---

Chair (Terminology)

I agree that the Back-Bench committee should allocate the subjects for topical debates. I conceded that on Monday, and that should happen. I also think the committee should allocate the 15 set-piece days and the 12 days devoted to general debates. The Wright Committee wants an extra seven days, and my fear is that that would mean less time on Report. Paragraph 109 of the Wright report states that the lack of time on Report is the""single greatest cause of dissatisfaction"" with the current scheduling of legislative business. That is why I personally prefer the configuration in my amendment (b) to that in amendment (c). I am not standing in the way of progress. An initial amendment proposed kicking the Back-Bench committee into touch—that is, into the next Parliament—whereas I think it should be established much earlier. That now appears to command widespread support. On the House business committee, we have seen three victories: first, in ensuring that its consideration was within the original terms of reference; secondly, in ensuring that it can be voted on today; and thirdly—and I am grateful for this—in securing the support of the Leader of the House for the committee, soon after she had initially ruled it out. We have made real progress, but I think we should go further. We should end the automatic guillotine at Committee stage, and abolish the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee. I also think we should enable Select Committee Chairmen to launch their reports on the Floor of the House—as the Chairman of the Defence Committee could have done today, with his report on procurement. In addition, we should allow the Opposition to trade Opposition days for topical statements, and introduce broader measures to re-engage the public, reduce the size of Parliament and cut the costs of politics. Finally, on the election of the Deputy Speakers, I welcome the report from the Procedure Committee, which is well-reasoned and eminently sensible. I look forward to hearing the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), explain the proposals in greater detail. As someone who has had passing experience of the system of election for Speaker, using both a secret and an open ballot, I was pleased to have the opportunity to pass on my views to the Committee in an informal session, and I am glad that two of my suggestions have been incorporated into the report. I agree with the Procedure Committee that, unlike with the election of the Speaker, there is no need for Deputy Speakers to issue manifestos, because it is an entirely different kind of role. I should make it clear that, in supporting the Committee's report, I do not want to suggest in any way that the current system of selection of Deputy Speakers does not deliver excellent candidates to the Speaker's team, which it does. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when you blow the final whistle at 3.41, the reformers will be able to take away from the pitch some of the trophies.