and dialogue with the Treasury. Because representations were made, and strongly supported by the DTI, we have a package of measures to address the concerns raised by manufacturers when we first started discussions on the climate change programme last November. We are now coming to a consensus, and when the levy starts to operate on 1 April, we shall be able to reflect and see that it is a sensible move for all the population.

:What action he is taking to deliver coal health payments in the south Yorkshire area. [153634]

:What action he is taking to deliver coal miners' illness compensation payments in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. [153640]

:Some 2,100 claims in the Yorkshire area have been settled in full, with the highest full settlement to date being £61,004. A further 6,200 claimants have received interim payments, the highest being £30,000. In Yorkshire alone, we have paid out £100 million in coal mining compensation. In total, the Department has paid out more than £360 million in compensation for respiratory disease and vibration white finger, and we continue to pay out about £1 million per working day.

:I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the work that he is doing to increase the speed with which compensation is paid out. He will be aware that 139,000 cases are still waiting to be dealt with, and that more cases are still coming in than are being completed. He will also know that it will be a long time before those claims are completed. We had another meeting with IRISC this week and were given further suggestions on how to speed things up. Will he again visit IRISC to see what help he can provide in that respect?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for visiting IRISC and I know about his close engagement with its headquarters in Sheffield. We have put in place a series of steps that are resulting in huge improvements in the speed of compensation delivery. Although my hon. Friend is right that there are about 140,000 claimants in the system, many of them have received payments and 1,000 are joining every year, which makes this the biggest compensation claim in Britain's history. He will be encouraged to learn that we expect offers worth £440 million to be sent out in the next five or six months. That compares with £360 million in the past three years, which shows that the programme is being hugely accelerated. We are determined to deliver justice for miners and their widows.

:I welcome the opening of a centre in Doncaster to deal with vibration white finger claims, but I was concerned to hear yesterday from Tommy Bird, a constituent of mine from Armthorpe. Mr. Bird has chronic bronchitis and emphysema. but even though he has had his final medical assessment, it is likely to be about 15 weeks before he gets a final offer . As I understand it, the problem lies in getting the medical assessment from Healthcall to IRISC. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to speed up that part of the process?

:We will certainly consider the case of my hon. Friend's constituent. Mistakes have been made and there have been bottlenecks, but we have gradually removed such problems so that the compensation scheme is proceeding much more speedily. There should be no rigid figure of 15 weeks or any other period. We are now processing 1,000 medical assessments each week. That compares with about 500 claims per week last year, so it is clear that the process is being speeded up. I am sure that we will pay special attention to my hon. Friend's constituent's case now that she has raised it with me.

:I am concerned about miners' compensation in Yorkshire and Wales. I wrote to the Minister on 6 January, congratulating him on his appointment and asking for an urgent meeting to discuss the matter. Is he happy that I received a reply on 3 March saying,"Try some time later in the spring."? That is simply not good enough.

:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for congratulating me, but I remind him, that he has had an Adjournment debate in which I gave a full response. I am as happy to discuss any matters with him as I am with any other hon. Member. We have been working night and day to drive the programme forward in Wales, as elsewhere.[Interruption.] On Friday week, I shall open a new medical assessment centre in Ystrad Mynach, which will take forward the whole process of compensation. [Interruption.]

:Order. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked the Minister a question, so he should not shout during the reply.

:I remind the House that while Plaid Cymru whinges about miners' compensation we are delivering it on a scale that has never been seen in British history and that the Tories refused to deliver in their long years of power. We will continue to do that.

:I congratulate my hon. Friend on his decision on claimants' pension rights, and, in particular, on his decision about asthma cases in which it is shown that it a man could have contracted asthma by working in dust underground. I have no doubt whatever that such cases would have gone to court if the Conservative party had been in power. He will know that the matter involves civil litigation and that although he has extended the claims period until mid-summer, the time bar will come down then. On the basis of the evidence that IRISC will have accumulated in calculating the claims, will he consider introducing a scheme after the time bar comes down, to ensure that people can make future claims?

:I will certainly consider that. There is no reluctance on our part to pay out the money. Recently, £50 million in offers was stuck with solicitors who were unable to make progress. We want them to speed up their operations. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the hugely complex process of litigation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) often makes the point that the Labour Government in the 1970s dealt with such claims immediately and with great speed. We have been unable to do that because of the court process. However, speed has been increased greatly, and compensation will be paid throughout the country.

:What recent representations he has received concerning metrication. [153636]

:Not a lot. However, several individuals have written directly to the Government or their Members of Parliament about the obligation on traders, under legislation made by a Conservative Government in 1994, to use metric weights after 31 December 1999 for the sale of loose goods.

:I am grateful for that reply, as far it goes. The younger generation is happy and comfortable using metric measurements. However, try as I may to keep up with them, I understand "a couple of miles down the road" better than "5 km". I understand that it is a hot summer's day when the temperature is 75 deg F, but I am a bit muddled about 20 deg C. I understand a pound of butter or 8 oz of sweeties. I may be out of date, but I am comfortable with those measurements.

Does not the Minister regret the fact that the statutory instrument that he introduced last week removes the right of the retailer to offer an option? Currently, we are offered both sorts of measurements and people know where they are, no matter whether they are young or, like me, a bit of a fuddy-duddy. The statutory instrument means that we will not know what we are buying.

:As far as I understand the question, I can reply that the hon. Gentleman knows that we negotiated a 10-year extension so that anyone who sells loose goods can use imperial as well as metric measurements.

It is too late for the hon. Gentleman to convince the people of his lovely county that he is more anti-European and anti-metrication than the UK Independence party—that is what he is really worried about. He has a majority of only 3,500, and the UK Independence party is pecking away at it.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the acute grasp of modern measurement that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) displays is one of the reasons for the Confederation of British Industry's announcement yesterday that a Tory Government would pose a threat to Britain?

Probably.

:The introduction of metrication has been a confusion of European Union directives, opt-outs, derogations and statutory instruments. The final stage in that messy process was yesterday's deferred Division. A majority of Labour Members voted to end for ever the ability to display imperial measurements alongside metric ones.

indicated dissent

Nevertheless, Lord Sainsbury gave incorrect information in the Lords debate on the matter. He claimed that supplementary measurements were already forbidden: that is not true. Will the Minister confirm for the record that the Labour party's vote has killed off imperial measurements for good? They would otherwise have been permitted in parallel. Will he also confirm that Lord Sainsbury' s comments did not reflect the truth?

:No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It will remain permissible until 2009 for weighing machines to be marked with imperial measurements, and for anybody to ask for a product in an imperial measure. The trader can measure it metrically if he wishes. There is nothing to prevent us from negotiating a further 10-year derogation if we choose to do that.

:What progress has been made in agreeing a memorandum of understanding with banks concerning the universal bank. [153637]

:Discussions with the banks are at an advanced stage. I hope that they will be resolved shortly.

:Will the Minister comment on the reports in today's edition of The Independent, and confirm that Barclays and the Halifax are resisting proposals that post office employees should be able to open accounts at their banks, and that they are concerned about the prospect of money laundering? Will the Minister also say whether the Select Committee was accurate in its estimate that the running costs of the universal bank would be in the region of £150 million a year? What element of public subsidy will be involved in that?

:We are engaged in commercial negotiations at the moment, and I will not breach the confidentiality of those negotiations. I advise the hon. Gentleman to take as much notice of the report published this morning as of the report published in the same newspaper in November, which said that the universal bank was going to hit the dust. Shortly after that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that Barclays, Lloyds TSB, the Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Abbey National and the Halifax had all agreed in principle to the universal bank. Since then, I visited the Alliance and Leicester Girobank in Merseyside, on 8 February. It announced that it too would join a universal bank. I had discussions with the Nationwide building society on 20 February, and it announced that it would sign up to the universal bank.

I advise Opposition Members to recognise that we have an opportunity hen to tackle financial exclusion. One hundred per cent. of the socially and financially excluded are among the 28 million people a week who visit post offices, and the universal bank will provide an exciting opportunity to move forward and, at the same time, to address the problems of branch closures and of people continuing to receive their benefits and pensions in cash across a post office counter. That is our aim. This is an exciting prospect and we aim to deliver on it.

