Peter Hoskin

The Speaker’s inaction does not make him unaccountable

Steve Richards puts it pithily in today’s Independent:

“The Speaker ‘was told’ the night before about a possible arrest. Did he not consider cancelling his plans and asking a lot of questions? Did the Serjeant-at-Arms not consider asking questions as she ‘was told’ what was going to happen. This is a saga that exposes incompetence, as well as a lack of proper accountability.”

The key point in all this is the Speaker’s near non-involvement in the raid on Green’s office – he happily outsourced every single bit of responsibility to the Serjeant of Arms.  Now he’s trying to outsource the blame to her too. 

But, to my mind, his non-involvement is exactly why the Speaker should be held accountable for this.  As Richards points out, it’s astonishing that – despite knowing about a possible arrest in advance – Martin didn’t seem to motivate himself into asking searching questions about it.  It’s even more astonishing that he didn’t seem to work out a coordinated action plan with Jill Pay; the kind of plan which might have included an “ask for a warrant” clause.  Little wonder why Harriet Harman’s support for Martin looks less than equivocal.

Comments