THE Speaker Michael Martin was under further pressure last night as a Labour MP declared that he should quit over his handling of the Damian Green leak controversy.
Backbencher Bob Marshall-Andrews said he no longer had any confidence in Martin, following the controversy that exploded two weeks ago when police raided the House of Parliament offices of Green, the Conservative immigration spokesman.
The rai
d followed an inquiry by police into a series of leaks from within the Home Office which had been passed to the Tory MP.
Marshall-Andrews became the first Labour MP to speak out against Martin yesterday, saying the Speaker had been guilty of "a deplorable breach of his duties to the house".
MPs of all parties are furious that the House Authorities, led by Martin, allowed the police to search Green's offices, claiming he should have prevented them from doing so.
Martin's role in the affair is now coming under further scrutiny after he sought to shift the blame on to the parliament's Serjeant at Arms, Jill Pay, claiming it was she who had allowed police in.
One senior parliamentary figure last night accused Martin of "dropping her in it". Parliamentary sources also say Martin is entirely wrong to shift responsibility onto Pay, pointing out that it is now the Speaker – and not the Serjeant at Arms – who has the authority for the House estate.
That change was enacted by Martin himself earlier this year when the role of the Serjeant at Arms was downgraded, leaving her only with control over the security of the House of Commons chamber.
Gordon Brown last week backed Martin after two Labour ministers had failed to offer their fulsome support. Yesterday, Marshall-Andrews joined two Tory MPs who are also calling on the Speaker to quit.
"I do not think he can continue," he said.
Marshall-Andrews said that Martin had been wrong to attempt to shift the responsibility to Pay.
He said: "She told the Speaker throughout. It is the Speaker's responsibility. One of the worst things about this was the nature of the statement that he made, which was a straightforward passing of his responsibilities to the Serjeant at Arms.
"He knew what was happening and he should have taken action to stop it. In those circumstances, the confidence of the House goes and without the confidence of the House he cannot do his job."
Of the police raid on Green, Marshall-Andrews said: "There is no greater attack than raiding the office and removing files at the behest and with the consent of the Speaker. And that is, in a very real sense… an outrage."
Green was arrested two weeks ago and held for nine hours by the Metropolitan Police, while his homes and offices were searched, as part of an inquiry into allegations of leaks from the Home Office.
Many MPs are now questioning whether the Speaker is doing enough to protect their rights and guard Parliament's ability to hold the Government to account.
Former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said Martin was in "a very uncomfortable position", but he said he believed Martin would not step down. However, he called for a "proper inquiry" into the events leading up to the raid on Green's office.
Martin's version of events is also being disputed by Scotland Yard.
The Speaker claimed last week that the police had not explained to the Serjeant at Arms, as they should have done, that she was not obliged to consent to the search – or that a warrant should have been insisted upon.
But Scotland Yard now insists its officers did make it clear they could not search an MP's office without permission.
The former Father of the House, Tam Dalyell, last night hit back against Marshall-Andrews. "I am critical of the baying mob who are after the Speaker's blood," he said.
Meanwhile, shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said that the junior civil servant at the centre of the Home Office leaks inquiry should be sacked if he had "done the leaking".
Grieve said the Home Office was entitled to sack the official concerned – Chris Galley – if he was responsible for the leaks.
"If he's done the leaking, it's quite clear the department has a right to dismiss him. Of course it does. It's a breakdown of trust. He's made a choice, and he will have to live by that choice," he said.