Will the universal bank not bring a new income stream to sub-post offices? Will it not also result in more people holding bank accounts? Are not those both highly desirable outcomes?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would have expected Members on both sides of the House to recognise the opportunities that the proposal makes available. The universal bank concept—originally set out by the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit, which said that the Post Office should set up a universal bank—has moved on a stage, to the point where every bank that offers a basic bank account, a so-called PAT 14 bank account, will now make those accounts available across a post office counter. That will open up the opportunity for far more work across post office counters. It will also attack the disgraceful situation in which up to 5 million people in this country do not have bank accounts or any of the advantages that they bring.

:How far have the negotiations been advanced by yesterday's report by the Competition Commission, on the first anniversary of the Cruickshank report? Specifically, does the Minister agree with the chair man of the commission that it would be appropriate and a useful source of revenue for the universal bank if there were a windfall tax on the excess profits of the banking system?

:I do not think that yesterday's report changes anything in respect of the discussions that we are having with the banks. Those are constructive, fruitful discussions. The banks have no legal obligation to sign up to universal banking services. Nevertheless, owing to the skill, wisdom and sagacity of the negotiators, they are willingly signing up to the universal banking services. We should ensure that we continue that process, finalise it shortly and be ready for 2003, when universal banking services will be launched.

:Is the Minister aware that owing to the clumsy way in which automated credit transfer was introduced, the Government have destroyed the confidence of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in their own offices? Those offices are now closing at then record rate of nearly two a day. Even if the Minister sorts out the muddle and confusion that surround the universal banking service, there will be precious little income for those in the post offices.

The Minister's answers have been muddled and confused over the months that we have been asking him questions about the universal banking service. Is he aware that when we sweep back to power after the next general election, we are going to cut through this confusion by introducing our own benefit card? That will enable beneficiaries to draw their money at the post offices, and enable the sub-post offices to get some income; most importantly of all, it will preserve the footfall in post offices. When the Minister goes back. to 1 Victoria street with his tail between his legs, will he put in hand our work, so that when we take over his office after the general election, we shall not have to waste any time putting in our benefit card scheme?

:Last July, the hon. Gentleman described the universal bank as flabby and unlikely; if I were a less kind person, I might say that that was a suitable description of him. He mentioned the benefit payment card, which I understand those on the Opposition Front Bench will be committed to reintroducing. The idea behind that card was well intentioned, but as I said at the time, it was a turkey of a PFI. Read the National Audit Office report: the project was three years overdue and vastly overspent. If Conservative Members would bother to look at the plans for universal balking services, they would see that the smart card—the so-called clear account—which is the post office's part of the system, does precisely what the benefit payment card would have done, except that it is a smart card rather than a swipe card, because it moves the technology forward.

I heard the leadership bid that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but I must tell Conservative Members that if we are to fight the election on the issues that he raised, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters will be on our side in implementing the PIU report; they will not support some adventurer who wants to go back and recreate the benefit payment card.

If he will make a statement on the impact of the minimum wage in Cleethorpes. [153638]

:At least 120,000 workers in Yorkshire and Humberside have benefited as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. The national minimum wage has also helped to close the gap between the highest and lowest earners, and to reduce the differential between men's and women's pay, both in Cleethorpes and throughout the United Kingdom. Between April 2000 and February 2001, Inland Revenue enforcement officers visited 348 employers in the Inland Revenue's northern region, which includes Cleethorpes, and identified about £240,000 in underpayments for workers in that region.

I represent a part of the world in which low pay, such as £1 an hour piecework rates, was rife. The national minimum wage, and the increase in it that will be made later this year, has given a real boost to eliminating poverty pay in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. My hon. Friend mentioned cases of employers who do not meet their obligations. That is probably the tip of the iceberg in some parts of the country. What rights do workers have to report employers who may not be paying the national minimum wage, or who may alter their terms and conditions of employment to get round the requirement to pay the minimum wage?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The second report of the Low Pay Commission last year examined enforcement, and its authors were pleased, by and large, with the way it was operating. We have 14 teams of Inland Revenue officers around the country, dedicated to national minimum wage issues. Thanks to the Employment Relations Act 1999, they have access to returns for tax, national insurance and working families tax credit. The Low Pay Commission will re-examine the subject, and its conclusions will be included in volume 2 of its third report, which will be published in May.

If workers are scared of their employers, and scared to enforce their rights, they have only to ring the helpline. The rest will be done for them; they need have no further involvement. Enforcement officers will ensure that the employer complies—and so far, the enforcement officers have recovered £4 million in wages for people who had been denied their rights under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

I was in a nursing home recently—[Interruption.] I was only visiting. The nursing home was in my constituency, but only a couple of miles from the constituency of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), and the people there said that the minimum wage had had a severe impact on their business. Although we all want people to receive decent wages, is the Minister conducting a survey of areas of traditionally high unemployment and low wages, such as Humberside and north Lincolnshire? The area contains his own constituency, and he knows it well. The issue is serious, and I am sure that the Minister would not want to increase unemployment in the area. What impact studies is he conducting, especially into the TUC's demands for a minimum wage as high as £4.50 or even £5 an hour?

The Low Pay Commission is an example of social partnership in action, and may not be too popular among Conservative Members. It was established to carry out the type of analysis that the hon. Gentleman has described.

The sector mentioned by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has been a cause of concern in respect of the effect of the national minimum wage. What—for want of a better term—one could call social care employees have had a major input to the commission's deliberations. Indeed, the commission's second report found that 14 per cent. of establishments in the sector had experienced lower staff turnover since the introduction of the national minimum wage, that 18 per cent. reported higher staff motivation, and that 44 per cent. had increased investment in training and development.

The matter is important. This Government introduced the national minimum wage, and the level at which it is set obviously has to take cognisance of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. That is why it is important that the process should be careful and steady, and that it be overseen by the Low Pay Commission. Anyone who reads the commission's reports will see that it conducts a thorough analysis of points such as the hon. Gentleman raised.

What support his Department plans to give to former employees of Corus affected by its decision to restructure steel production in the UK. [153639]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, even at this late stage the Government would urge Corus to reconsider its proposal. Should it proceed, we will work with the National Assembly for Wales, local agencies and other Government Departments to ensure that the best and most appropriate help is provided for the individuals and communities affected.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the efforts made by his Department and the National Assembly for Wales to support the Corus steelworkers if they are made redundant. However, does not he agree that the prime responsibility remains with Corus to restructure its plans and save the jobs at Llanwern, Ebbw Vale and Bryngwyn? Does he share the astonishment felt by members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs when Sir Brian Moffat confessed, while giving evidence, that he did not know whether the Bryngwyn works was profitable or not but that he was closing it anyway?

:Once we were able to reflect on the decision announced by Corus, it was clear that the company was adopting a short-term approach to the particular trading difficulties that it was experiencing. There is no getting away from the fact that it has been a difficult period for Corus. The House will understand that the company had to act to remedy the losses that it was incurring. The great concern for my hon. Friend, and many others, was that the company failed to adopt an approach guaranteeing a long-term future for steel.

I have no doubt that steel is an important industry for the United Kingdom, and will remain so. The Government still want to work constructively with Corus and the trade unions to find a better way forward. We could have a plan for steel that would overcome the difficulties that individuals and communities will face if Corus goes ahead with the programme that it has proposed.

Will the introduction of the climate change levy next month result in a net cost to the steel industry?

What I can do is repeat the comments made by Sir Brian Moffat, the chairman and chief executive of Corus. His evidence to the Select Committee was very clear. He said that the introduction of the climate change levy made no difference whatever to the proposals being put forward by the company.

There is nothing new about the conduct of the company. The company's barrister admitted in a recent employment appeal tribunal that the company gave false information to employees during the closure of the H.H. Robertson firm in my constituency. Given the role of his Department, and the possible involvement of the Serious Fraud Office, will my right hon. Friend look again at the conduct of British Steel—now Corus—during that closure?

I will agree to do that.

What assessment he has made of the effects of raising the national minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [153641]

The Low Pay Commission has made a thorough assessment of the likely impact of raising the minimum wage to £4.10 an hour. Its report shows just how successful the policy has been, with nearly 1.5 million workers taken out of poverty pay, and no adverse impact on levels of employment.

