MPs off the hook - again!

[eric]

I have been listening to the current debate relating to the final report on MP's expenses and it seems to me that they are getting off far too lightly.

1. Although wives and family members can no longer be employed by an MP, there shall be no redundancies. Why? The rest of us have to put up with redundancies. and there is no reason why MP's staff should have the protection that the rest of the populace don't have.

2. It will no longer be possible to claim for mortgage payments on second homes but this will be "phased in over 5 years". Again, why?

The gravy train has finally stopped and these greedy buggers should all get off now!

Eric

[poirot]

1. Although wives and family members can no longer be employed by an MP, there shall be no redundancies. Why? The rest of us have to put up with redundancies. and there is no reason why MP's staff should have the protection that the rest of the populace don't have

2. It will no longer be possible to claim for mortgage payments on second homes but this will be "phased in over 5 years". Again, why?

Possible theory #1

New rules can't be put into place overnight because it contravenes employment law or sumzing comme ca?

[eric]

Oct 28, 2009 12:46:20 GMT @poirot said:

1. Although wives and family members can no longer be employed by an MP, there shall be no redundancies. Why? The rest of us have to put up with redundancies. and there is no reason why MP's staff should have the protection that the rest of the populace don't have

2. It will no longer be possible to claim for mortgage payments on second homes but this will be "phased in over 5 years". Again, why?

Possible theory #1

New rules can't be put into place overnight because it contravenes employment law or sumzing comme ca?

Don't think so. My son was made redundant in March - just like that!

Eric

[poirot]

^{Sorry to hear that, Eric.}



As far as I can see, Forced (ie not voluntary) Redundancies require that the job no longer exists. If another person is hired for the job then the redundancy is not legal, it would in fact be a sacking. The MP's spouses are presumably doing a job that will still exist. Theoretically. Perhaps. Etc.

Redundancy means that the job no longer exists. If a direct replacement is hired for the employee then it is not a reasonable case of redundancy. However, if an employee is made redundant as part of a need to reduce the workforce, and an existing employee moves into that job, that is still redundancy; as long as no vacancy or opening exists for the redundant job.

^{googled source}

[Pink Betty]

i presume some of MPs will get around this by a bit of swinging.....car key on the table and swop spousal secretaries...

[sandywinder]

So no change then? It could actually lead to the breakdown of some marriages and MPs using mistresses (or misters) to do the job.