• Home
• /
• Opinion

Speaker Martin fiddles as British MPs burn with shame

This may be because good journalists and good politicians need to release their inner voice. That is the voice that most interests and persuades their audiences. Winston Churchill is obviously the heroic example of a politician who, at a certain level of blood alcohol, unleashed his genius. Perhaps there was no hour in June 1940 when he could have passed a breathalyser test. Yet that was his month of supreme achievement.

Parliament needs a voice of genius now. The House of Commons, after the cases of former Welsh Secretary Peter Hain and disgraced Tory MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup Derek Conway, is in a crisis that most MPs do not wish to recognise. They are in a state of denial.

Last Wednesday, Prime Minister's Questions passed without anyone raising any aspect of the Conway matter. They were thinking of nothing else, but they tiptoed around the minefield.

Politicians are in a state of shock, but they must come out of it. They have, collectively, lost public confidence. The public thinks politicians are all alike, which is no more true of politicians than it is of Anglican clergymen or Somerset farmers.

No doubt, all politicians are subject to particular temptations. Some politicians are tempted by money or sex; some are weakened by the canker of failure; some are deluded by the exuberance of success. Most politicians are gifted people, the bright boy or girl at school, exposed to unusual stresses; some cannot handle the life of politics.

We should feel some sympathy, if only because politicians have a five-year lease on a job that exposes them to continuous public scrutiny. One can say they did not have to become MPs, but that applies to every occupation. No one, on that argument, can escape a whipping.

Yet MPs cannot afford to feel too much sympathy for themselves because the constitution of our country depends on their being respected. They must do whatever is needed to restore their authority.

The two cases involve different aspects of regulations. Hain failed to report payments of £103,000 into his campaign fund for election to the deputy leadership of the Labour Party. It is not clear why his declarations were late, but there is a suspicion that he routed them through a little-known think-tank to conceal their source.

Conway's case is also ambiguous. It seems that from 2004 to last August he paid just over £50,000 of public money to his son Freddie, some of which helped fund his son's full-time university studies. Freddie, now 22, was supposed to work as an assistant in Conway's office. There is no evidence, apart from that of the family, that the work was ever performed.

The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee found this was 'at the least, an improper use of parliamentary allowances; at worst, it was a serious diversion of public funds'. The prevailing view is that it was the latter.

Now there is an inescapable need for the reform of both systems. The system of reporting for contributions to party funds is confusing and unsatisfactory. It brings the House of Commons-into disrepute because MPs are often the recipients of these payments.

The system of parliamentary allowances is partly a device for presenting parliamentary salaries as being more moderate than they are by enlarging expenses. A somewhat similar system has been adopted in the House of Lords, where there is no salary, and all remuneration is in the form of expenses.

MPs should be paid more equitably, with a better balance between salary and expenses. A more revealing system of auditing MPs' expenses should be introduced as a matter of urgency. The Conway case ought to have been impossible because such payments would have appeared dubious on the most superficial audit. The question of family employment will have to be faced. In some countries, it is forbidden. I would still support family employment in principle, but only in defined categories and subject to special reporting.

Politicians are busy and many of them are not sufficiently self-disciplined to be reliable as administrators of their own financial affairs. That may be one of the prices one pays for democracy. Politicians may need help with the new regulations.

There is one person who has the office and the authority to give a lead to reform of the House of Commons.

That is Michael Martin, the Speaker. He needs to find his voice. So far, it cannot be said that Speaker Martin has been a force on the side of reform.

He approved the expenditure of nearly £50,000 on flights for his wife; it was perfectly justifiable but has been criticised as excessive.

He also helped block the reforms of scrutiny of MPs' allowances, which have been proposed by the Senior Salaries Review Body. So far, he has given the impression he will be a ' lastditcher' in resisting reform of these House of Commons procedures. That is serious.

Martin has not been regarded as a successful Speaker. But that is not the point. This is a time when the House of Commons has a need for reform; this will involve greater transparency and closer auditing.

If Speaker Martin was to lead the reform movement, he could break the logjam of almost feudal opposition. If Martin did take the lead, then he might go down in history as one of the great Speakers. If he helps those who wish to block reform, he may have to be replaced, which would weaken the speakership as well as Parliament itself. He is not a bad man; he now has to find his voice and speak for Parliament.

Lord William Rees-Mogg is a former editor of the Times. This column first appeared in the Mail on Sunday