:I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that he and the Low Pay Commission will be looking at the youth rate before this latest increase Comes into effect? Does he agree that although some propose that all small firms should be exempted from having to pay the minimum wage, most firms consider that the minimum wage makes good business sense? Could that be one of the reasons why the Confederation of British Industry said this week that

"most businesses would take their hat off to this Government",

and warned against the effect of another Tory Government, a view that I am sure is shared by most low-paid workers?

I think that the fact that we have been able to create economic stability which allows business to plan ahead with confidence is the motive behind the CBI's warm endorsement. On the national minimum wage, the Low Pay Commission will be recommending the youth rate later in May. We expect it to report on that issue then.

Many Conservative Members opposed the national minimum wage and continue to do so. The right hon. Member for Bexley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is a good example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bromley".] The right hon. Gentleman changes his constituency so often that I have difficulty keeping track. He, however, is a true believer. Conservative Front Benchers do not believe in the national minimum wage, either. The public know that, because the Conservatives have continually opposed it. The Government are committed to it; we are proud to have introduced it. That is why it is going up to £4.10 in October and to £4.20 in October the following year.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been spending any of his March advertising budget on promoting the national minimum wage? Can he confirm that more than £8 million has been spent in March by his Department? Can he also confirm that the information in the advertisement on the four weeks' minimum holiday is incorrect, because the person featured in that advertisement is a partner in a firm, so the minimum wage and the four weeks' minimum holiday do not apply?

I am not sure that we are spending any money advertising the national minimum wage in March. If the hon. Gentleman is recommending that we should, I would be more than happy to consider it.

We are, of course, advertising the fact that as a result of measures introduced by this Government, everybody is now entitled to four weeks' paid holiday a year. That would be taken away by the Conservative party. We make no apology for advertising the fact that people in work now have decent minimum standards as a result of the measures that we have introduced.

:If he will make a statement on the rural post office network. [153643]

:By accepting all 24 recommendations of the performance and innovation unit's report on the future of the post office network, the Government have demonstrated their continuing commitment to maintenance of a national network. We are working closely with the Post Office, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and other stakeholders to implement the PIU recommendations. These measures are designed to modernise and improve post office services and to strengthen confidence in the future of the network. We have also established a new fund to support initiatives by volunteer or community groups to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where the traditional post office is closing.

The Post Office has accepted a formal requirement, placed on it by the Government, to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices.

The Minister will be aware of my keen interest in this matter. I am grateful for the briefing given to me by the Leeds regional office. That briefing proved that the rural post office network is virtually non-existent. It is hopelessly inadequate. The whole network is geared to urban and suburban post offices. Does the Minister accept that the Government have failed rural post offices and the countryside?

I realise that the hon. Lady takes an interest in that matter, but I am bemused by her response following a briefing. Rural closures are 20 per cent. down on the same period last year—[Interruption.] That is the first time there has been a reduction of any sort in the past 18 years. Many of the initiatives that we announced last month resulted from suggestions made by rural sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. So we are providing protection through Government subsidy—as specified in the Postal Services Act 2000. We have abolished the 25 per cent. of salary up-front fee that new sub-postmasters had to pay when they first took over a new post office—that was introduced by the previous Government in 1989 and we have waived the fee—and set up a £2 million fund to allow parish councils and local communities to meet the capital costs of opening a village hall as a post office. We predict that that will lead to the reopening of 200 offices that cannot at present find a location.

The hon. Lady asked a genuine question and has a genuine interest, but we should have a better dialogue on the subject because the rural part of the network is doing better than the rest.

I was very pleased to see the provision in paragraph (6) of the proposed Standing Order, because when my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) had a meeting in Committee Room 14, at which all the candidates were asked to speak, albeit only briefly, the proceedings were criticised for perhaps providing a hostage to fortune in trying to get votes for the candidature. I was asked to be the chairman and, having considered the matter, I thought that holding such a meeting was a sensible thing to do, and that if any candidate were to go beyond what was expected of a Speaker, it would be to their disadvantage—and so it proved.

I know that my right hon. Friend took part in those procedures. One of the concerns that was expressed—I speak from memory—on at least the previous two occasions of a Speaker's election, was that under our former procedures it was not necessarily the case that every potential candidate was heard. I know that that was part of the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was seeking to overcome in the procedure to which my right hon. Friend referred. I think that it is one of the virtues of the proposals of the Procedure Committee that such a procedure would now allow all potential candidates to address the House without any being excluded.

The concern is for transparency and fairness in these procedures. Paragraphs (8) to (13) set out the provisions for an exhaustive ballot. Paragraph (14) sets out the general principles that the House should meet at 2.30 pm on any day on which it is to elect a Speaker; that the question that a Member becomes Speaker shall be unamendable, as the Procedure Committee suggested; and that, in the unlikely event—one hopes—of the House rejecting the Member who comes top of the ballot, the whole process will be repeated on the following day.

I turn finally to the amendment tabled separately in the name of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The Procedure Committee recommended that the House should be given the opportunity to decide whether the ballot for the Speaker should be open or secret. The Government have tabled the amendment to ensure that the House has the opportunity to make that decision. I recognise there are strong, genuine arguments on both sides. This is a matter on which there are bound to be legitimate differences of opinion.

The Committee considered, on balance, that the ballot should be secret and that is why that provision is in the substantive motion However, I stress that it is for the House to decide, and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary enables that choice to be made by giving the House something on which to vote.

I conclude by repeating that the Procedure Committee has done an excellent job, and done it as speedily and effectively as anybody could possibly have wished. I believe that this has given the House an opportunity to change our system for electing the Speaker if we so choose, but it is for the House to choose. I commend the motion to the House.

I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the Procedure Committee. Its report is comprehensive and has been put before the House in good time, before the Easter recess. I would like to say how much I appreciated the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. It took wide-ranging evidence, and that has helped to steer the direction in which the report has gone.

I would like to put on record the fact that the evidence that I gave to the Committee drew on certain themes that were of importance to a broad spectrum of Conservative Members, but I also made it clear when I was giving my own personal opinion. None the less, I am pleased to see that many of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee have focused on issues that were of broad concern to hon. Members. When we debate across the Floor of the House, particularly when the right hon. Lady and I speak from the Dispatch Box, what we mean by modernisation of the House is often misunderstood—but considering the rules for electing a Speaker is a most appropriate subject, and is certainly in line with what I regard as modernisation.

As the Leader of the House said again today, this debate will focus on House matters. Individual Members of Parliament will be able to have a say in how we shape, form and reform our structures and proceedings—and none of those is more important than the position that you hold, Mr. Speaker. I hope that later we will engage in further discussions about the powers of the Speaker. Personally, I would like the Speaker to be able to support us even more in holding the Executive to account. Perhaps the Procedure Committee will consider that in due course, as the next stage.

The debate is important and timely. I do not intend to go through the detail again, as the right hon. Lady has given a good summary of the report, which also contains the record of all the oral evidence we gave. This is a matter for individual Members. It should be appreciated that what was once considered to be the province of what are euphemistically called the usual channels, which held so much power, is being challenged That is what the report does. It has been put on the record that we should look into many aspects of our procedures, particularly how we decide who should be brought forward as a suitable candidate for Speaker.

I suppose that I now have to regard myself as part of the usual channels, but I have been doing the job for only six or seven months, and I still find it a strange job in some respects. Indeed, it took me about four months before I stopped calling the usual channels "the other channels".

The more transparency there is, and the more Members can challenge what happens, the more I welcome it. It is important that there be a clear record of decision making, especially in important matters such .is the election of a Speaker, and that Members should be able to participate rather than leaving things up to the usual channels. I respect and recognise that as modernisation, even if I am critical of some other aspects of modernisation that are brought before the House.

I begin by thanking the Leader of the House very much for her kind remarks about the Procedure Committee's report. Indeed, I would go further and thank her for her tremendous helpfulness throughout the inquiry. She gave excellent evidence to the Procedure Committee, and I appreciate personally, as does my Committee, the speed with which she has arranged today's debate.

The right hon. Lady was courteous enough to let me, on behalf of my Committee, see a draft of the new Standing Orders, and to adopt some of the changes that I suggested, also on behalf of the Committee. I am happy with the text of the Standing Orders, which embodies the Committee's recommendations well.

