I beg to move,

That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Glasgow North East in the room of Michael Martin, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency has accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the County of York.

The issue is important. The Government objected to the writ earlier, but should we fail to move it today, we might well condemn the people of Glasgow, North-East to having no Member of Parliament for the next five months. When the Government Chief Whip stood up-in that magisterial way that he has-and objected to my motion earlier, I was not sure whether I was watching a tragedy or a comedy. What I saw could have been tragic because the Government are treating the people of Glasgow, North-East with contempt. It could also have been comic; I imagined another Whip phoning the busload of Labour MPs who have gone off to campaign in the by-election in Norwich and making them come straight back to ensure a Government majority against democracy and a by-election in Glasgow. That is where this Government have got to.

The issue is extraordinarily serious. Two months have passed since Michael Martin announced that he was standing down and it is a month today since he demitted office, yet Labour has failed to move the writ. As I understand it, the earliest possible date on which the by-election may now be held is Thursday 5 November, by which time the constituency will have been without an MP for 136 days. In contrast, Ian Gibson resigned his Norwich, North seat on 5 June, and that by-election will be held this Thursday, 48 days later. Last year, the by-election for the seat of Glasgow, East was held on 24 July, just 26 days after David Marshall stood down. So Labour has had every single opportunity to call this by-election, but in objecting to the writ, as it did earlier today, it is not only demonstrating contempt but running scared of the people of Glasgow, North-East. What that objection also did was to demonstrate that it is not only by convention that the moving of a writ lies in the hands of the governing party Whip, but that it is the practice as well.

We are reaching the end of this Session; we finish it today. Labour has had every opportunity to move the writ and to avoid people being left unrepresented, but it has failed to do so; that is why we felt compelled to move. The only practical reason not to move the writ would be that the by-election would clash with the Glasgow fair and the Glasgow holidays. Fair weekend was last weekend. The earliest date that the election could be held if the writ were moved today is 20 August, after which time the fair and the holidays will be over, and the children will be back at school on 17 August. There is therefore no practical reason why this cannot happen.

The long and short of it is that Labour has once again put party first and people second. The people of Glasgow, North-East need a full-time MP now. We have had a series of brutal school closures, with little or no consultation with parents and pupils, and no MP to represent those people. We have workers at the Diageo plant at Port Dundas fearing for their jobs and facing an uncertain future with no full-time MP to represent them. The people of Glasgow, North-East deserve a full-time MP, and they deserve one as quickly as is humanly possible.

Labour's actions have shown contempt, and its campaign is in disarray. By its actions, we have seen its fear of the people of Glasgow, North-East- [ Interruption. ]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should sit down for a moment, as I am trying to help him. I simply say to the House that whatever the provocation, right hon. and hon. Members must exercise what self-restraint they are able to muster in the circumstances.

I thought that I was being consensual, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move the motion.

I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and add

"this House do pass to the Orders of the Day."

The effect of my amendment is that the House would not move the writ today for the Glasgow, North-East by-election. Custom and practice is that the party of the Member who formerly held the seat moves the writ. In the case of a departing Speaker, it is convention for the writ to be moved by the party for which the Speaker was last elected. Then the election must be held within 15 to 19 working days of the writ's being moved. We want to make sure that the by-election is at a time that allows the greatest number of people to vote.

Will the Leader of the House give way?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will simply allow me to make my argument to the House.

We did not move the writ at the point at which the Speaker left the House on 22 June, as it is preferable not to have an election in the Scottish school holidays.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. and learned Lady has not exactly conveyed accurate information to the House. The fact of the matter is that the last time Michael Martin was elected a Member of Parliament, he was elected as the Speaker seeking re-election-therefore as an independent and not as a member of the Labour party. I therefore suggest to you, Sir, that the Leader of the House is out of order on this matter.

rose-

Order. I can look after the matter quite easily, if the right hon. and learned Lady will let me. The short answer is that the content of what the Leader of the House says is a matter for the Leader of the House. What Sir Patrick Cormack has just said is a contribution to the debate, but as a point of fact, it is not a point of order.

You are absolutely right of course, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a point of order. However, it is also not a point of fact because it is wrong. If you become Speaker, the relevant question is for which party you last stood for Parliament.

As I have said, we did not move the writ when the Speaker left the House on 22 June, as it is preferable not to have an election in the Glasgow school holidays. Moving a writ now would mean a by-election in the middle of August. If we move the writ now, it would have to be held by Thursday 13 August, long after the Glasgow schools have broken up for the summer and before they return from the summer break. It would mean holding the whole campaign before the Glasgow schools come back on 17 August, which would disfranchise constituents. We do not think that the writ should be moved now for a by-election in the middle of August. We want to have the by-election when most people have the chance to vote, which means not holding it during the school holidays, when many families are still away on holiday. In any case, a new Member of Parliament, even when elected, could not take their seat until the House next meets on 12 October. When, as in this case, the vacancy arises when the House is sitting, the writ cannot be moved when the House is in recess, so we will move it as soon is possible after the House returns in October. I invite the House to accept the amendment.

