Â鶹Éç

« Previous | Main | Next »

The Stormont family business

Post categories:

William Crawley | 19:25 UK time, Thursday, 21 February 2008

_42721945_ianandjnr203.jpgThe resignation from the Northern Ireland Executive of Ian Paisley Jr. has done nothing to end public speculation about financial propriety at Stormont. The First Minister is now facing the possibility of an investigation by John Lyon, the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, who is looking into a complaint about Dr Paisley's employment of his son as his Westminster researcher at a cost of about £10,000 per year. The DUP has now confirmed that its MLAs employ 136 staff in constituency offices, of whom 26 are relatives of MLAs.

We learned today, courtesy of a lot of digging by our Investigations Correspondent Mike McKimm, that Gregory Campbell MP is renting an Assembly constituency office in Coleraine from his wife at a cost of more than £12,000 per year to the Assembly. Mr Campbell's financial arrangement with his wife is absolutely legal -- even though such an arrangement is prohibited at Westminster -- and he has been very open about his finances. It appears that he is not alone in renting offices from a family members; Mike McKimm is currently looking into other MLAs' rental arrangements.

All of which presents the Assembly with a significant challenge in terms of public accountability and the public's perceptions. Should the Assembly introduce new rules to respond to these kinds of investigations? According the current rules, an MLA is quite entitled to place his spouse and children on the Assembly payroll, along with his nephews and nieces, while renting offices from his father or mother. All of this would be entirely legal. But is this kind of political family business tenable any further in the judgment of most of the public?

One can understand why politicians in Northern Ireland would wish to employ trusted family members -- particularly in the period of the Troubles when many politicians faced threats to their personal safety. Some MLAs may still face security risks. But the politics of Northern Ireland have changed dramatically; and with those changes come new expectations of accountability and transparency. Perhaps the Assembly should consider the introduction of two new rules:

1. No MLA may rent office space from a family member or a spouse's family member.
2. MLAs must advertise all staff positions and appoint on the basis of merit. Family members would be eligible for employment on the same basis as other applicants.

Would these rules bring greater transparency and accountability to the Northern Ireland Assembly? Are there other rules you would like to see introduced?

UPDATE:

You've been busy already. Here are some of your suggested new Assembly Rules:

* No MLA may hold a second political job (e.g., local councillor, MP, MEP) while sitting as an MLA.

* Banning MLAs from hiring their sons and daughters, etc., as researchers (not just office staff in constituency clinics).

* All MLAs be required to provide receipts for every item they wish to claim as an expense.

* Fair employment legislation should apply to party political employees just as it does to the rest of the employed world


Comments

  • 1.
  • At 08:33 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Henry M ... wrote:

I agree with the two rules you suggest here Will. I would add another rule to this list:

No MLA may hold a second political job (e.g., local councillor, MP, MEP) while sitting as an MLA.

  • 2.
  • At 08:49 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Gareth (LISBURN) wrote:

I would make a rule banning MLAs from hiring their sons and daughters, etc., as researchers (not just office staff in constituency clinics).

  • 3.
  • At 08:59 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • kel wrote:

NEW RULES PROPOSALS:

I've heard that MLAs are not required to give receipts for any expenses less than 250 pounds. This is amazing if it's true. I propose this rule:

All MLAs be required to provide receipts for every item they wish to claim as an expense.

This is the rule that applies to the rest of us when we want to claim tax back. Why shouldn't it apply to politicians?

  • 4.
  • At 09:27 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Simon wrote:

Whilst no MLAa (Paisley Jnr included) have done anything illegal, it might be worth noting that being legal is not necessarily synonymous with being ethical.

  • 5.
  • At 09:28 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Speedy-Oh! wrote:

I've been amazed by the DUP in all of this. After years of lecturing this country on the Bible and family values and the dangers of this that and the-other, now we find out that they are lining their pockets.

I would add another rule:

The fair employment legislation should apply to party political employees just as it does to the rest of the employed world. I bet there are few catholics employed by the DUP and few Protestants employed by SF.

If they are political parties and not churches they have nothing to fear!

  • 6.
  • At 10:39 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • james kennedy wrote:

I havent read before that MLAs are allowed to claim up to 250 pounds expenses without a receipt. Is that true?? That's crazy.

  • 7.
  • At 11:37 PM on 21 Feb 2008,
  • Jen Erik wrote:

I'd like some way of finding out who contibutes to the parties.

I remember trying to find out if Mr Sweeny had contributed to the DUP before the Paisley connection was made public - just because of the attitude of local DUP councillors towards a particular planning application - and that information didn't seem to be available.

Could just be that the councillors felt the application had merit, but as a member of the public, I'd have liked to be able to know that there was no conflict of interest.

  • 8.
  • At 03:12 PM on 22 Feb 2008,
  • henry grant lee wrote:

Michael, fair employment legislation in this case would mean that parties cannot exclude a condidate because of that candidate's religion. They are entirely within their rights to exclude on the basis of inconsistent political commitments. The rules permit an organisation like a church to limit appointments to those candidates in sympathy with the aims and ethos of the organisation. Whether I am a catholic or protestant should be irrelevant to any consideration of my application to work for either SF or the DUP. After all, both parties have members from both faiths. Right/

As for Rule (2) in Will's post, I don't see your problem with that. Many MLAs are already saying this rule is their personal practice. Margaret Ritchie says she advertises and appoints on the basis of merit alone. What's wrong with that rule?

  • 9.
  • At 08:38 PM on 22 Feb 2008,
  • wrote:

I also agree with the two rules you suggested Will here are a few more things I think should apply.
•I would say that they should not be allowed to appoint any family members including cousins, aunts and uncles ect as researchers, office staff etc.
•All the jobs should be advertised and the best person should be chosen on merit.
•It may also be a good idea that everyone employed by MLAs should be verified by a special committee at Stormont to make sure the rules (if they are to be changed) are being upheld.

•They should not be allowed to rent offices from family members.

•MLAs should hold only one job.

  • 10.
  • At 09:08 PM on 22 Feb 2008,
  • wrote:

What about Peter Hain’s 80 year old mother who is on his payroll as a part-time secretary.

  • 11.
  • At 04:21 PM on 25 Feb 2008,
  • sjr wrote:

how about Mla's staff numbers to be restricted and recruited through the department of finance and personnel using civil service pay scales, job descriptions, and employment standards

and no expenses to be paid where there is a conflict of interest (i.e. renting property of family/friends etc but also getting their drinking buddy etc to print leaflets for them would be covered)

time sheets to be completed and prove relevance of all claims submitted

its time the excuse of "its legal" stopped being used, I expect a devolved parliament to lead on standards not follow,

I'd also expand the no other political job to add no other job at all, as they are receiving a full time salary they should be available full time, directorships of other bodies of public influence could/should be included here too

This post is closed to new comments.

Â鶹Éç iD

Â鶹Éç navigation

Â鶹Éç © 2014 The Â鶹Éç is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.