I thank my colleagues on the Committee, some of whom are here today, for their work and support, and for the dedication that they put into producing the report. I say openly that we worked very well as a team on the inquiry; such an inquiry shows hoot Members from all parties can work well together to produce a report that will improve the procedures of the House.

The subject was sensitive and complex, and we were working to a tight schedule. None the less, we reached consensus on almost all our conclusions, and agreed the report at a single meeting. The Leader of the House has given a very fair summary of the contents of our report, and I shall not take up the time of the House by repeating that. The report sets out its arguments clearly, and I shall simply make a few comments arising from the inquiry.

The Procedure Committee carried out the inquiry because it was the clear wish of the House that we should do so. As we say in the report, there was a lot of unhappiness among Members about the way in which our procedures operated last October. A review was obviously necessary and it was important that we consult as widely as possible within the House.

As the Chairman of the Committee, I wrote to all hon. Members and received 130 replies. Within the constraints of our timetable, the Committee also took oral evidence from as wide a cross-section of hon. Members as possible. A number of the hon. Members who gave that evidence are in the House today, hoping to participate in the debate—and I hope that they do.

We went into the inquiry with an open mind. The report sets out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the existing system. We certainly did not feel that all the criticisms of that system were justified. Many of the comments made in the press were simply what I would describe as the product of sloppy and malicious journalism of a kind that is now regrettably all to common in the field of parliamentary reporting.

In particular, we concluded that it was wrong to criticise the procedures because of the length of time that it took to choose a Speaker. The decision is a very important one. It is made only once every seven or eight years. It matters more to get it right than to do it quickly. Many Parliaments around the world take an equivalent amount of time to choose their presiding officers. In fact, only some seven weeks ago, our sister House of Commons in Canada took four and half hours to elect its new Speaker, using a system based on a secret ballot.

We also supported the decision of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), not to accept the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Although that was not a popular decision—and we say in the report that we understand the frustration that it caused—it was right in procedural terms. My right hon. Friend had no alternative.

However, we conclude that the existing procedures are unsatisfactory. That is not because they were wrong when they were drafted, which was as recently as the 1970s, but because the House has changed since then. For many years, the House was content to let the usual channels referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—and in particular the Government—make the running in choosing a Speaker. Even if the leaderships of the Government and Opposition parties disagreed over the choice, as happened occasionally, the House was still presented with a choice between only two candidates.

We should be careful not to be too scathing about that arrangement. The report describes it as being based on "benevolent paternalism"—a phrase that I use carefully. It is striking that, when the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party gave evidence to the Procedure Committee in 1971, he was content that the Government should put forward a candidate for the Chair—even though the Government of the time were Conservative. Under the old system, there was usually a genuine attempt by Government to pick a candidate who would be broadly acceptable to the House

We can also judge the system by its results. Over the years, the House has had many fine and distinguished Speakers, so the system by which they were chosen cannot have been all that bad. However, Governments have not always been successful in reading the mood of the House, or in predicting what Back-Bench Members would find acceptable.

In the report, we show that there is another tradition that runs back through the centuries—a healthy suspicion by the House of candidates whose links with Government are too strong. That attitude has grown in strength in the past 20 or 30 years. We have now reached a situation where not one of our witnesses was prepared to support any involvement at all by the usual channels—the party machines—in the process of choosing a Speaker. It follows that the traditional system of sifting out candidates to leave the House with a choice of only one or two has broken down.

That became obvious last October when 12 candidates, myself included, stood for election. The current voting system was not devised or designed for such a situation. We do not mince our words about this in the report. We say that in a multi-candidate election, the current rules are unfair because the order in which the names are put forward before the House may help to determine the outcome. The election last October disguised that because the size of the winning candidate's majority—your own, Mr. Speaker—meant that all other candidates were easily beaten. So the order in which the House decided upon them was, in that instance, irrelevant. In other circumstances, that might not be the case.

The Committee gave serious consideration to the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the former chairman of the Procedure Committee, to modify the existing system. However, we decided that although it was a valiant attempt, it ultimately failed to address the criticisms that had been levelled at the system, and that root-and-branch reform was therefore necessary.

We agreed that the existing system, in the circumstances of a multi-candidate election, was unfair, at least potentially, and should be replaced. We had no difficulty in concluding that its replacement should be a ballot-based system. That was the logical, obvious alternative. We did, however, have divided views on two questions relating to the operation of the ballot.

The question of whether the ballot should be open or secret raises important issues of principle. A majority on the Committee concluded that the ballot should be secret, as is the case in similar elections in most of the major Parliaments in the Westminster tradition. A minority of colleagues, I have to confess, dissented, and although they did not formally divide the Committee, we felt that it was right to recommend that the House should have an opportunity to make a separate decision on that point. The amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will enable the House to do that, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House and her ministerial colleague for allowing that to happen.

The other issue on which there was a difference of views within the Committee was the voting system itself. The choice was between the exhaustive ballot and the alternative vote. Both were recommended by the Electoral Reform Society as suitable systems by which to elect a Speaker. The arguments for and against each are well set out in the report, and even more fully in the evidence from the Electoral Reform Society, printed with the report. My preference—which was shared, I am pleased to say, by a majority of the Committee—was for the exhaustive ballot.

Hear, hear. Quite right.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support from a sedentary position.

Noise does not carry the day.

My right hon. Friend rightly says that noise does not carry the day. Despite my preference, I think that both systems—the exhaustive ballot and the alternative vote—would function satisfactorily.

We considered whether there should be a run-off, according to the existing rules, after the ballot. We decided that there was little point. The ballot would give a decisive result, while a run-off would add nothing and might lead to confusion or an erosion of the legitimacy of the ballot.

Even with this radical proposal, some of the elements of the existing system will be retained. For instance—and I address this remark specifically to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon—the Father of the House will normally preside over the proceedings.

Is that in the Standing Order, or is it just my hon. Friend's wish?

It is the wish of the Committee on whose behalf I am speaking today. I am outlining and stressing that wish in my remarks. I repeat that the Father of the House will normally preside over the proceedings. There will still be an opportunity for congratulatory speeches after the election and for some of the ceremonial surrounding the election to be retained.

We recommend that there is one set of special circumstances in which there should not be an automatic ballot. That is when a sitting Speaker seeks re-election to the Chair after a general election. As we show in the historical section of the report—which is a valuable part of it—there has been a strong convention for many years that in those circumstances, a sitting Speaker is not challenged.

I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments on that section of the report in particular in the following respect. It is clear that, for the election of a new Speaker, the nomination system that the Committee has proposed requires a degree of cross-party support. One could envisage circumstances—this may have happened although it may riot have been clear because no nomination system existed—in which such support did not exist. Should the House fetter the rights of a majority of Members of Parliament to elect whom they want, and why does that not apply to the re-election of a former Speaker?

As I develop my argument I think that my hon. Friend will realise that it is possible for the re-election of a sitting Speaker to be challenged, but the Committee and I, as its Chairman, do not believe that that is desirable. I will highlight that in a moment. We show in the historical section of the report that there is a strong convention that in such circumstances a sitting Speaker is not challenged. We support that convention and I hope that the House will also support it today.

I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that that convention helps to safeguard the office of Speaker against the politicisation that might follow if it were felt that a change in the composition of the House following a general election might lead to a change of Speaker. The new Standing Order provides that in those circumstances a single Question should be put to the House, "That the former Speaker do take the Chair." In theory, it would be possible to vote the motion down and to hold a ballot the following day, thus preserving the House's right to change its Speaker, but we think that that is highly unlikely to happen and that it would be undesirable if it did. I speak on behalf of the Committee as a whole in making those comments.

Among other issues, we considered the desirability of candidates campaigning, issuing manifestos or speaking at hustings meetings. Here, I must mention the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), whom I commend for his initiative at the last election, which enabled a number of the candidates, including me, to present themselves to a large number of Back Benchers and to be assessed on their suitability for this vital job. I found the experience exhilarating and the initiative taken by the hon. Gentleman served the House well.

I recall the hon. Gentleman at the hustings describing himself as a "traditionalist moderniser" and then correcting himself and saying that he was a "modernising traditionalist". Which is he?

I think that I am the latter—a modernising traditionalist. I believe that many people in this Parliament have found me to be so and I am happy with that.

