Michael Martin, the Commons Speaker, was last night accused of adopting the "airs and graces of the ancien regime" after it emerged he spent almost £22,000 of taxpayers' money on libel lawyers to counter negative press reports.
The services of top City lawyers Carter-Ruck during June, July and August came to £21,516 and followed a string of articles questioning his impartiality and conduct.
Erroneously dubbed "Gorbals Mick", Mr Martin, 62, the MP for Glasgow North East, has fallen foul of certain sections of the press, who have highlighted his background as a working-class, former sheet-metal worker from Anderston in Glasgow, who now earns £136,677 a year and lives in a palatial apartment by the Thames.
By contrast, the Speaker's friends point out that coming from a humble background to fill such an august post shows the opportunities open to people in 21st-century Britain.
In 2002, two years after becoming Speaker, Mr Martin retaliated against what his friends branded the "snobbery" of his critics, saying their barbs were "an attack on every working-class person from Clydeside".
However, yesterday the TaxPayers' Alliance accused Mr Martin of treating the public with contempt and adopting "the airs and graces of the ancien regime" over his legal bill. Matthew Elliott, chief executive, said: "By using our money to hire the best media law firm to defend himself against critics and to soothe his thin skin, he's showing contempt towards taxpayers."
He added: "If he wants to hire flunkies, he should pay for them himself."
The Speaker has come in for repeated criticism for his rulings and the exemption of his wife, Mary, from security checks at the Palace of Westminster.
He was also previously attacked for trying to block details of MPs' £5m-a-year travel expenses being published under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. The House of Commons Commission, chaired by Mr Martin, spent £17,300 on an unsuccessful bid to block the FOI request.
Certain parliamentary writers have consistently accused the Speaker of favouring his erstwhile Labour colleagues. On one occasion, Mr Martin was accused of bias when he applauded a government decision on asylum policy. In his defence, the MP argued the issue was particularly topical in his Scottish constituency.
In November 2006, the Speaker caused consternation on the Tory benches by ruling a question from David Cameron out of order when he challenged ex-PM Tony Blair over the future leadership of the Labour Party.
The legal expenses emerged after Nick Harvey, the MPs' representative on the commission, disclosed the additional bills.
In a statement he said: "During July and August, the House administration endorsed the Speaker's use of the firm Carter-Ruck to counteract a series of articles which questioned the impartiality of the Speaker. The cost of this advice was £18,696.06."
A spokesman for Mr Martin confirmed the money would come from public funds as would an earlier £2820 bill for work conducted in June.
Norman Baker, LibDem MP for Lewes in Sussex, said: "It appears Carter-Ruck has effectively been used to issue press releases irrespective of the cost to the taxpayer."
A spokesman for Mr Martin declined to comment.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article