Pete suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value reader offers and events

Click here for the latest Spectator Wine Offers

Order, order

Wednesday, 27th February 2008

The Spectator on why the Speaker is further besmirching the reputation of Parliament

The Speakership of the House of Commons has been aptly described as ‘the linchpin of the whole chariot’. This is why the lamentable conduct of Michael Martin, who has occupied the Speaker’s Chair since 2000, is more than just another parliamentary ‘sleaze’ story. By his sheer stubbornness, Mr Martin is behaving with epic selfishness and is besmirching the already sullied institution whose probity he, more than anyone else, is expected to protect. The wheels of the chariot are at risk of spinning off.

This week the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, John Lyon, ruled that there would not be an inquiry into the Speaker’s transfer of air miles to members of his family. This leaves unresolved the question of £4,000 of taxi expenses claimed by Mr Martin’s wife, Mary — a controversy which has led to the resignation of his spokesman, Mike Grannatt, formerly a public servant of distinction, who felt that he had been kept in the dark about the detail of the taxi journeys. There is also the matter of the thousands of pounds claimed by Speaker Martin to cover the costs of his Glasgow home, even though the property does not have a mortgage.

To observe him this week has been to watch a man whose authority is dwindling by the day. On Monday, he told the House defiantly that he would not be rushed into publishing the review into MPs’ expenses and allowances. ‘This House has charged me with a responsibility and I will carry out that duty until this House decides otherwise,’ he declared, ‘and that is a good thing for the reputation of this House.’ Yet the very next day the Members Estimate Committee, which Mr Martin happens to chair, backed down and announced that the review, triggered by the Derek Conway case, would, after all, be published before the summer parliamentary recess.

What is at stake in all this is much more than the fate of one chippy Labour MP, whose allies seems to attribute all criticism of his Speakership to ‘class prejudice’. The flummery and pomp that attends his office tempts some observers to see the Speaker as a glorified master of ceremonies decked out in fancy dress. In fact, the Speaker is very much more than that — or ought to be. He or she is supposed to be the incarnation of parliamentary democracy, a figure who rises above party politics to exercise a range of key discretionary powers, such as choosing whom to call in debate, selecting amendments, judging what is sub judice and countering obstruction. In this sense, the Speaker should combine what Bagehot called the ‘dignified’ and ‘efficient’ parts of the constitution: majesty and procedural technicality alike. As Philip Laundy wrote in his history of the office: ‘A Speaker is, or should be, one of the trustees of a nation’s liberties.’

1 | 2 Next page

Tim Jenkins

February 28th, 2008 11:34pm

Class prejudice? I confess, I am prejudiced against the class of public servants who are incompetent or corrupt or self-serving. Whereas Mr Martin, I seem to recall, is prejudiced against the class of women who have refined accents. I always thought he was second-rate, but I see now this was an overestimate.

rhory fraser

February 29th, 2008 12:17pm

Order, Order? Blather, blather. The investigation into Michael Martin AND Derek Conway were prompted not by the Spectator, nor by any other newspaper/magazine but by an outsider - a retired police inspector from Dartford called Michael Barnbrook. A little man, outside the Westminster cabal, outside the safe journalistic enclaves. But he also happens to be a member of a certain, unmentionable political party - currently outside the cosy Westminster village

Hamilton Rhodes

March 3rd, 2008 2:20pm

There is simply no mechanism whereby MPs can get rid of a sitting Speaker, so what would be the benefit of anybody "speaking out" about the perceived shortcomings of the current incumbent?

Steve.

March 8th, 2008 4:44pm

That there is no mechanism to get rid of a Speaker - is more than enough - evidence of a system which is 'flawed'. Thus the Political system as spoken of is not democratic. It is not transparent; it is not open; and it fails on accountability with no proper checks and balances.