The broad conclusion of the Procedure Committee was that a limited amount of campaigning is only to be expected and, indeed, is healthy, bat that it should be regulated by what we describe as the hallmark of this House, common sense. At the start of a Parliament, with many new Members in the House who will not know the candidates personally, it would be helpful to have some way of judging differences between candidates. We provided for candidates to make speeches in the Chamber before the ballot. That is probably the most effective form of hustings. However, we came to the conclusion that speeches by proposers and seconders—however good they may have been or might be—do not serve much useful purpose and should be discontinued.

There would be a danger if personal manifestos set out a detailed platform of policy commitments. The nature of the Speaker's office is such that he or she has to implement the policies decided by the House and its Committees. A new Speaker could be in an awkward position if it were known that he or she was personally opposed or dedicated to changing any of those policies which had been decided on by the House. That is not to say that candidates should not indicate their broad sympathy with certain policies, such as the modernisation of the House, which is widely talked about today, as the Leader of the House knows. My feeling is that any candidate who went too far down that road or indulged in over-frenetic campaigning would probably find it counter-productive. I think that that was the purport of the earlier intervention of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

We provide for a system of nomination, including the requirement that each candidate should have the support of at least 12 Members, three of whom do not belong to his or her party. We did not want to go too far in the direction of discouraging Members from standing, but we thought it reasonable that there should be a minimum threshold of eligibility. We set out a step-by-step proposal for a new system, but we have not attempted to prescribe every last detail.

If I may, I will pick up on my previous point, the thrust of which I think my hon. Friend misunderstood. Will he clarify why he regards it as necessary to have cross-party support for the nomination for the speakership, when the decision must ultimately be taken in accordance with the majority view of the House? Could that not lead to a situation where there is a clear majority view of the House about who it wants as Speaker, but where, because of that mechanism, it is deprived of having the opportunity of that choice?

My hon. Friend asks a hypothetical question. I do not believe that that situation will arise. Any serious candidate for the highest office of this House, that of Speaker, will always attract cross-party support. In my view and from 30 years' experience in this House, if appropriate representations are made by the individual concerned or those representing the interests of that individual, there will be absolutely no doubt whatever that such a candidate will receive cross-party support. To have merely three out of 12 Members not belonging to the candidate's party is modest indeed. It will be for the House authorities to work out the operational details of conducting a ballot within the clear framework established by the new Standing Orders.

Finally, the Committee comments on matters relating to tradition and ceremonial. We say that it should be up to the successful candidate whether he or she wishes to continue with the tradition of being dragged to the Chair. My view is that it is a pleasing piece of theatre with a serious message. It reminds us, as you know only too well, Mr. Speaker, that the new Speaker is taking over a heavy responsibility and may be called on to show courage in standing up to the Executive—perhaps not the physical courage that was needed in the past when after the Speaker's Chair could come the executioner's block, but certainly moral courage.

The Leader of the House said in evidence to us that the outcome was more important than the process. She was right. By that she meant that what mattered was that we continue to elect good, able, impartial Speakers who will defend the rights of this House and the people. Voting systems and Standing Orders are only a means to that end.

I pay tribute again to my Committee for its work. Although it is somewhat unusual, I also wish to express appreciation on behalf of my Committee of the staff who helped us throughout this important inquiry. They undertook valuable work and were much appreciated by all the Committee's members. I hope that my Committee has put together a sensible package of proposals that will enable the right outcomes to be reached and so strengthen the speakership and the House of Commons. I hope that the House will support the proposals.

I ask the indulgence of the House. This may be my last speech, so if I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to range widely.

I support the report of the Procedure Committee and the motion proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The report is scholarly and historical; it considers all the arguments. My only difference with it is over the question of a secret ballot. I have always understood that if one votes as oneself, it must be secret. Years ago, when I was canvassing in Bristol, I asked a woman to support me and she replied, "Mr. Benn, the ballet is secret". I thought of her dancing alone in the bedroom, where no candidate was allowed to know about it. However, when we vote in a representative capacity, people must know what we have done, so I shall vote for the amendment. The Committee has done very well. I hope that the House accepts the report.

The old system had serious difficulties. Although I disagreed strongly with the Father of the House, he carried out his duties with exceptional skill—with panache! I felt that he was the only Member of the House who could have turned the Beefeaters into a fighting force—he showed such passion and commitment to the rules. We got the Speaker we wanted and I hope that, as a result of today's proceedings, we shall get the system we want—the one that I advocated, as the House will recall.

As I have done on previous occasions—when we were electing a Speaker—I want to look a little more broadly at the role of the Speaker. Often, we tend to think of the Speaker in relation only to the Chamber, but the Speaker's role is of much wider importance. Relations between the legislature and the Executive go through the Speaker of the House.

We live in a strange country: we do not elect our head of state; we do not elect the second Chamber. We elect only this House, and even in this House enormous power is vested in the prerogatives. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting us, sign treaties without consulting us, agree to laws in Brussels without consulting us and appoint bishops, peers and judges without consulting us. The role of the Speaker today compared with that of Mr. Speaker Lenthall is that you, Mr. Speaker, are protecting us from the triple powers of Buckingham palace, the Millbank tower and central office, which, in combination, represent as serious a challenge to our role.

Then there is the link between the Commons and the people. I have seen many schoolchildren taken around the House, and have talked to some of them about how it has been a home of democracy for hundreds of years. In 1832, only 2 per cent. of the population had the vote. That may seem a long time ago, but it was only 18 years before my grandfather was born. When I was born, women were not allowed the vote until they were 30. Democracy—input from the people—is very, very new. The link between popular consent and the decisions of the House can be tenuous.

Furthermore, nowadays, Parliament representing the will of the people has to cope with many extra-parliamentary forces—very threatening extra-parliamentary forces. I refer not to demonstrations, but to the power of the media, the power of the multinationals, the power of Brussels and the power of the World Trade Organisation—all wholly unelected people.

The House will forgive me for quoting myself, but in the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person—Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates—ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.

The role of the Speaker has another importance. When the political manifestos are yellowing in the public libraries, a good ruling from the Speaker in a footnote in "Erskine May" might turn out to be one of the guarantees of our liberty.

There are two ways of looking at Parliament. I have always thought that, from the beginning—from the model Parliament—the establishment has seen Parliament as a means of management: if there is a Parliament, people will not cause trouble, whereas, of course, the people see it as a means of representation. Those are two quite different concepts of what Parliament is about. The establishment wants to defuse opposition through Parliament; the people want to infuse Parliament with their hopes and aspirations.

I have put up several plaques—quite illegally, without permission; I screwed them up myself. One was in the broom cupboard to commemorate Emily Wilding Davison, and another celebrated the people who fought for democracy and those who run the House. If one walks around this place, one sees statues of people, not one of whom believed in democracy, votes for women or anything else. We have to be sure that we are a workshop and not a museum.

My next point, if I am not out of order, is that all progress comes, in my judgment, from outside the House. I am in no way an academic, but if I look back over history, I see many advances first advocated outside the House, denounced by people in power and then emerging. Let me use a couple of non-controversial examples. Twenty years ago, Swampy would have been denounced as a bearded weirdy; he will probably be in the next honours list, because the environmental movement has won. Similarly, when that madman, Hamilton, killed the children at Dunblane, the then Conservative Home Secretary banned handguns within six months, because public opinion had shifted. So we are the last place to get the message, and it is important that we should be connected effectively to public will.

There is a lot of talk about apathy, and it is a problem, but it is two sided. Governments can be apathetic about the people, as well as people being apathetic about Governments. For me, the test of an effective, democratic Parliament is that we respond to what people feel in a way that makes us true representatives. The real danger to democracy is not that someone will burn Buckingham palace and run up the red flag, but that people will not vote. If people do not vote, they destroy, by neglect, the legitimacy of the Government who have been elected.

May I finish with a couple personal points? I first sat in the Gallery 64 years ago, and my family have been here since 1892—five of us in four generations, in three centuries—and I love the place. I am grateful to my constituents who have elected me. I am grateful to the Labour party, of which I am proud to be a member. I am grateful to the socialists, who have helped me to understand the world in which we live and who give me hope. I am also deeply grateful to the staff of the House—the Clerks, the policemen, the security staff, the Doorkeepers, librarians, Hansard and catering staff—who have made us welcome here.

