Political storm in Britain, as speaker resigns

The Parliament expenses scandal claims its first high-profile victim.

Michael GoldfarbMay 19, 2009 10:28Updated May 30, 2010 11:55

Britain's Houses of Parliament, May 18, 2009. (Stephen Hird/Reuters)

LONDON — The scandal of British members of Parliament fiddling with their expenses started almost two weeks ago as a joke, but has become more serious by the day. This afternoon, it claimed its first high-profile victim as the speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, resigned.

Standing on the speaker's platform, in front of the green leather chair from which he tries to keep order, the Labour MP from Glasgow said, "Since I first came to this House 30 years ago I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united. In order that unity can be maintained I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday 21st June. This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday 22nd of June. That is all I have to say on this matter."

He then called on the foreign secretary, David Miliband, for the next order of business, Foreign Office question time. It was a terse way to mark an important moment in history: This was the first time in three centuries that a speaker has been forced out of the position.

Martin's end was foretold overnight after a disastrous statement to Parliament yesterday about his role in the scandal.

In the British system, the speaker of the House is chosen by a vote of all members of Parliament. It is an impartial position, free of party demands. In a place as partisan as the House of Commons, the speaker faces a difficult task. Each time a new speaker is elected, he goes through the ritual of having to be dragged to the speaker's chair. It is a position in which you're obligated to anger even your closest friends in the name of fairness.

The speaker is the chief referee of the day's debates and is also in charge of parliamentary standards. It was in this latter role that Martin became a lightning rod for public anger over the expenses scandal. He had blocked attempts by journalists under Britain's Freedom of Information laws for public disclosure of parliamentarian's expenses, taking journalists to court to prevent the information from becoming public. Once his attempt to prevent publication was rebuffed by Britain's High Court, it was only a matter of time before the more egregious expense reports became public.