A shoddy, insulting way to silence the MPs' watchdog

Click here for more Evening Standard columnists

Three years ago, Sir Gordon Downey, the first ever Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, decided to retire, despite attempts to make him stay on. The man appointed to clean up Parliament had reached the age of 70. His successor Elizabeth Filkin is younger and at least as competent. Unlike her predecessor, she has not been offered re-appointment.

She was told that if she wanted to accept a cut from four to three days a week and a 25 per cent pay cut she could jump to a shortlist alongside other applicants from inside and outside Parliament. The choice might be made around the time her initial three year contract ends next February.

The public and Parliament should object strongly to this shabby treatment. The reasons for insulting and discouraging this competent, independent and fair investigator may include mistakes, misunderstanding and plain malice, not by her but by senior MPs.

The mistakes include the wrong belief that advertising the post at three days was going back to the Sir Gordon Downey years. He actually did four. It has taken weeks to correct that mistake.

The misunderstandings include an ignorance shared by Robin Cook, senior member of the House of Commons Commission and Leader of the House of Commons, of the procedures laid down in the rules for Public Appointments. Parliament expects others to obey the rules. I fear we neither met those rules nor abided by our own procedures. We have not agreed to give the Commissioner even the office resources that staff and workload inspections say are necessary.

The suspicion of malice comes after the complaints stopped being against prominent Tories like Neil Hamilton and Teresa Gorman and moved to senior Labour friends of the Prime Minister. It was when Peter Mandelson's housing and borrowing arrangements were investigated, when John Prescott's request to his union landlord for permission to let another part of the family use their flat, and when senior Scottish Labour MPs failed to cooperate fully and quickly that the whispering started.

One case involving a former Minister runs on. Others into Geoffrey Robinson's business interests and the inability of the Labour organisation in Scotland and London to be able to clear up questions seemed to be associated with blatant blackguarding of Elizabeth Filkin. That was the time for the House authorities to stand beside and behind their intrepid fair investigator. They did not.

The Prime Minister managed to tell the BBC Today programme that one of his ministerial colleagues had been cleared on a complaint when that claim was known to be wrong. In the heat of an important pre-election interview, Tony Blair can make a mistake just as an MP can get wrong a requirement to register or to declare an interest. What matters is cooperating in putting things right.

The House has a choice. Either it can support a motion tabled by myself and Labour MP David Winnick "That this House has confidence in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and invites Elizabeth Filkin to accept reappointment on the terms of the initial contract working four days a week."

Or it must face the inquiry now announced by Sir Nigel Wicks, successor in Lord Nolan's position as chairman of the Commission on Standards in Public Life, into the advertising of Elizabeth Filkin's job. That would be a mechanical and predictable affair and would make the kind of mess that diminishes the Commons as a whole.

MPs have the most to gain from the Commissioner's work. A justified complaint against me would allow me to apologise and to put right my failure. Saying "I am sorry. I made a mistake" is a good way to end a problem. Any complaint made without evidence would be dismissed by the Standards Commissioner.

I have served on that committee for about five years and watched the work of Elizabeth Filkin and of Sir Gordon Downey. Each was fair. Each was praised even by MPs who had a complaint substantiated and upheld. Assuming Elizabeth Filkin is not being attacked because MPs prefer to be invigilated by a man rather than by a woman, those briefing against her should come into the open.

Tam Dalyell, now Father of the House, has said he believes she is somehow to blame for the media attention given to complaints. I do not remember similar objections to the saturation coverage of the allegations by Harrods's boss Mohamed Fayed.

It is silly to think the Commissioner's office should answer "The information is secret" to an enquiry as to whether a complaint has been received.

It has been said that trivial or tit-for-tat complaints are investigated too carefully. I have seen no evidence of that. The value of William Hague's use of a private gym and Tony Blair's family visit to Silverstone may have been above the limits, but no one thought the worse of them for rectifying their Register entries.

Nine of every ten possible complaints put to the Commissioner are not taken forward. Every one of her conclusions is considered by the Standards Committee of MPs who can accept her conclusions in cases that are investigated or disagree with her or add their own views. That is a healthy open system.

What is unhealthy is the growing habit of obstruction, delay and occasional flat refusal to cooperate. It is not appropriate for lawyers to tell MPs that they need not answer questions because their answers might be incriminating. Each of us has the duty to answer questions fully and helpfully.

If the shoddy attempt to oust the Commissioner is successful, I see no reason to stay on the Standards Committee when she goes. She may not need my protection. The reputation of the House of Commons does. Elizabeth Filkin has described it as Britain's most important institution. Every MP should treat it with respect and insist on a vote to keep the Commissioner whose role has been to protect it.

Peter Bottomley is MP for Worthing West.