ELIZABETH Filkin, the controversial parliamentary standards commissioner who led the investigation into ministers John Reid and Keith Vaz, has been effectively sacked.
The move prompted immediate condemnation last night. Martin Bell, the former independent MP, who was a member of the Commons standards and privileges committee, said he was concerned over the decision not to offer her a second term.
''I am deeply disappointed. I think it sends a very dispiriting signal about parliament's willingness to police itself thoroughly,'' he said.
''I think a lot of senior MPs were not happy with her thoroughness, but that is the whole point of having an independent commissioner.
''I think she has been an outstanding public servant and has done a magnificent job, and she should have been offered a second term.''
Peter Bottomley, Tory MP for Worthing West and a member of the committee, accused ''shadowy figures'' of trying to prevent Mrs Filkin from further embarrassing the government.
However, the senior Liberal Democrat MP Archy Kirkwood, representing the House of Commons commission, said there would be an open competition to fill the post once her current tenure as parliamentary commissioner for standards comes to an end in February.
Mrs Filkin will be allowed to reapply for the position.
The outspoken commissioner ruffled feathers among some MPs with her rigorous investigations into complaints made against them, most notably her long-running inquiry into Mr Vaz, the former minister for Europe, which embarrassed the government in the run-up to the last general election.
In December 2000, Mrs Filkin's independence was called into question when the standards and privileges committee published a report clearing Dr John Reid, then Scottish secretary, and John Maxton, Glasgow Cathcart MP, of breaching parliamentary rules, despite Ms Filkin upholding complaints against them.
MPs insisted her ''modus operandi'' had to be considered concluding that ''the evidence . . . does not reach the standard we require to uphold the complaint''.
However, Mr Bottomley insisted last night that Mrs Filkin had done a good job and - under the guidance for senior appointments drawn up by Lord Nolan - should have been offered a second term.
''My belief is that she has done the job perfectly impartially and fairly and she should have been invited to accept a second term,'' he said.
''I think that some people in senior positions clearly don't like the results of her work.
''The House of Commons should assert itself and get these shadowy figures to either say openly what the problem is or they should let the House of Commons do the right thing and invite her to consider accepting a second term.''
Meanwhile, John Prescott yesterday tried to defend the decision not to sack ministerial adviser Jo Moore amid fresh claims that she broke the spin doctors' code of conduct.
Ms Moore - who called September 11 a ''good day to bury bad news'' - has been accused of trying to involve a government press officer in a smear campaign against London Transport supremo Bob Kiley.
Mr Evans moved from his post as director of communications in the transport department following a reported clash over the incident.
The department has refused to discuss the allegations. However, it emerged yesterday that Whitehall sources had told Dr Tony Wright, Labour chair of the powerful watchdog public administration committee, that she did break the code of conduct separating the activity of political advisers and civil servants.
Dr Wright asked Mr Prescott, the deputy prime minister, why the claims had not been investigated.
He told Mr Prescott: ''I don't know what went on, but my information from inside the civil service is this did happen and so something needs to be done about it.''
Those sentiments were echoed by several MPs on the committee.
Mr Prescott insisted anonymous claims in the media could not be investigated and an official complaint must be made.
He told Dr Wright: ''I would be grateful for any information you could give me.''
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