May I finish, in order, by saying something about yourself, Mr. Speaker? In my opinion, you are the first Speaker who has remained a Back Bencher. You have moved the Speaker's Chair on to the Back Benches. You sit in the Tea Room with us. You are wholly impartial, but your roots are in the movement that sent you here, and you have given me one of the greatest privileges that I have ever had—the right to use the Tea Room and the Library after the election. Unless someone is a Member or a peer, he or she cannot use the Tea Room or the Library, but you have extended the rules by creating the title of "Freedom of the House", so that the Father of the House and I will be able to use the Tea Room. You will not be shot of us yet. I hope in paying you a warm tribute, Mr. Speaker, that you do not think that I am currying favour in the hope that I might he called to speak again because, I fear, that will not be possible.

It is great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in the debate. This is not the first occasion on which I have found myself, rather unexpectedly, agreeing with him. Indeed, the first time that I did so was when I canvassed for him, as a young Liberal, as did many of my colleagues, in that famous by-election in Bristol, when he demonstrated a commitment to democracy which we all admire.

I want to take up just one word from his very eloquent speech—"infusion". I am not referring to his favourite beverage, although I am sure that we will all welcome him back in the Tea Room after the general election. He has been an infusion of real-life democracy in the Chamber, which has not been as evident with many hon. Members in our own work here.

I, too, pay tribute to the Committee and, indeed, to its Chairman for the balanced way in which he has presented its report this afternoon. I particularly want to underline the fact that, throughout the report and the debate, it has been recognised that times have changed and that, whatever else we do, we must prevent A such matters from slipping back into the hands of the usual channels. The election of a Speaker is a matter for the whole House.

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield may recall that, on a previous occasion, I moved a motion stating that the power of the parties has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. That is, of course, a reflection of the famous Dunning motion, moved in the House in the 1780s, which referred to the Crown. It is extremely important that the House owns the system by which the Speaker is elected and, thereby, shows that the speakership is in its ownership and under the control and influence of nobody else. That is why I take a slightly different view from the right hon. Gentleman about the ballot.

The election of the Speaker is an unusual ballot; it is not like a normal Division, when, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we are here in a representative capacity. However, on a matter of this sort, we do not act in that capacity; we are here as members of an institution saying how we as individual Members—and not the parties or external bodies—want it to be run. We all take part on a completely equal basis—none higher and none lower—and according to exactly the same terms. That is why, as I shall explain in a moment, I strongly support the proposal for a secret ballot.

The Parliamentary Secretary is a past master at getting things right, but his amendment appears to be somewhat defective. It refers only to line 28, when the word "secret" also appears in lines 24 and 25. No doubt, that can be corrected by the usual channels.

We are all here as individual Members and I am speaking in a personal capacity. However, I have undertaken extensive consultation with my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the parliamentary party, so I may refer to the fact that, on some matters I have the unanimous support of my colleagues.

First, I want to make a point of principle. The fact that an outcome is satisfactory and something that we all applaud and recognise as right does not necessarily mean that the route by which we reached that outcome was satisfactory. The fact that the successful candidate on 23 October was broadly welcomed in the House and is very acceptable—I am sure that, with the passage of time, more people have come to that view even if they did not take it at the time—does not mean that the process by which we came to that conclusion was satisfactory. I am grateful to those who gave evidence to the Committee and to the Committee itself for making that point so clearly in the report.

Nevertheless, it is also true that if we had had more time, it might have been possible to have made the inquiry more effective. It is curious to decide who one wants for a job before one writes the job specification. We would never interview someone without deciding what the job was for which we were interviewing him. I therefore regret the fact that it is not been possible, within the time constraints, for the Procedure Committee or any other Select Committee to examine the role of Speaker. I was grateful for the support that was given to that view by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).

In a memorandum to the Committee and to the Modernisation Committee, we made suggestions for the modernisation of the role of Speaker as well of the process by which we choose from the candidates.

The Procedure Committee is very keen to undertake an inquiry into the role of Speaker. No doubt it will consider the subject in the next Parliament.

I am grateful for that assurance. When the time comes, I hope that we shall be given an opportunity to expand on the memorandum that already appears on pages 34 to 39 of the report. There is unfinished business, but I put it no more strongly than that. None the less, I pay tribute to the Committee for producing a report to enable the House to come to a decision before any possible election.

The Committee's report contains a persuasive argument for a secret ballot. The only possible argument against it—I have already referred to it—is that of precedent. However, this place is evolutionary and it would be a useful precedent to establish that there may, in exceptional circumstance, be a good case for a secret ballot—the exception proving the rule.

The point is not that the Speaker will examine the Division lists and think, "Ah, well, the hon. Member for Bolsover did not vote for me, so I'll make sure that he does not get in at business questions again." That is not the issue. I have complete faith in the integrity of the Chair; the problem is perception.

Never hold a grudge against the hon. Member for Bolsover.

I am sure that is true, and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great affection, will not hold a grudge against me.

The point that I was about to make is not that the Speaker might examine the Division list, but that the Whips might. I am a member of the usual channels club, so I think that, on a matter of such importance, we should not know whether our colleagues have voted in one way or another. It might be very damaging to publish the list.

On the electoral system, the Chairman of the Committee very fairly set out the arguments for and against exhaustive ballots and the alternative vote. I regret that it is not been possible to put that choice before the House today. As the Chairman said, there was a balanced argument in Committee.

I am particularly disturbed by a paragraph in the report that compares the two systems. Paragraph 66 states:

"The Exhaustive Ballot has the advantage over AV that Members can amend their preferences in each round after the results of the previous round are known."

I do not regard that as an advantage. It is a disadvantage, because Members might run with the herd—we have all seen that happen. Indeed, those Members who are worried about tactical voting should examine very carefully that recommendation, because it is a recipe for tactical voting. Members might see which way the wind is blowing and vote tactically. One of the great advantages of the alternative vote is that it makes unnecessary any form of tactical voting.

It is true that the Committee tended to dilute the argument that one disadvantage of the exhaustive ballot is that it takes a long time. I accept that. I do not think that it is necessarily a disadvantage that the House should take its time in reaching a conclusion. Therefore, I take the Committee Chairman's advice on that.

I want to draw attention to the letter that the Bishop of Woolwich sent to the Committee. Although it did not appear in the report, it was circulated to Committee members and in it he spells out in full the advantages of the alternative vote. He writes:

"1. It does not matter how many candidates stand;

2. No candidate can 'split' a vote, or come under pressure not to stand because he or she might do so;

3. It does not matter if several candidates of the same view or outlook stand;

4. There is no possibility or need of the compromise known as 'tactical' voting;

5. It is possible to express all sorts of different kinds of preference within the preferential voting—e.g. party political ones, gender ones, geographical ones, individual personality ones;

6. No recrimination of any sort is possible afterwards as justice has been done and has been seen to he done, and can be checked out in the various stages of the counting."

The bishop then refers to the fact that not only the Church of England—quite a respectable body—but many political parties use the alternative vote for their internal elections. I regret, therefore, that we shall not have an opportunity to vote on that issue. My Liberal Democrat colleagues would all support the alternative vote.

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument for the alternative vote, but why did he not table an amendment to that effect?

That is a fair point. I stand reprimanded by the hon. Gentleman. I felt that it was important this afternoon to deal with the big issue of the secret ballot. I did not want to complicate matters by tabling an amendment. However I draw the House's attention to the figures on page xxvii of the report, which show how many Members support the different types of voting. When I gave evidence to the Committee, I said that all Liberal Democrat Members should be included in the figures, but they have not been. Therefore the figures and the percentages in the report are wrong.

I am determined—I hope that the House will be—to get away from first past the post. It clearly is totally inadequate for the decision that we had to take last October and that we might need to take in future.

Page 34 of the report refers to Deputy Speakers. I hope that the Committee will move on to consider that issue, because the present arrangement is not satisfactory. It is no reflection on the current occupants of the post of Deputy Speaker—no complaint has been made against them—but the arrangement by which they emerge like a butterfly from a chrysalis without anyone knowing why, how or who made the decision is unsatisfactory. Not even a motion that is amendable or debatable is put before the House. I hope that that will change.

