FactCheck: the Michael Martin affair

Last Modified: 25 Feb 2008
By: Channel 4 News

Has the Speaker broken any rules?

Michael Martin's face adorns the introduction of the Commons' expenses bible, the Green Book.

His foreword says members must ensure "their use of allowances is above reproach".

But after claims of inappropriate use of air miles, taxi expenses and living allowances - it is the speaker himself who finds himself in the dock.

FactCheck looks at Martin's bills, to work out whether he's actually broken any rules.

Q: Martin used the air miles clocked up while flying business-class between London and Scotland on parliamentary duties to fund flights for seven of his relatives.

The flights cost more than £3,000 - an amount that could have been used to reduce the Speaker's annual £10,000 bill. But did he break the rules?

A: There's nothing in the Green Book about air miles. The only guidance comes from the House of Commons Member's Estimate Committee, which "advises" members to use air miles to reduce the cost of their usual taxpayer funded trips, or donate them to charity.

The Green Book codifies the expenses rules - officially resolved by parliament - so if they are broken a complaint can be lodged with the parliamentary commissioner for standards.

But if, as in this case, it's just "advice", then no complaint can be formally registered.

So on this score Martin should be safe.

The Green Book: Speaker's Introduction

The Green Book: Speaker's Introduction

In July 2006 Michael Martin penned the introduction to 'The Green Book', the parliamentarian's guide to salaries, allowances and pensions.

In it he writes: "Members themselves are responsible for ensuring that their use of allowances is above reproach. They should seek advice in cases of doubt and read the Green Book with care."

Taken from The Green Book, July 2006 (PDF)

Q: Martin's wife Mary claimed £4,000 in taxi costs for trips in central London. Did that break the rules?

A: Originally, journalists were told that Mrs Martin was accompanied on the trips by an employee from the Speaker's office - but it was later revealed Mrs Martin had actually been joined by housekeeper Gloria Hawkes.

It also emerged the trips were to buy food for "informal" occasions.

Under the Green Book rules, claims involving a staff member could have been valid under the Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP).

It would have fallen under the extended travel section, which shows that such claims are permitted providing they were: "Wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred on Parliamentary business."

But the fact it was Mary Martin and the housekeeper queers the waters somewhat...

Under the travel entitlement rules, wives are allowed up to 30 trips a year between London and the constituency, or the MP's main home.

This was clearly not the case, as the Martin's main home is registered in Scotland. His London pad is not the MP's main home.

The excuse that trips were to buy food for "informal occasions" would not hold water either, as the IEP specifically rules out claims linked to "hospitality and entertainment".

It also says travel on "personal matters" is not allowable.

Given the fact the Green Book continually states that all claims must be "above reproach", FactCheck thinks Martin might have some trouble justifying these claims to the parliamentary commissioner.

Which perhaps explains why someone initially tried to 'place' an official in the controversial cab trips...

Q: Martin claims £17,000 a year in costs for staying in London. Is that in line with the rules?

A: The Green Book details living cost payments known as the Additional Cost Allowance (ACA), which are designed to reimburse members for staying away from their main residence.

Martin's main home is in Glasgow.

The Speaker has faced claims in recent days that he has been claiming the cash despite the fact he owns the second home outright, and has a grace-and-favour residence in Westminster.

If he does own the property outright he may well be in breach of the rules, which state that the ACA should not be used to lease accommodation from "yourself or a family member".

Again, Martin will find himself in hot water with the standards watchdog if he does own that second home outright.

Your view

You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment.

Email factcheck@channel4.com

FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner. Readers should direct their enquiries to the editor at the email address above.