The Speaker Must Not Be Allowed Another Year

Sir Stuart Bell (for it is he) has just been opining on the World at One that he expects the Speaker to make an announcement tomorrow that he will stand down at the general election. I have no idea if he is right, but let's assume he is. The questions MPs will have to ask themselves are these:

• Is Michael Martin the right man to spend the next year leading the House of Commons out of this morass?
• Should he be given another year, or should he go now?
• Can he really chair proceedings when one of the three main parties has already delivered a vote of no confidence?

A few weeks ago MPs would have reluctantly agreed to his preferred timetable. I now don't think they will. He is so damaged that his reputation is not recoverable. His attack on Kate Hoey and Norman Baker was the turning point. The fact that Nick Clegg has been so unequivocal today and that the position of the Conservatives seems to have slightly hardened judging by interviews today with Andrew Lansley and William Hague demonstrates that, as Betty Boothroyd might say, time's up.

In addition, the new Speaker needs to be chosen by this House of Commons, not the next one. It is unfair on 150-200 new MPs to expect them to be able to judge the candidates. Current MPs know the strengths and weaknesses of each of the likely candidates. Party politics should not play a part in it and for that reason Conservatives should not worry about the wrong person being chosen.

So when Douglas Carswell puts down his motion tomorrow, MPs of all parties must remain resolute and not compromise. Replacing Michael Martin is not the answer to mending our broken politics. But it is part of the answer. And it needs to happen now.

Labour MP Calls for Speaker to Quit

In the twenty five or so years I have been following politics I can never remember a single MP saying in public that they have no confidence in the Speaker of the House of Commons. This week three Conservatives broke ranks and called for the Speaker to quit. Today, Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews followed suit.

OK, they are only four, among 650, but if four have said it publicly you can be sure that there are dozens of others who think the same.

On a related point, I wonder if it is proper for the Speaker to chair Monday's debate on the Damian Green arrest. His conduct will form a key part of the debate. Perhaps the Speaker would be wise to ask Sir Alan Haselhurst to chair the debate. Just a thought.

Exclusive Poll: Westminster Expects Speaker to Quit

An exclusive poll released for my blog by the new PoliticsHomeIndex site (the successor to 18 Doughty Street) reveals today that 55% of political insiders believe that The Speaker will be replaced within a year.

The poll asked: In your opinion, how long will Michael Martin stay in post as Speaker?

Less than a month 5.8% 1-6 months 31.7% 6 months to 1 year 17.3% 1 year to the next election 39.4% Longer than that 3.8% Don't know 1.9%

Of course we don't know whether the participants in the poll believe he will resign in disgrace or whether he will just decide that he's had his day. There's little doubt that the 'drip drip' effect of the publicity of the last few months certainly haven't done anything to lengthen his sojourn in the Speaker's Chair. For what it's worth, I too believe he could well decide to go of his own volition in order to give his successor time to 'bed in' before the next election. If he is to choose that path then this autumn would be a good time to go.

*The PoliticsHomeIndex panel is made up of MPs, Ministers, Shadow Ministers, political journalists, bloggers, academicss, think tankers, party strategists. PoliticsHome is publishing some of them tomorrow. The panel is overseen by Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome, Martin Bright of the New Statesman and The Observer's Andrew Rawnsley.

Note: Just by way of declaring an interest, they have now asked me to join the panel too.

Why Mr Speaker Was Wrong to Silence David Winnick

Further to my post earlier about the Speaker and his ruling on MPs' expenses and it being sub judice do have a look at this. It is Appendix 1, page 163 of Standing Orders of the House of Commons (or page 182 on THIS link). It demonstrates beyond all doubt that the Speaker has complete discretion to allow discussion of this matter in the House. See the bold text in the first line.

Sub judice Resolution, 2001

Resolved, That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice:

(1) Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.

(a)(i) Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued, or, in Scotland, a warrant to cite has been granted.

(ii) Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance, or, in cases dealt with by courts martial, after the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review.

(b)(i) Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance.

(ii) Any application made in or for the purposes of any civil proceedings shall be treated as a distinct proceeding.

(c) Appellate proceedings, whether criminal or civil, are active from the time when they are commenced by application for leave to appeal or by notice of appeal until ended by judgment or discontinuance.

But where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the opinion of the Chair a case concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services, reference to the issues or the case may be made in motions, debates or questions.