I return to the eloquent speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. The flummery that follows the election of Speaker gives the impression that the decision is conditional on approval from up there in the other place or up there at the other end of the Mall. That must go; it is not right. It is proper for us to ask the other parts of the tripartite constitutional arrangement to acknowledge that we have taken a decision, but we do not want their approval. After the last election of Speaker, I was dumbfounded by the extraordinary way in which the British constitution finds it difficult to catch up.

On a personal note, I have no problem with the hustings and manifestos. I recognise that they have a purpose, but I have a substantial plea. It is in this Chamber that we make the decision: candidates make their case by addressing Members on equal terms. I hope that we will not move the centre of gravity to another part of the Palace where the manifesto is published or issued, or where people make hustings speeches. I have great pleasure in supporting the report's main recommendations because it brings the centre of gravity back to this place, where it belongs.

I beg to move, in line 28, to leave out the word 'secret'.

May I say a word or two about the fine speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? I hope that it was not his last. As on so many occasions, he dwelt on the way in which democracy evolved in this country. Some illusions can be held about the fact that we lacked freedom and democracy for centuries. I have two responses to that. First, with all its imperfections, our democracy and House of Commons survived when many Parliaments in the last century did not because they gave up to fascism and tyranny.

Secondly, my right hon. Friend mentioned his family's long tradition of serving as Members of Parliament, and I am glad that his son will continue that for many years. However, those of us who come from a different background also recognise that this democracy attracted many people, including my ancestors In the early years of the 20th century, when my grandparents wanted to live in a country where they could have security and safety, it was to this island that they came. Perhaps they did not see the imperfections in the same light as I did, because many years later I began to have left-wing views and have held them since. We need to make it clear that often over the centuries, long before my grandparents came here, this island provided safety and security for those who wanted to live their lives without tyranny.

I, too, congratulate the Procedure Committee on its inquiry, which was held after the election of the Speaker. It was conducted promptly and efficiently. I am glad that paragraph 42 rightly states that the criticism about the proceedings on 23 October was not justified. We did take seven hours, but that probably displeased the sketch writers because they like to be in the Gallery for only half an hour on a Wednesday. I see no reason why we should apologise for taking our time in doing the important job of electing a Speaker. There is no reason why anyone who stood for the job, including the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, should apologise. It is an honour to be in the Chair, as you have explained several times, Mr. Speaker, and we hold those hon. Members who wanted to occupy that position in no less respect.

I accept the thrust of the report. Even though I do not believe that the procedure was especially defective on 23 October, I have no illusions about the fact that the majority of hon. Members want to adopt a different system, much along the lines recommended by the Committee. On ballots, I am usually in favour of first past the post, but I accept that some processes, including the selection of Labour candidates, use other forms of balloting. Given the two choices, I believe that the exhaustive ballot should be used even though it will take more time. I do not think that we need to hurry things up unnecessarily.

I oppose, however, a secret ballot, but I do not want to exaggerate the problems associated with it. One Conservative Member who gave evidence to the Committee argued that if we have a secret ballot for the election of Speaker—which may well be the wish of the House—we might end up having them for other purposes. I do not accept that a secret ballot means that one, two or three years down the road we would be arguing for a secret ballot on policy matters.

I object to the principle of secret ballots, even for the election of the Speaker. Like other hon. Members, I take school parties around the House. In the No Lobby, I point out what was said in 1642 by the Speaker to the King. I also show them copies of Hansard and tell them that every word we utter in the House and every vote we cast is duly recorded. If they are primary school children, I usually get them to go through the procedure of voting. I also explain that if their parents write to me to ask how I voted and I want to mislead them for opportunistic reasons—which I would not dream of doing—all they need to do is go to the local library and check. We carry out our business in public.

I do not accept that a Speaker calls people on the basis of who voted for him or her. If the Speaker decides that that is a criterion for calling Members at Question Time or in debates, we have chosen the wrong person. In giving evidence, Lady Boothroyd said that she did not look at the voting list for her election for a year. Had she been so biased, I would have been safe because I voted for her in 1992.

Would the hon. Gentleman have a different view if, in addition to the secret ballot, we had the Canadian system in which there is no announcement of the votes cast in the ballots? That removes tactical voting in the next round because people are simply told that the last person has dropped off the list.

It is the principle of a secret ballot in the House of Commons to which I am opposed. If there are enough troops, I shall press my amendment to a vote and let us see how far we get.

I do not accept that pressure is put on Members to vote. Paragraph 55 explains that such pressure has often proved counter-productive. I am glad to hear it. If Members are subject to pressure when there is a free vote, then it is likely that the wrong people have been elected here. It is the principle that matters. All our votes need to be duly recorded even when we vote on an internal matter that is of little concern to constituents. Perhaps other hon. Members have received letters about what happened last October, but I have not. I want everything to be above board. Our votes on major and minor issues are recorded. That should be the case for all our actions, including the election of the Speaker.

My last point concerns the remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I hope that this will not be seen as in any way disrespectful to Her Majesty, but I find it distasteful and odd that in this day and age we require consent for the election of the Speaker. In many respects, it contradicts all that we say about 1642. I hope also that I will not be misunderstood when I say that I would be much happier if Black Rod, when he comes here, used the word "request", instead of "command", because that would demonstrate the authority of this House. I am concerned about other matters, although I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would not want me to stray from the subject of the debate. In this day and age, it is not necessary for someone to come here with a stick to give us a message from the Queen. Earlier today, you announced measures to which Her Majesty had given her Royal Assent, and there is no reason why you could not inform the House that a message had been duly received from the Queen.

Whichever party is in office, it is always keen to say that the country should modernise and restrictive practices should be stopped, but so many of our own restrictive practices continue. I know that some people say that it is not necessary to object to them, but they give an impression of the way in which we conduct our business. I refer to pantomime performances, such as my colleague coming in with a stick. At one time, the Whip concerned had to walk backwards and wear morning dress.

If we are to modernise—if one likes that term—the method for electing a Speaker, we should not be afraid, at the beginning of the 21st century, to bring our practices up to date so that those who look on do not say, "That's odd. What has it got to do with the way in which business should be conducted?" This is a serious place and we should conduct ourselves in a serious manner.

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I have been here together for many years. Indeed, we started together at the Oxford Union way back just after the war, and the fact that we are both leaving at the next election brings back certain memories. I can think of no Member during that time who has won for himself as wide a reputation outside the House as he has done, and I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has achieved that. Much of the time, I disagree with him—I did so way back at Oxford and I do so even today. None the less, the reputation that he has been able to obtain deserves immense applause from hon. Members of all parties.

I will return to the right hon. Gentleman and the fact that he has stirred up this matter unnecessarily, but first I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which I had the pleasure of chairing for 14 years. He has produced a thorough report, as we would expect of him, and made specific recommendations, most of which I disagree with.

As for the role of the Speaker, once a man or woman has been brought to the big Chair as Speaker of the House, they have the right to expect to be able to continue in that role irrespective of a general election, unless they commit some unforgivable nonsense. The Speaker can stand for re-election in their constituency, which they usually do as Speaker, and they are not normally properly opposed. It would be wrong if they could then arrive back in the House to find themselves knocked out of the Speaker's Chair, perhaps for no other reason than politics. What would happen then? Would that person sit on the Back Benches? That would be quite impossible. Presumably, they would have to go immediately to the House of Lords, but they may well not want to do that. That person will have given a great part of their life to being Speaker, and they have the right to expect the House to allow them to continue in office unless, as I said, they have made a remarkable error or committed a semi-criminal offence.

As Labour Members have said, the role of the Speaker has changed and continues to change. When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and I first came to the House, the Speaker was like a High Court judge. One did not speak to him or see him socially. No one was ever invited to Speaker's House, and his role had no social aspect. The person who changed all that was Lord Thomas of Tonypandy, formerly George Thomas. He said that he could retain the respect of the House while being friendly with Members of Parliament on social occasions in Speaker's House, and he proved that that was true. The role of the Speaker in entertaining members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and visiting delegations enhances the role of the House itself. That should be encouraged, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you are moving in that direction most admirably.

Finally, I turn to an aspect of the Speaker's role which will become more important. It is becoming more difficult to hold the Executive to account in the House. In the past three or four years, developments have moved against the House, and that process needs to be stopped. We have to ensure that the power of Parliament is moved from No. 10 Downing street back into the Chamber. We will have to rely on the Speaker in different ways to try to ensure that that is brought about. You have the power, Mr. Speaker, to direct the Executive in certain ways and to ensure that the House is not done down or put to one side. We will have to rely on the person sitting in the big Chair to help the House to perform its role. The next Parliament will have to consider that matter most carefully.

