Brian Montieth - Ignorance is no defence: the Speaker has to go

Published on Monday 8 December 2008 21:08

ALEX Fergusson, the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, has come in for a good deal of criticism in the past year or so – pretty much unjustified in my book.

He was finding his feet when the mother of all embarrassments happened to him: he made a mistake when helping with the draw for the Scottish League Cup semi-finals, calling out the wrong team names and incorrectly pairing Rangers with Aberdeen when they should have been playing Hearts. The error was spotted, however, and corrected within hours.

No-one died, no-one was hurt; indeed, the only bruising was to Fergusson's ego – and, for politicians, that's never a bad thing. Humility in public life should be encouraged, even if it's occasionally forced upon people. Nor was it a resigning matter; he had not screwed up First Minister's questions, called a vote wrong or made a hash of procedures – all of which had been done by his predecessors, and they had been allowed to apologise.

Since then, Alex has settled into the job and, although there is still the occasional moan – which all Presiding Officers are susceptible to – he was even allowed to conduct last month's Scottish League Cup semi-final draw again.

Fergusson's position is the equivalent of that of Speaker in the House of Commons, but it carries a different title, because those who drafted Holyrood's rules did not want to associate the nascent parliament with the Westminster model. For them, it was an outmoded, outdated relic and differences had to be found and expressed at all costs. Scotland's new parliament was going to be different, superior in fact, so Presiding Officer it was.

The pressure on the Presiding Officer is, however, nothing like that on the Speaker of the House of Commons. Fergusson has to make important decisions, his judgment must be good, he must often think quickly if not on his feet, and the cameras are regularly on him to pick up any mistake. Even so, relatively few people would recognise him in the street outside his constituency.

Not so Michael Martin, or Speaker Martin to use the correct form of address. His face is beamed all over the world, appearing on news reports of CNN, Fox News and every broadcasting outlet on our planet, as viewers watch prime ministers and leaders of the opposition spar at question time.

His errors are magnified exponentially and now he is at the eye of the hurricane regarding the entry of the Metropolitan Police into the Westminster Palace office of Damian Green, the Conservative spokesman on immigration, after he revealed to the public over the past year a series of leaks that have severely embarrassed the government. The police used anti-terrorism laws to enter his house, arrested him and detained him for nine hours – no charges were brought, and he has been bailed until February.

Speaker Martin has been a controversial figure, attracting criticism for his expensive lifestyle – and that of his immediate family – at the taxpayers' expense, for some of his judgments regarding the denial of debates requested by opposition parties, and for what many people claim is an incoherent and ignorant approach to his role. He is often nicknamed "Gorbals Mick" by detractors. I find many of these criticisms nothing better than mean-spirited snobbery and petty politics.

Some criticisms, however, are justified. In the past year, he disposed of Westminster's serving serjeant at arms and appointed a new one – without recognising that it was, in fact, for Her Majesty the Queen so to appoint the position (the serjeant at arms is effectively a member of the Queen's bodyguard). The Speaker's appointee, Jill Pays, was denied the customary audience with Her Majesty, a very public slap in the face to both Martin and Pays: a deserved rebuke that should have forced Speaker Martin to form some sort of apology and rapprochement – or resign.

His plea in mitigation for allowing the police to enter Mr Green's Commons office – that he did not know they had no warrant – is beyond belief. It is incredible that he never thought to inquire, not just to protect the rights and privileges of Members of the House but also for his own self-preservation by covering his back. His stupefying ignorance is no defence.

Although members might have said that the warrant could arguably have no force in Westminster Palace, where the laws of the land do not apply, one might have at least expected Speaker Martin to say: "I ask Honourable Members to understand I had to grant the request for entry as the police officers carried a warrant" – even if it would be a lame excuse. But he did not. Instead, he made himself look completely out of his depth – a man not up to the enormity of the job.

If parliamentary privilege is to be maintained, the Speaker must prevent such incursions against elected legislators that embarrass state authority, or any assaults on the primacy of the sovereign parliament.

I've always liked Alex Fergusson. Initially a list member, once he was elected as a constituency member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale by defeating the SNP incumbent, he told the Scottish Conservatives that he would not allow his name to go back on the list, thus removing the safety net if he were to lose his seat in the 2007 election. Effectively he was offering to resign if he lost. He told me he would not be able to look his electorate straight in the face if he had been re-elected after losing his constituency. His example was that of a courageous and dignified man.

Speaker Martin should look to Alex Fergusson as a role model. Fergusson may have made a hash of a football cup draw, but he showed humility and redeemed himself.

For Speaker Martin to show any humility, he must first resign and return to the back-benches, for his mistake is of enormous proportions. Only then will the world-renowned and respected institution of Speaker of the House of Commons return to its rightfully revered position in the eyes of those who hold out for democracy.