Comment: Enough Snouts in the trough?
Is it time for Local Bishopbriggs' resident (is that primary or secondary resident?): Michael Martin, speaker of the House of Commons to resign?
Everyone makes mistakes, but there comes a time when too many mistakes have been made to be coincidental and there are far more that three high profile “mistakes” that Michael Martin who lives in Bishop Briggs although he represents Glasgow North East (and no doubt has other properties elsewhere) has made and to my mind: “three strikes” is enough to be out.
Strike 1: Personal expenses – Air miles
In February 2008, Martin used air miles accumulated on official business to fly his children and their families to London in business class. According to guidelines issued by the Members Estimate Committee, which Martin chairs, such air miles should be used by him to offset his own official travel costs.
Strike 2: Personal expenses – claim by wife for taxi to buy food
February 2008, Michael Martin's spokesman, the veteran Whitehall communications chief Mike Granatt, was forced to resign after admitting that he had unwittingly misled the Mail on Sunday over more than £4,000 in taxi expenses incurred by the speaker's wife, Mary Martin. Granatt blamed unnamed officials, but not the Speaker, for falsely informing him that the expenses were legitimate because Martin's wife had been accompanied by an official on shopping trips to buy food for receptions. It turned out that she had in fact been accompanied by her housekeeper, and catering for such receptions is the responsibility of the parliamentary caterers.
Strike 3: Arrest of Damian Green
Following the highly controversial arrest of Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green, much anger was directed towards Speaker Michael Martin and the House of Commons authorities for allowing police into the Palace of Westminster to search Mr Green's Commons office without a search warrant. The police would have required permission from House authorities to carry out a search on the Commons premises. When the PC owned by Damian Green were returned, it came to the light the police had been on a “fishing expedition”looking for any correspondence with the English human rights organisation Liberty which had nothing to do with the stated reason for the investigation. Thus, the speaker had at one fell swoop, removed the ancient right to MP-Constituent confidentiality which absolutely essential for constituents to discuss openly the adverse effects of current law in areas as diverse as assisted suicide to illegal action by the police.
Strike 4: Personal expenses – the debacle of MPs “costs”
Michael Martin had consistently fought to prevent MPs expenses being subject to public scrutiny and we now know why. He has clearly not acted as he ought: for the good of the electorate which is the first requirement of any representative, but as a shop steward for a self-serving political elite who appear as far as we can see (and with few exceptions) to have not the slightest compunction in fleecing the taxpayer for all they can get.
Strikes 5,6,7,etc.
It is widely suggested he conspired to sack Commons “sleaze-buster” Elizabeth Filkin.
December 2008, Martin won the right to a taxpayer-funded, index-linked pension worth close to £1.4 million.
19 April 2009, an editorial in the left-leaning Observer newspaper renewed calls for his retirement as Speaker, saying "the speaker and Mrs Martin have been plundering the public purse for an almost grotesque array of personal perks and foreign junkets."
14 May 2009 the Daily Telegraph reported that Martin had claimed £1,400 for using chauffeur driven cars that included visits to Celtic Park, home of Celtic Football Club.
In 2007, Matrin used taxpayers' money on lawyers to challenge negative press stories. A Media law firm were employed for 3 months at a cost of more than £20,000.
Martin was also criticised at the same time for trying to block the publication of details of MPs' £5m-a-year travel expenses under the Freedom of Information Act.
On 29 March 2008, the Daily Telegraph revealed that refurbishment of Michael Martin's official residence, Speaker's House, has cost the taxpayer £1.7m over 7 years.
Gorbels Mick – Prejudice? Or ... Time to Go?
"Many of these MPs have not acted with any integrity. Martin is a scapegoat to hide their own actions. He hasn't set the world on fire as Speaker, but in some ways he has been assiduous and scrupulously fair." (Bob Thompson, a former chairman of the Scottish Labour Party)
There has clearly been a lot of prejudice against Michael Martin for his Glasgow accent and his trade union background. But whilst this can explain the ferocity of the dislike of Michael Martin in some of the more bigoted parts of the media, it doesn't excuse the basic anti-democratic nature of the things he has done.
"The Speaker should have been at the forefront of finding a solution but has sadly become part of the problem." (Jo Swinson)
The purpose of parliament is to represent the people of this nation. So, it follows that the purpose of the speaker of Parliament is primarily to speak on behalf of the people of this nation not of the MPs. If anyone should be working for the good of the public it is the speaker of parliament and for Michael Martin to have been actively seeking to hide from the public the expenses debacle /scandal (call it what you will) that many MPs have almost been encouraged to engage in by commons authorities is absolutely scandalous and a contempt for the democracy of this country.
Worse still, is that he not only shows no regret for his actions, but even actively and publicly rounded on those MPs who have campaigned (against him) to reform the expenses system, when it is not them but him who is to blame. The only regret I will have when we see Michael Martin step down (as he has got to do in my opinion) is that other MPs who have clearly been abusing the spirit and the letter of the rules will try to pin the blame for their own shameful actions on Michael Martin rather than themselves.
Written 18/5/09, by Mike Haseler
Comment By Jo Swinson
- After a little more investigation, it seemed unfair to tar all MPs and particularly Jo Swinson with the same brush as Jo has been leading a campaign on expenses. So with permission of Jo Swinson here is her view on the issue (originally published in the Glasgow Herald with reply by George Foulkes)
People right across the country are furious, and rightly so. The drip, drip of scandals about MPs' expenses has stained our political system.
Public confidence in our democratic institutions has been shattered.There is shock and anger at how MPs have manipulated the system for personal gain, by "flipping" second-home designations and maxing out on mortgages.
Yet, while watching parliament's reputation being dragged through the mud has been painful for all who passionately believe politics can be a force for good, it is still better than the alternative: shrouding MPs' claims in secrecy and allowing the unjustifiable and possibly fraudulent behaviour to continue unchecked. All politicians come out of this badly.It is right that there have been apologies, but it is not enough. We need to act now tostart putting things right.
The money we are claiming belongs to the taxpayer, so we should abide by two key principles: openness and no personal profit.
For over a year I have published details of my expenses each quarter. The Scottish Parliament has a system where every claim is logged and listed online.The House of Commons must do the same.
No-one wants to go back to the days when only the rich and landed gentry could be MPs. Most people I speak to accept that MPs who represent areas far from Westminster need to have somewhere to stay in London.
I would like to see parliament acquire properties for the use of MPs staying away from home.All capital gains made would go to the taxpayer, and over time the whole system would cost less.
However, it is clear that MPs can no longer be left to make the rules themselves.Whatever new system Sir Christopher Kelly recommends, MPs should accept his judgment entirely and without amendment.
Where minor mistakes have been made, MPs should apologise and pay back. However, some allegations suggest not only misjudgement, but deliberate deception and possibly fraud.
These cases must be fully investigated, and MPs found guilty should face deselection and even criminal prosecution.
The House of Commons had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards transparency and accountability, anditfought Freedom of Information requests at every turn.
When parliament needed leadership to steer it away from public disgrace, there was none. The Speaker should have been at the forefront of finding a solution, but has sadly become part of the problem. It is time for him to go.
It is vital that we do start to rebuild public confidence.Democracy thrives when the public get involved, and will wither if people turn away from it.
Talented people who would be excellent representatives may be put off entering politics.Simply put, we will all lose out: not just in politics but in our communities.
We need a new, reforming Speaker;action against those who have abused expenses; an independent, transparent system for the future; an end to personal profit.
Then, maybe, we can have confidence in our politics once again.