The Government's failure to move the writ, thereby denying the people of Glasgow, North-East a representative for six months, is nothing to do with parliamentary process but is all about party politics in Scotland. It is all about mitigating a disastrous school closure programme that is happening in Glasgow right now. The Labour party knows that if it were held to account on that programme, it would be more likely to lose the by-election. Why is a by-election good enough for the people of Norwich, North? Why was it good enough for the people of Crewe and Nantwich when the hon. Lady who had represented the seat had not even been laid to rest?

Will the hon. Gentleman add to that list? Why was it good enough for the electors of Glasgow, East to have a by-election during the summer last year? The Government are arguing differently from the Dispatch Box this year.

We are considering the ultimate arrogance of Scottish Labour. Not only does it believe that the electorate do not deserve representation, it is also so convinced that they will vote Labour, and that all it has to do is follow the party line without a Member of Parliament. It is a disgrace to the House and to the people of Glasgow, North-East.

You were, Mr. Speaker, kind enough a few minutes ago to say that the point that I made was a point of fact. It is indeed a point of fact-

Order. I certainly did not say anything about its being a point of fact. I indicated that what the hon. Gentleman said was a contribution to the debate but that it did not constitute a point of order. Subsequently, an argument was advanced about whether the hon. Gentleman's comments represented a point of fact.

I do not like to disagree with Mr. Speaker, but I think that you used those terms-or something like them, anyhow.

I submit to the House that, whatever was said or not said, it is a point of fact that Mr. Michael Martin, in his last election, did not stand as a Labour candidate. Nor did he stand as a Labour candidate in 2001. He stood as the Speaker seeking re-election and therefore as an independent. This afternoon, we have nothing less than a shameless example of a craven Government running scared.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to page 220 of "Erskine May", which categorically states:

"At a general election he stands as 'the Speaker seeking re-election', since he belongs to no party".

I am most grateful for that reinforcement of the point of fact, which I think I have now established. When once someone sits in that Chair, as you now have the great honour of doing, Mr. Speaker, they cease to have any party political allegiance, preference or prejudice at all, as you made clear when you made your acceptance speech. We are therefore dealing with replacing someone who was an independent Member of the House. As I said a moment ago, what is happening is an example of a Government running scared.

We all know-I have grandchildren in Scotland who go back to school on 17 or 18 August-that the holidays will have come to an end in Scotland by the penultimate week of August. We also know that that was no consideration for the Government when they moved a writ last year. We have a responsibility in this House to those out in the country who are not represented here. If there is a tragedy concerning a Member's death, there is sometimes a point to waiting, although when Gwyneth Dunwoody died we did not even wait until the funeral had taken place. That is appalling. What we ought to have-I hope that you might consider setting up a conference to consider this, Mr. Speaker-is a system whereby when a Member vacates a seat, for whatever reason, the by-election must be held within 28 days or, at the most, 40 days. That should be enough for us all and for anyone else to run a campaign, select a candidate and do all the necessary things.

The hon. Gentleman was perhaps unaware that, contrary to the tradition according to which the Speaker stands unopposed by other parties, Michael Martin was opposed in 2001 and 2005 by the Scottish National party. Those were contested elections. However, the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I was not in 2000 when Betty Boothroyd stood down. Did he object to the Government's moving the writ for that by-election, when she was not elected as a Labour Member of Parliament?

It was moved very quickly, but let me respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. Yes, I have been here a little longer than he has, and I remember the general elections that were fought by Speaker Thomas, Speaker Weatherill and Speaker Boothroyd. In every case they were opposed. Of course it is a convention that the major parties do not oppose, although that convention was not adhered to in any of those cases. However, the fact that the SNP chose to oppose Mr. Martin when he stood as an independent candidate is not relevant to this case. What we are talking about this afternoon is a deprived constituency that is not represented here when there is no reason that it should not be represented here. It would be the last shabby and shoddy act of a fairly shoddy period in Parliament's life if we were to rise today and refuse to let you move that writ, Mr. Speaker.

I entirely take the point that the Speaker stands as an independent. Indeed, there is an argument, notwithstanding the convention that the Leader of the House has set out, that there is only one party that should move the writ for a replacement in the seat of a former Speaker, and that is the Speaker's party, which is therefore you, Mr. Speaker.

