baldysblog.co.uk

I have already expressed the view that I am personally rather bored with the “MPs Expense Claims Story”. In today’s Times David Aaronovitch wrote a very good article called; “If we want democracy, we have to pay for it. We have become intoxicated by our own outrage. When we sober up some tough decisions will have to be made.” Well done David and totally on the money.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6268941.ece

Well worth a read however, whilst numerous MPs will not come out of this smelling of Roses, there is one person who has done exceptionally badly, Speaker Martin…

The Current Speaker

Of course Martin must go, even if he just announces that he will not seek re-election at the next General Election which now will have to be this year as Parliament has become the institution that dare not speak its name and it is his incompetence in not getting a firm grip on it earlier that is in no small part to blame.

The solution to the current mess will see MPs salaries rise to £100,000 with increases set automatically and free of Government interference, if awarded it will be paid, if any person doesn’t want it, they can always donate the increase to charity. The current problems have come about by idiots of all parties over the past 30 years not sorting the MP pay issue out properly so that a “compensatory allowances regime” was allowed to flourish. This was foolish because whilst in most cases not intended, in the cold light of this day, it looks corrupt.

All allowances and expenses should be abolished apart from travel to and from their constituency. Their current Pension scheme should be wound up and replaced with a money purchase one, they should reduce their numbers by the start of the next (following), Parliament to 500.

Why Should the Speaker be an MP ?

However, here is another thought which really relates to Constitutional Reform and might be worth considering. In today’s political environment, just why should the Speaker be a sitting MP ?

Whilst understandable in the past when the Speaker, as the name implied, represented the House of Commons (the Legislature) to the Monarch (the Executive), hence the title “First Commoner” (how well Speaker Martin has fulfilled at least that part of the job), the role has changed dramatically.

Today the Speaker is or should be, little better than the Match Referee at Wimbledon, making sure the whole thing runs properly and standards are maintained. The reason this expense problem has clearly got away from Parliament over roughly the past 12 months since Derek Conway came to light, in no small way is due entirely to Gorballs Mick. With his Labour Party allegiances and partiality, he wasn’t ever going to be capable of doing the job in the first place and should never have been appointed.

Selecting a Speaker

How such a Speaker would be appointed and from what pool of likely candidates, I’m not sure but there is a wide range of possibilities, most certainly as broad as those considered for a Peerage. Perhaps MPs would nominate candidates and produce a short-list of say 4 and then there would be a private hustings before all the MPs followed by a vote.

The selected candidate would be appointed for a fixed term of 4 years and may only serve a maximum of 2 terms (8 years). Every two years the Speaker would face Commons Committee where any issues concerning the running of the Palace of Westminster or the Speakers performance on the job, would be publicly discussed. This cross party committee would have to re-confirm the Speaker or if not launch a new contest for the Speakers post.

Every 4 years and even if the Speaker were to be given a second term, there must be a new contest for the role of Speaker and new candidates fielded against the incumbent. It is important that no complacency creeps in, the incumbent should fight for his/her post.

The Deputy Speaker

Should the same process apply to the Deputy Speaker ?

An interesting problem, I suspect so although from time to time tensions will no doubt arise between the Speaker and his/her Deputy as they did not select them and should not be allowed to do either, ever.

On the death of a Speaker “in Office”, the Deputy would take over as Speaker but with regard to the “decencies”, a new Speaker Contest would be held at the earliest possible moment and the Deputy be prepared to step back to that role unless, elected by the House to Speaker. If so elevated by the House, despite having served as a Deputy Speaker previously, potentially they could still serve two 4 year terms in the main role.

4 Year with a 2 Year Off-set

It would probably make sense that if we moved to such a system, we work a two year off-set on the election of the Speaker and his/her Deputy. What this means is that if both posts are of a 4 year fixed term with only two terms maximum possible in either post, at outset, the Speaker role is for a 4 year term, the Deputy only two initially so that as a one off, the first Deputy can only serve 6 years maximum.

This will lead to a rolling election program for both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of 4 years but offset by 2 years. Although a detail, details are important in these things, the position of a Deputy Speaker and the death of the Speaker in Office.

The key role is Speaker and therefore the 4 year term cycle starts from zero in such a situation, this will impact the Deputy and either their ‘clock’ is reset to decrease or increase their term but they must synchronise on the 2/4 year cycle.