The architect of the expenses system which has discredited the present House of Commons gets his “P45 in an ermine envelope” . There are no standards left in public life it seems.
Christina
=============================
GUARDIAN 1.7.09
PM warned that elevation of Michael Martin could damage Lords
• Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
Michael Martin, the former Speaker of the Commons, was today elevated to the House of Lords despite a warning from the independent appointments commission that his presence could "diminish" the upper house.
In an unprecedented move, the commission wrote to Gordon Brown to warn that Martin's conduct in recent months, which led him to become the first Speaker of the modern era to be forced out, could damage the Lords' reputation.
The intervention by the commission, chaired by the former Foreign Office permanent secretary Lord Jay, is understood to be the first time in modern times that questions have been raised about elevating a former Speaker to the Lords.
By convention, Speakers are appointed on their retirement from the Commons to the House of Lords where they sit on the non-partisan crossbenches. The appointments commission was established in 2000, the year Betty Boothroyd, Martin's predecessor as Speaker, was appointed to the Lords without any questions.
In its letter to the prime minister, the commission drew attention to concerns it had about the possible impact of Martin's presence on the reputation of the Lords. The commission, which has the power to advise but not to veto, has a duty to warn the prime minister of the impact of any "public controversy".
In Martin's case this referred to his controversial handling of the Commons in the past year. Martin became the first Speaker of the modern era to be forced out after losing the confidence of the Commons over his response to the expenses crisis and his handling of the search of the Commons office of the Conservative frontbencher Damian Green.
In a carefully worded letter to the prime minister, the commission referred to the terms of its vetting procedures. These state that the commission's role "is to advise the prime minister if it has any concerns about the propriety of a nominee".
It adds: "Propriety means ... the individual should be a credible nominee. The commission's main criterion in assessing this is whether the appointment would enhance rather than diminish the workings and the reputation of the House of Lords itself and the appointments system generally."
Martin was nominated for a peerage by the Commons as part of a "humble address" to the Queen. [Today’s Commons will pass anything it is told to pass, which is why nothing more should be decided by this discredited House. -cs]
In a message to MPs on Monday the government whip, Helen Jones, in her role as the vice-chamberlain of the household, reported that the Queen had agreed to confer a peerage on Martin "for his eminent services during the period in which he has, with such distinguished ability and dignity, presided in the chair of this house". [Pass the sickbag, please -cs]
The traditional form of words was greeted with ridicule. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: "This is old-fashioned nonsense. Parliament should start using words that people understand and believe. Michael Martin should not be handed a P45 in an ermine envelope."
Martin was the biggest casualty of the expenses scandal after he was blamed by MPs for failing to understand the gravity of the crisis, a charge he vehemently denied.
===========================
THE TIMES 1.7.09
Lords commission warned Number 10 against Michael Martin peerage
Philip Webster, Political Editor
The vetting panel for the House of Lords warned Downing Street against awarding a peerage to Michael Martin, the former Commons Speaker, The Times has learnt.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission suggested that elevating Mr Martin, the first Speaker to be ousted in 300 years, would damage the reputation of the second chamber.
Its misgivings were overruled by Gordon Brown, who played a key role in telling Mr Martin that he had lost the confidence of the Commons but ensured that he would follow his predecessors to the Lords. [like “Go now ands I’ll see you’re alright pal -cs]
MPs have been informed that the Queen has sent a message to Parliament that she wishes to confer on Mr Martin “some signal mark of her royal favour” — taken to mean a peerage. This follows a Commons motion passed on Monday last week, urging the Queen to honour Mr Martin “for his eminent services during the important period in which he presided with such distinguished ability and dignity in the Chair of this House”.
The Times understands that before that decision was taken the commission — knowing that Speakers traditionally become peers on retirement — discussed whether the honour would be appropriate in Mr Martin’s case. His handling of the expenses row led Mr Martin to become the first Speaker to be forced out of office since 1695. It became clear that he had lost the support of the House, including the Government and Mr Brown, an old friend.
Mr Martin was also mired in controversy last year over the police raid on the office of Damian Green, the Shadow Immigration Minister. A private conversation between Mr Brown and Mr Martin was believed to have been critical in his decision to stand down.
The Times understands that the commission, chaired by Lord Jay of Ewelme, former Permanent Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, raised doubts as to whether Mr Martin’s elevation to the peerage would harm the standing of the Upper House. MPs would not have been aware of the warning when they made their decision.
It is highly unusual for the commission’s advice to emerge in public, suggesting a degree of anger in the Lords over Mr Martin’s imminent arrival.
The commission has no power of veto and raised its doubts in a private submission to Downing Street. A source said that it was the commission’s duty to raise issues that it felt to be relevant even though in the case of a former Speaker, the honour of a peerage was virtually unanimously granted. The commission did not advise Mr Brown not to recommend Mr Martin for a peerage; it merely raised questions that it felt he should take into account.
Downing Street said yesterday that the decision to grant Mr Martin an honour was on the basis of a recommendation from the House of Commons in an uncontested motion. Labour MPs said that it would have been vindictive to have denied him a peerage, given his decision to resign to enable the Commons to make a clean break after the expenses scandal.
His supporters said that he was forced out because he was “Scottish, working-class and Catholic”.
Lord Lawson of Blaby, a Tory former Chancellor, said that a peerage for Mr Martin was a “mistake and unfortunate”.
Posts
