Not for the first time, Speaker Michael Martin - the man spearheading a £100,000 court battle to keep MPs' expenses secret - is out of order.
After Prime Minister's Questions, the veteran Labour MP David Winnick raised a point of order asking the Speaker just what are the specific grounds for appeal in his last-ditch legal bid.
If it was just about publishing addresses, the courageous Mr Winnick said, "that would be perfectly understandable on grounds of security".
But he said if it was against the wider issue of publishing second home expenses, "it should be noted that some members, certainly myself, are very much opposed to the appeal being lodged".
Hear, hear, many of us up in the Press Gallery said, sotto voce, naturally.
It was "unfortunate", the wily Mr Winnick went on, that MPs had not been given a vote on the matter. Quite so.
But what happened next was extraordinary and, even by the standards of the whole sorry saga of trying to block publication of the MPs' second homes allowance, disgraceful.
Mr Winnick was interrupted by the Speaker, who said: "This matter is before the court and therefore it is sub-judice for the House of Commons.
"I know that the media can talk about it but for the House of Commons the rules are quite clear."
And then, descending from the outrageous to the ridiculous, the Speaker said Mr Winnick could go and find out the grounds for the appeal himself from the High Court.
Sub judice? Hardly. Many MPs sat in the chamber squirming in embarrassment over what they had just heard.
Well done, Mr Winnick. Out of order, Mr Speaker.
"Setting aside the current controversy re Martin, you still are left with the fact that the man has not, as far as we know, broken any rules or committed a crime."
------------------------------
Carol-Ann, I am constantly surprised at your willingness to overlook deeds that are obviously dishonest, on the basis that technically Martin can ignore all notions of honour and probity towards the people he is supposed to serve, and smirk that he has not broken any specific law.
He does not need to commit a criminal act to be less than honest with the money of those he was elected to serve.
And before you seek to turn it into a party political issue as you always do, I said exactly the same of Conway and am disgusted that the Police do not feel they have a viable case to investigate in his case.
Trust me, when it all hits the fan after all of Martin's attempted obstruction finally fails, both Air-Miles Martin and you are going to look equally and extremely foolish.
Why do you think other MPs are ganging up on him - LABOUR MPs mind you ! - and saying that he is bringing their profession into disrepute.
Dear oh dear ! Oh ye of blind faith !
Posted by: Trevor 28 Mar 2008 20:25:32
Confucious says
"Be not ashamed of mistakes, and thus make them crimes"!
Astute and applicable?
Posted by: T.J. from Ireland 27 Mar 2008 16:34:14
Carol Ann.
You say wait for the facts do you mean the facts that this governmemt are refusing to be published. Martin is not working on his own in blocking this information he is obeying orders from you know who and any fool knows that.
Posted by: Bruce Hulmes 27 Mar 2008 11:22:02
Trevor
Setting aside the current controversy re Martin, you still are left with the fact that the man has not, as far as we know, broken any rules or committed a crime.
I am sure if any other MP had as much light turned on them as Martin, they might be found wanting.
Let us wait for the FACTS, rather than speculation and rumour.
I agree that we need the FACTS asap because, such as your wild speculation, will continue to grow to the point that people will believe the rumours more than they will believe the facts.
Posted by: carol-ann liverpool 27 Mar 2008 10:47:11
"I think Speaker Martin needs to get a grip,... "
No, wrong. He needs to get his sorry behind out of the Commons door and stay out.
The man is an absolute disgrace to the entire notion of public service.
I'm amazed he still has the gall to show his face.
Posted by: Trevor 26 Mar 2008 19:28:43
The treatment of worn out horses is to be sent to the knackers yard. There they are shot to save them from further suffering.
What can be done for knackered Speakers?
Posted by: madasafish, Stoke on trent 26 Mar 2008 18:18:06
The rats are attempting to cover their tracks. A number of prominent MPs it is reported would have to resign if the truth came out, so lets get it out in the open or everyone should refuse to vote at any elections until the truth and the corruption is out in the public domain.
And on security it would be fairly easy for a terrorist to obtain the address of MPs second homes and exactly what do they mean by second homes, the ones they live in most of the year which, we would call our main home and claim as second homes or the ones that they rent out and still claim for as a second home bit, of a joke.
Posted by: Bruce Hulmes 26 Mar 2008 16:32:52
Jon,
I have to be honest and say that I can't see why there is a concern about knowing where the homes of MPs are.
That information can be obtained by anyone in a very short time. Perhpas the PM and the Opposition Leaders are more at risk from a security point of view or even from a stalker - as were Irish Ministers at the time of 'The Troubles'
But, unless that information is redacted in all other documents relating to GB, DC and NC, I can't see the justification for withholding, now. It only causes more suspicion and rumour.
I think Speaker Martin needs to get a grip, you can't make promises to Parliament and not keep them.
Of course, I am aware that the oppostition parties will want to cause the maximum embarrassment to the government, to end before the recess by implying that the sound of 'sleaze' is swirling around GB, and they are playing silly games, but the one fair point here is in regard to the publication of this info.
If anyone has something to hide, it is ridiculous to try to hide it, because a tabloid journalist will be at a cashpoint close to the High Court as we speak, drawing some dosh for anyone willing to spill the beans because the more someone tries to stop us from knowing something, the more we want to know it!
If the matter is sub-judice, how can the media be allowed to report it and not the Speaker?
Posted by: carol-ann liverpool 26 Mar 2008 16:21:33
This matter is deemed to be sub-judice and so cannot be discussed in Parliament, yet this government is proposing extending the anti-terror detention period based primarily on criminal proceedings being discussed in the House prior to any potential trial?!
Riiiight... It's good to see yet more joined up thinking from the Labour party.
The whole thing would be quite funny if it wasn't us, the public, being treated with such utter contempt. It's about time the politicians stop viewing themselves as the 'ruling class' - they are no more than public servants, answerable & accountable to us.
If Michael Martin is acting as an obstacle to the truth being published, he should be removed from office. By force, if necessary.
Posted by: Dave Wells 26 Mar 2008 16:02:27
No matter is sub judice to the House of Commons whether it is before a court or not.
Until we ceded powers to the EU Parliament held undoubted supremacy over all other bodies.
It is now somewhat different but MPs should not be gagged against speaking out on matters of public interest.
The Speaker has stifled debate whereas he should have immediately recused himself when Mr Winnick spoke.
Since the appeal was made on behalf of the House of Commons it is truly extraordinary to attempt to hide the substance of the appeal from Members of that House.
Posted by: Victor, NW Kent 26 Mar 2008 15:45:47
Disgraceful. But all is fair ........in just about anything these days.
Posted by: Tony, Berkshire 26 Mar 2008 15:45:29
Time for Sir Alan to shine I think. When will Mr Martin do the decent thing and step aside quietly?
Posted by: Harvey, Oxford 26 Mar 2008 15:01:03
It really is time for Michael Martin to go.
There's an article in today's Telegraph suggesting that the reason behind this appeal, and all the previous delays in publishing the expenses, is that there's a "mistake" within Gordon Brown's expenses that they don't want to be made public...
In light of this governments previous activities & it's record of deceit, I wouldn't be at all surprised it that is true.
Posted by: JC, Deep South 26 Mar 2008 14:34:08
Gorbals Mick does what all Labour MPs do. When he doesn't want to answer he just makes it up...he lies...
How has our parliment been reduced to this...the man who is supposed to enforce the rules is the one that breaks them.
And no one cares...no one blinks...
It is heart breaking....
Posted by: Fillipe, England 26 Mar 2008 14:32:37