Red Box - Times Online's Westminster blog

Speaker cleared of wrongdoing by tough new watchdog

Miscreant MPs beware: John Lyon, the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, is going to be an extremely tough watchdog.

He has just released a report about Michael Martin and his wife's use of taxis. Opponents of the Speaker wont like the result: he found that the Speaker had a budget of £2,500 a year for taxis and that her use fell within the rules.

He didn't investigate whether this budget should exist in the first place. That was not his job and he couldn't have done anything about it - it's a political question that MPs could and should tackle.

But what is interesting is the extremely assidious way in which Lyon conducted the inquiry. You can see this for yourself here. He wrote, interviewed, re-questioned and double checked every assertion, before clearing Mrs Martin. He is a man to be feared.

One question that remains unanswered: why, given the conclusions of Lyon's report, did senior Luther Pendragon lobbyist Mike Granatt, his former spokesman, resign?

A helpful reader writes: Have you read the minutes at the back of the Standards report. It gives very clear impression the taxi journeys are for the Martins' personal groceries, including a bit of official stuff. Justified on the grounds that Martin doesn't have time to leave the building. Wasn't Granatt's defence at the time that the trips were actually for official functions? Lyon's right about the rules - but as usual it's the rules that are outrageous.

Speaker: still facing probe

It may have gone a little quiet on the Speaker front in recent days, but the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards confirmed this afternoon that they are still looking into the complaint about Michael Martin and his wife's use of taxis. John Lyon has not announced a full and formal investigation, which would be unprecedented and highly damaging, but is still being examined.

Lyon dismissed a complaint against the Speaker over his use of Airmiles after, I think, four days. We are now nearing two weeks since Mark Wallace of the Taxpayers' Alliance put in a complaint. They haven't heard anything either. Watch this space.

Would the Speaker's spokesman have resigned if he had not been named?

When The Times first broke the story that the Speaker's wife had spent more than £4,000 on taxis to go shopping, the explanation from Parliament was that Mary Martin was buying food for official functions and was always accompanied by an official.

At the time, this struck me as odd (not least because Parliament has a huge catering department). That is why I took the unconventional step of naming the spokesman involved, the well-regarded Mike Granatt.

Granatt was wrong (all credit to the Mail on Sunday for discovering that the "official" turned out to be a housekeeper and the functions were informal) and consequently he resigned yesterday for "ethical" reasons, saying that he had no idea why he was misled by an official working for the Speaker. The implications of this resignation are still unfolding - David Davis told the BBC's Sunday AM that the Speaker has "got problems" - but more on that later.

There is, however, a wider question: should journalists insist on publicly naming spokesmen who talk on behalf of politicians? It is surely absurd that Gordon Brown's spokesman Mike Ellam is publicly named on the Downing Street website, yet referred to as "the Prime Minister's spokesman" in press and broadcast reports. Similarly all special advisers are publicly named (here, scroll down) yet they are mostly referred to as "aides" even when speaking formally on behalf of ministers.

This would not happen in America. Ministers may not be keen to shift the limelight away from themselves, but undoubtedly it would encourage greater transparency and a personal sense of responsibility, as the weekend's events have shown. Is it time for a rethink?

Speaker Michael Martin - a complaint goes in

The office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards - Parliament's watchdog - have confirmed this morning they have received a complaint about the Speaker, Michael Martin. Under the rules, the registrar cannot say anything about the scope of the complaint (although the Daily Mail has more details here) or reveal whether the commissioner, John Lyon, will launch a full inquiry. But this could be serious.

The Commissioner could dismiss the complaint out of hand. But if he does not, we will be in unprecedented waters and it could be fatal for Mr Martin.

It is the biggest test possible for Lyon, not least because the "rules" against which Martin will have to be judged are murky and not in the public domain. His allowances go way beyond what is allowed for other MPs, but some may argue his role is broadly comparable to that of a minister.

The accusations against Martin in recent weeks have focused on three areas: his wife's use of taxpayer-funded taxis, flights and the family use of airmiles he accrued on business.

Some of the defences used on his behalf seem deeply odd: Mary Martin's £4,280.20 bill for taxis arose because "she goes shopping for food and so on for entertaining official visitors" and is always accompanied by an official. Yet Parliament has huge kitchens, professional caterers, and Mrs Martin's expenses bill was £0 according to a Freedom of Information requests. And who is the lucky official?

The Speaker will put up a fight and his spokesman denies any wrongdoing. The Speaker does have a budget of his own, and his expenditure must have been agreed with Parliamentary staff for it to have been paid out (thought that was no defence for Conway). Few MPs have dared shine much light into the Speaker's affairs before the arrival of the Freedom of Information Act, so we have little to compare it to. MPs familiar with the inner workings of the house say spending is too small to be approved by them. So it may be hard to construct a case that Martin "broke the rules". On airmiles, there may only be "guidance", not rules. And for the rest, it may be simply there aren't any rules.

So we wait and see.

A postcript: If Lyon does launch an inquiry he would have to prepare a report - either oral or written - to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. This committee is chaired by Sir George Young, who has made little secret of his ambition to be Speaker. Would he have to stand aside in the event of the committee having to make a decision about Speaker Martin?