P45s for the relatives?
I started the day at the Hilton Hotel, where the Committee on Standards in Public Life were holding their only public hearing outside London. No local MPs showed up, in part because they were having to deal with a bill on the new Parliamentary Standards Authority.
It must be hell being Peter Robinson's diary secretary - first Gordon Brown wants to see him in London to discuss policing and justice when he has to be in Belfast for the swearing in of his new ministers. Then Sir Christopher Kelly wants to see him in Belfast when he feels he must be in the Commons.
The DUP has pledged to give Sir Christopher's committee its evidence next Tuesday in London. But now Sinn Fein wants them to be in Stormont on that day for an emergency meeting of the Assembly to process the delayed June Monitoring round.
How can anyone be expected to be in two places at once? Sounds like a prima facie argument against double jobbing.
On which topic the PUP's Dawn Purvis, the first witness today, sounded very strong. She is preparing an anti-double jobbing private member's bill which she plans to introduce at Stormont in the autumn. She urged the Committee to recommend a Westminster ban on the dual mandates without delay.
In his Peter Robinson pledged to end the dual mandates by 2015. However Dawn Purvis argued that voluntary action wasn't sufficient as, come election time, each party would end up looking over its shoulder to guess whether its rivals would retire their big hitters or not.
Sinn Fein's Alex Maskey told the Committee his party also wants to end dual mandates. But stressed the fragility of the Assembly as the context for double jobbing. It described Stormont as "a work in progress".
Predictably, the DUP argues that Sinn Fein's MP expenses should be cut, whilst republicans maintain they are necessary to support their constituency work. Although Sir Christopher Kelly was playing his cards close to his chest I detected a great reluctance for the committee to make a ruling on such a sensitive political topic. I predict that they will bounce this ball back to the government.
In their evidence, suggested limiting MPs to the employment of just one family member, whilst the supported an MP's right to hire relatives. However I was struck by the fairly tough line one committee member appeared to take in his questions about family employment, pointing out that the practice had already been ended so far as schools, doctors and dentists are concerned. So could the Committee be about to hand out P45s to the relatives?
I'm 
Comments