Family matters, part two

I wrote a piece for today's Herald about Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick, who has decided to play no role in a review of the Parliament's ban on MSPs employing their relatives. This is because she currently employs her son.

 Here is an extended version of the article.

EXCLUSIVE

By Paul Hutcheon

HOLYROOD’s presiding officer is to absent herself from a review of the ban on MSPs employing their relatives over a potential conflict of interest.

Tricia Marwick will play no part in the exercise due to her employing her son Steven as a constituency assistant.

In response to public concern, MSPs voted in 2010 to stop themselves hiring close family members at taxpayers’ expense.

The curb applied to new hires and also meant existing employees would have to find alternative employment by mid-2015.

This date was chosen as it fell months after the Parliament election was scheduled to take place.

However, the date of the Parliament poll has since been put back a year.

As revealed by the Herald, Holyrood’s governing corporate body is now “likely” to revisit the timing of the family ban in light of the election decision.

Supporters of a change believe waiting until after 2016 will result in a fall in the number of MSPS who employ relatives, and reduce the chance of a legal challenge.

However, senior Holyrood figures fear a review could lead to the reversal of the ban in its entirety, as Westminster still allows MPs to employ one family member.

When a possible review was discussed at the corporate body earlier this month, Marwick, who chairs the body, excused herself from the discussion.

She will also absent herself when the matter comes back to the corporate body later this year.

According to the latest parliamentary register, Steven Marwick is listed as having worked part-time for his mother for a period until April 2009, and full-time thereafter.

Twelve MSPs are listed as employing a close family member, including the SNP’s Stewart Maxwell, whose wife is registered as a part-time researcher, and Labour MSP Michael McMahon, whose spouse is a parliamentary assistant.

 John Wilson, an SNP MSP, said:

“I welcome the Presiding Officer’s decision to absent herself from any deliberations on this matter, which followed a review by Sir Neil McIntosh.

“However, I trust that the consideration of this issue will take on board the strength of public feeling on the matter of MSPs employing their relatives.”

A Scottish Parliament spokesman said:

“At last week’s SPCB meeting, the Presiding Officer absented herself from a brief, informal discussion on the employment of family members. 

“The Presiding Officer will again absent herself from any future discussions or decisions on the matter.”

A high energy return

GORDON Brown’s speech last week at the launch of the United With Labour campaign in Glasgow contained few surprises.

The former Prime Minister attacked nationalism, provided his usual historical sweep of what he regarded as Labour achievements in government, and said the key benefit of the UK was its ability to “pool and share” resources.

Brown also attacked the SNP from the Left by claiming the Nationalists did not back many current Labour policies.

Warming to his theme, he said the SNP did not support a tax on bankers' bonuses, extra council bands for the most expensive properties, or the restoration of the 50p rate of income tax.

However, as part of his his pitch about the SNP not supporting Labour policies, he said:

“They won’t do a windfall tax on the energy companies.”

This is true. The SNP has not endorsed a tax on the excess profits of the Big Six, but nor has Labour.

Ed Miliband’s policy is to impose a gas and electricity price freeze for the first twenty months of a Labour Government, but no futher.

It seems odd for Brown to attack the SNP for not backing a policy his own party has yet to embrace.

But maybe that is the point. Chuka Umunna, Labour’s shadow business secretary, said of a windfall tax last year:

"These are all things that are being looked at in the context of Labour's policy review and I'm not in a position to make announcements on that right now.”

Brown's comments can be read two ways: either he believes a windfall tax on Big Six profits is a good idea; or he has inadvertently confirmed what Labour is considering for its 2015 general election manifesto.

The price freeze delivered Miliband’s best moment as leader. Perhaps Labour is returning to the same ground for a pre-election shot in the arm.

Family matters

I revealed in yesterday’s Herald that Holyrood was gearing up to revise its ban on MSPs hiring their relatives at public expense. It’s a story requiring more explanation.

Following widespread public criticism of the practice, a 2009 review of Holyrood expenses by Sir Neil McIntosh backed the prohibition. MSPs, around two dozen of whom were employing family members, held their noses and approved the recommendation.

Twelve MSPs still employ relatives, according to the publicly-available register, including Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick.

In practice, the ban meant no new hires and, crucially, existing relatives would have to find new employment by the middle of the next year.

Simple? Not quite. MSPs picked mid-2015 as it fell after the next Holyrood election. The thinking was that the number of MSPs employing relatives would fall substantially and the prospect of a feared legal challenge by a staff member would diminish.

However, the UK and Scottish Parliaments then agreed to put back the Holyrood poll to May 2016.

This had led to “informal discussions” inside the corridors of power at Holyrood - in other words, the Corporate Body – about delaying the ban until 2016. Formal consideration will take place later this year.

At face value, such a review may simply give the existing relatives a year’s grace. However, other sources worry that a review could be a Trojan horse for re-thinking the entire ban.

MPs can still employ a maximum of one family member, while the Welsh Assembly backed away from a ban. A cynic should not struggle to imagine the arguments some MSPs might make.

Back to the future

DAVID Cameron’s future as Prime Minister following a No vote has understandably generated a bit of chatter.
According to Benedict Brogan at the Telegraph, Cameron would have to quit if Scotland votes Yes in September. If the PM loses part of his Kingdom, the argument runs, he must also lose his job.
The future of the First Minister hasn’t generated the same amount of speculation, despite challenging poll numbers suggesting this may be an issue in just over three months.
I had a chat with a Scottish Government source - an individual who knows Alex Salmond’s mind well - who outlined two scenarios.
My insider thought defeat on September 18th would result in the FM’s speedy departure, with the Ryder Cup at Gleneagles six days after the referendum probably being his last official engagement. Given the FM’s love of this particular event, this could be a sore one for the taxpayer.
The more intriguing scuttlebutt is what could happen in the event of a Yes vote. I’m told the FM is unlikely to lead the SNP into the 2016 Holyrood election – a role earmarked for Nicola Sturgeon.
The source said Salmond could hand over the baton of leadership months after the plebiscite and front the post-referendum negotiations with Westminster, perhaps as a big-beast Minister for the Constitution.
It’s a straw in the wind, but worth noting that such possibilities are being discussed.
Who would Labour’s First Ministerial candidate be in the 2016 election? Perhaps that’s one for another blog.