Questions for the Paisleys
Following the report on the Paisleys' renting of their constituency office, there remain a few unanswered questions.
Why has the Standards and Privileges Committee accepted that the beneficiary of the property being bought by public money was to be the DUP?
The sole director of Sarcon 250 (the company which has taken out the mortgage on the premises) was James Currie, Ian Paisley jnr’s father-in-law.
What is going to happen when the mortgage is fully paid up?
Will Mr Currie then hand the property over to the DUP and the taxpayer, continue to pay £52,000 per annum rent to the DUP, or will he continue to receive rent by virtue of a company of which he is sole director?
Another concern is the matter of who advised the Paisleys regarding the appropriate rent for the property.
The committee has accepted that the sum was excessive. Was the advisor independent and were other advisors consulted?
It's time the Paisleys came out and explained the entire background to this matter.
The default excuse that it was not against the rules will not wash.
After all, there don't appear to be any rules!
People have a right to know if elected representatives are acting in the public interest and not in the interests of families or party.