However, I also feel that this debate, which has resulted in fairly strong feelings expressed in all parts of the House, is entirely understandable, and it will be repeated time and again in the future, just as it has been repeated in the past. Where a Government refuse to issue a writ for the replacement of a Member, of course people will feel that the constituents of that constituency, wherever it is, are not being treated fairly and that matters are being manipulated for the benefit of the majority party. That encapsulates some of the problems in the House with our electoral arrangements, which are exactly analogous with the fact that we do not have fixed-term Parliaments, which therefore means that the Prime Minister of the day can manipulate the timing of a general election to the benefit of the majority party in the House. The issue also highlights the fact that the business is in the control of the Executive rather than Parliament.

I am very much inclined to agree with what Sir Patrick Cormack said. In the same way that there is an automaticity about this issue in local government by statute, so there should be an automaticity about it in Parliament, either by statute or by our Standing Orders. The issuing of a writ should lie with the Speaker, and the writ should be placed before the House at the earliest opportunity. The only determining factor should be the convenience of the constituency returning officer, within very narrow parameters, as to when the election should be held. I hope that this matter will now be looked at, because the present arrangements are entirely unsatisfactory.

Notwithstanding that, we have conventions in this House about the way in which these matters are dealt with. However, conventions may be examined and, when necessary, removed. I believe that this convention is now overdue for removal. I entirely appreciate the arguments of Stewart Hosie. I think it likely that the Government will have their way today and that we will move on to the next business, but the hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House by pointing out the difficulties that this situation poses for the good people of Glasgow, who are currently unrepresented, and, more importantly, for the House, which again does not have the self-confidence to do its own work.

The synthetic tears of the separatists must be exposed. First, their party claims that the people of Glasgow, North-East will be without an MP for a matter of months. This is the same party whose leader, the First Minister, has almost the worst voting and attendance record in this House-second only to the Sinn Fein Members. The SNP has the cheek to complain that the people of Glasgow North-East do not have an MP, but where is Mr. Salmond?

Secondly, the SNP has made a point about school closures, but may I remind it that education is a devolved issue? The local council will deal with school closures, as will the Scottish Parliament. The constituency still has an MSP. Thirdly, the last time we went down this road, the SNP was the party that complained. It is absolute hypocrisy.

May I help the House by relating some personal experience? I have contested two by-elections. The first was in 1969, when I contested Newcastle-under-Lyme. The Labour Member, the much-respected Stephen Swingler, had died, and I have to say that, on that occasion, the Labour party delayed holding the by-election for virtually nine months. I believe that that was unacceptable. In my constituency of Macclesfield, I had to wait almost six months for the by-election after my predecessor, Air Commodore Sir Arthur Vere Harvey, was elevated to the upper House as Lord Harvey of Prestbury. So, to an extent, both major parties use the holding of a by-election for political purposes. They make a judgment on how well or badly they are likely to do.

I will support the motion that has been moved by Stewart Hosie, because I believe that holding a seat vacant for virtually six months in this day and age is unacceptable. I do not go along with my hon. Friend Sir Patrick Cormack, who said that a by-election should be held within 28, or perhaps 40, days. However, I would certainly support another of his proposals: I hope that you will convene a conference on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I believe that a by-election should be held within three months, and I regret that, at this very difficult time for the country, the honourable and decent people of Glasgow, North-East are going to have to wait to have a representative. Even if Parliament is not sitting, they should still have a Member of Parliament to represent their best interests.

Several hon. Members:

rose -

Order. I am sorry that the House was deprived of the services of Sir Nicholas Winterton for a period of six months, and I think that that sentiment will be widely shared. May I also tell him that, on the strength of the contributions that have been made to the debate thus far, it is clear that there are a number of willing applicants for service on any future Speaker's Conference, where there to be such on this matter?

I understand that if the writ were to be moved today, the by-election would be on 13 August. Will the Leader of the House advise me of the last date on which anyone resident in Glasgow, North-East who was not on the electoral register could apply to be put on to the register, were the writ to be moved today? Secondly, what would be the last date on which a resident of Glasgow, North-East who was on the register could apply for a postal vote, were the by-election to be held on 13 August?

Speaking as someone who has fought two parliamentary by-elections-[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I know I look too young. In my experience, irrespective of summer holidays and when children go back to school, as soon as candidates are chosen for political parties, the campaign begins for them. In my estimation, waiting until the House resumes in October, then moving a writ and having the parliamentary by-election in November as we approach winter is an argument for not having it at that time either. As far as the interests of the people of the said constituency are concerned, the sooner the by-election is brought on, the better for everyone.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 127.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House do pass to the Orders of the Day.