(2) Specific matters which the House has expressly referred to any judicial body for decision and report shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question, from the time when the Resolution of the House is passed until the report is laid before the House.

(3) For the purposes of this Resolution— (a) Matters before Coroners Courts or Fatal Accident Inquiries shall be treated as matters within paragraph (1)(a);

(b) 'Motion' includes a motion for leave to bring in a bill; and

(c) 'Question' includes a supplementary question.

15 November 2001

Over to you Mr Speaker.

The Incompetence of Mr Speaker Knows No Bounds

Labour MP David Winnick was pulled up by Mr Speaker ealier today when he tried, on a point of order to raise the question of the appeal to the High Court to prevent details of MPs' expenses being published. Michael Martin informed him that for the House of Commons the matter was sub judice. Here's the exchange...

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to know whether the appeal by the House of Commons Commission to the Appeal Court is limited to the question of addresses, or extends to the wider question of second homes? If it is the former, that would be perfectly understandable on grounds of security. If, however, the appeal against the information tribunal is on the wider question of expenditure on what are described as second homes, it should be noted that some Members, certainly myself, are very much opposed to the appeal being lodged. In my view, it is unfortunate that no way of voting—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter is before the court, and while I know that the media can talk about it, the rules are clear that it is sub judice for the House of Commons, and I cannot discuss it. In relation to many of the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises, there is nothing to stop him going to the court and finding out the grounds for the appeal.

What an arse. The House of Commons can discuss anything it likes. And if it can't talk about the propriety of MPs' expenses, what on earth can it discuss?! Rosa Prince on Three Line Whip says...

Now, I’m no expert but even I know there are no laws which permit newspapers to report matters that MPs are banned from discussing.

In fact, the opposite is true – Parliamentary debates enjoy privilege, allowing MPs and peers to raise topics without risk of libel or other legal action.

The Head of Legal explains the law of sub judice, as it relates to the House of Commons...

Sub judice isn't a rule of law; legally, Parliament can discuss whatever it likes. Unlike the media, it need not fear that the Attorney General will try to injunct it to prevent contempt of court; nor can anyone else take action against it for what member say, whether under libel laws or any other cause of action.

This whole sorry episode gives further fuel to those of us who believe Michael Martin is not up to the job.And before the lefties start bleating in the comments about snobbery, it's got nothing to do with it. Accusations of snobbery with regard to Michael Martin are the last refuge of the desperate.

UPDATE: Loved this from Macchiavelli in the comment thread...

Nobody thinks higher of Mr Speaker than I do... and I think the man's a bloody idiot.

Poll Results: What You Think of Michael Martin

A couple of days ago I asked you to take part in an online poll on the Speakership of the House of Commons. Here are the results...

How do you rate the performance of Michael Martin as Speaker?

Excellent 2%
Good 4%
Adequate 11%
Poor 33%
Dreadful 49%

Do you think it is now time for Michael Martin to step down as Speaker?

Yes 91%
No 9%

Who would you like to see elected as the new Speaker of the House of Commons, should a vacancy arise?

Sir Alan Haselhurst 22.6%
Sir George Young 18.8%
Sir Menzies Campbell 12%
Frank Field 11.3%
Vince Cable 9.5%
Kenneth Clarke 9%
Alan Beith 4.1%
Michael Ancram 3.5%
Sir Patrick Cormack 3.4%
John Bercow 2.5%
Sylvia Heal 2.2%
Sir Michael Lord 1.1%

Who do you rate as the best Speaker of the last 30 years?

Betty Boothroyd 49%
Bernard Weatherill 32%
George Thomas 18%
Michael Martin 1%

1,122 people took part in this poll. Note that 46% of the respondents were not Conservative voters.

Will the 'Men in Grey Suits' Despatch Mr Speaker?

The Sunday papers have launched new attack on Commons Speaker Michael Martin over more expenses allegations. However, the most damaging thing from his point of view is the resignation of his PR adviser, Mike Granatt. Needless to say our gutless MPs are keeping their heads down on this, with Norman Baker the only one to put his maverick head above the parapet. The real point is that Michael Martin has been the worst Speaker in living memory. He deserves to go because he's useless. The expenses allegations are a diversion from the point that he should go because of his incompetence. Every Labour MP I speak to recognises this privately and Conservatives and LibDems think so too. There is no formal mechanism for despatching a Speaker, but it would be a very foolish Speaker indeed who refused to go after being approached by a cross party delegation of men in grey suits. The usual channels should get to work.