On the proposals themselves, the idea that there is a general opinion among Members of Parliament that the current method of electing a Speaker is wrong was brought about by the excellent publicity that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was able to obtain for the motion that the tabled and the lack of understanding of many of the newer Members who had never gone through the process of electing a Speaker. That had not happened for two Parliaments, so their incomprehension is hardly surprising. There was also a lack of understanding about the opaqueness that could exist in other systems, whereas the present system is absolutely open and could not be thought to be more democratic.

Every candidate has a supporter and a seconder who make a speech in their favour and the candidates themselves can make a speech. The House then votes on the candidates. How much more democratic can one get? To sweep that away for a system that is not proven is very strange indeed.

I believe that my right hon. Friend is inadvertently misleading the House. In fact, the old system—the system that we currently have—could result in a number of candidates for the office of Speaker not having an opportunity to speak as individuals and be heard by the House, and their proposers and seconders not having an opportunity to put their name forward. Uniquely, on the occasion of the last election of a Speaker, through the skill of our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), every candidate had that opportunity, but that has not been the case in the past.

My hon. Friend makes a procedural point. As he knows, I put to his Committee certain suggestions for simple alterations to the Standing Orders governing the proceedings of the House. If, under the old system, an amendment to the original motion is carried, that becomes a substantive motion and must be put to the House immediately, so that no further amendments can be made to the already amended motion. However, it is the simplest thing in the world to take the amended motion not as a substantive motion, but as an ordinary motion to which further amendment can be made. The resulting system could not be more democratic or more open.

Under our current system, a different test is applied to each candidate, depending where he or she appears in the order. That is why I think that the conclusion drawn by the Procedure Committee is a good one.

I have heard that argument and read it in the Committee report, but I see no proof that it is right. I see no reason why someone who wanted my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to be Speaker could not have voted for another candidate and then returned to vote for my hon. Friend when his turn came. There is no proof that the order altered the result, as people have argued it did. Lady Boothroyd was not the first nominee, but the second; her name was carried and no one wished to stand against her, with the result that her name was carried unanimously from then on.

It is proposed that we change our system and adopt a voting structure whereby the House will make a decision using a method that we have never used before. I am concerned that if we go down that road there is a risk that in future, in respect of other amendments, we shall be tempted to drift towards the use of a similar system—a poll, rather than a vote—which would do great damage to the rules and procedures of the House. I am sorry that the Committee has decided to cast away the system that resulted in the election of the man whom the House wanted. No one disagrees with that statement. When we have a system that is so transparent and democratic, I am dubious about making change merely for its own sake.

I certainly oppose any vote being kept secret. The moment we have secret votes, a terrifying scenario arises wherein Members tell every candidate that he or she has their support. We have all seen that happen in Committees or heard it from people who have stood for office. They say, "I counted heads and was certain of the majority that I needed to get elected—but I didn't get elected! Isn't that strange?" In fact, the moment a secret vote is in the offing, people cease to be directly honest and are friendly to all the candidates, and when the results of a secret vote are made known, no one knows who has been telling the truth and who has not.

I am massively in favour of retaining the open vote. Every vote in the House of Commons is open. No vote is secret. Why should we adopt a secret ballot for the election of the Speaker? It is right that Members should be able to stand and say which candidate they support—on the most recent occasion, the candidates included my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), who was eventually elected to the office of Speaker. The process should be as open to public gaze as every other aspect of the House's business.

It is a principle.

I agree absolutely.

The remarks made by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) hark back to a Procedure Committee report that was published when I was the Chairman and the hon. Member for Walsall, North was a member of that Committee. In that report, we stated specifically that the first thing that a Parliament should do on assembling is elect a Speaker. That is not meant as any criticism of the monarch—no one is a greater royalist than I. However, one can, while remaining a royalist, want the House to be what it is: the independent voice of the people, who have a right to elect who will be their Chairman or their Speaker.

Once we have done that, I do not mind traipsing down to the other place to tell them what we have done. That is fine—it is announcing what we have done, not asking permission to do it. I urge the current Leader of the House to point out to her successor, whoever that may be, that in future we must take the role of the Speaker into our own hands: it must be we who elect the Speaker, without needing any permission so to do.

I read in the newspapers that it is quite likely that a few weeks from now we shall be campaigning in a general election. I look forward to doing so. When we campaign, we tell all the voters whom we encounter, whether by canvassing or in other ways, that they are sovereign, that they are wise and that their decision will determine the future of the country; yet in the report and in the debate, the electorate have no place. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that the debate was about how we want this place to be run. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that we are debating an internal matter. That, in my view, is precisely what is wrong with the debate.

I have been a Member of Parliament for almost 31 years and I hope to continue for a good deal longer, but if there is anything that I dislike about the House, it is the smug club atmosphere that is cultivated here—the notion that this place is a gentleman's club and that debates such as this one, as distinct from party political debates, are conducted within some sort of cosy consensus. So far today, we have heard a very cosy debate—even when people have disagreed with each other, they have done so on a cosy basis. If this were not a Chamber televised throughout the nation for those who want to watch it, we might well this afternoon not be discussing how a great Parliament—the second oldest Parliament in the world—should be presided over. We might as well be discussing how a private club elects its president, because it is all about what goes on in this club. That is what the debate has been about so far.

There have been references to the electorate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the people. That was the sole reference to them. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to what goes on outside this place, so far as I could tell he was not referring to the views of the 45 million or so members of the electorate. Instead, he was referring to small pressure groups that make their wishes felt and attempt in various ways to persuade the House to veer away from the decisions that it makes as a political assembly.

I disagree strongly with the tenor of the report and its proposals. Most of all, I disagree with the motivations that lie behind it. Some members of the Procedure Committee have been in this place for a long time. They have been sucked into the club atmosphere, which can smother the place. I thought that many of the new members of the Committee had come to the House because they wanted to change things a great deal and make them absolutely different. I am dismayed that somehow they have been sucked into the vacuum of smug consensus. As I have said, that is one of the things that I dislike intensely about this place.

I do not mean that we cannot have good personal relationships with one another across the Floor and even, on occasions, within our parties. However, that is different from believing that we must not speak up and that we must not in any way disrupt the atmosphere when the House is at its best—which I suppose is what the debate so far will be described as—and on display. For me, it is not the House at its best; it is the House at its most deterring.

If there were two reasons why I would not seek re-election to this place, the first would be Virgin trains, which make my travelling to and from Manchester such an utter nightmare. The second would be the idea that the House is still some sort of gentlemen's organisation which reluctantly had to admit women and was smothered when a sixth of Members were part of the majority within the electorate.

I shall say why I do not like the report and why I wish that the Government were not presenting it to the House for adoption. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North declares himself with pride as a socialist. I, too, declare myself as a socialist. However, that does not mean that we change things for the sake of changing them. As a socialist, I want to change things where they matter. I want to change things so that my constituents have a greater voice in the way their lives go. However, when things are working perfectly well in the House, I do not see why we should have a huge disruption of the sort that is proposed.

The report states that if the system that is proposed for adoption had existed earlier, our present Speaker would still have been Speaker. That is despite the fact that what might be called the establishment did not want the present Speaker to be elected. Newspapers jeered, and continued jeering a good deal after his election. There was the uncouthness of the fact that he had a Scottish accent. There was the fact that he came from the working class. Even my good friends on the Government Front Bench were reluctant to see him adopted. That was because of the inferiority complex that had grown in the Labour party that somehow Labour Governments should not allow a Labour Member to be elected when a Labour Government were in power.

I did what I could—

I suppose that it is a dangerous game to remind Mr. Speaker that one did not vote for him.

With great respect to my right hon. Friend, who is advancing a legitimate argument, there was no Front-Bench view. There was no cosy conspiracy on the Front Benches. I began rather to regret that there had not been a conspiracy. I took the view, which I think others took—although obviously not in sufficient numbers—that the speakership should alternate between the two sides of the House. I have held that view for about 20 years. I held it especially strongly when the Conservative Government tried to breach what I thought was an important principle. That was the basis on which I made my decision.