Should MPs employ their families?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=511699&in_page_i d=1770

Should MPs be allowed to employ their relatives? In the real world, one is generally given a company secretary. And it is the company who sets their salaries and award them their increases and bonuses.

Why should MPs be any difference? Surely civil servants could fill these support positions if needed. Then their salaries would be governed at the going rate.

Under the present system, a candidate is voted into parliament by the general public. It would then seem that while they hold their seat, they become a little company of their own. It is then that they then appoint their Wife, Husband, Son and Daughter etc into a very nice little earner thank you very much.

Missis needs a little more housekeeping,? no problem dear, how much rise do you need? Fancy 1 or 2 days off? no problem. When your boss is also your better half, and he or she doesn't have to foot the bill the skys the limit, and anything is possible.

[kwicky]

Most companies I have worked for employ 1 secretary between a number of executives. Unless they are of ministerial level MPs can only be classed as junior executives with no staff responsibilities or decision making powers. They should be more accountable.

[4GS]

It's one of the 'perks' of being an MP, most of them employ their spouse as their P.A or secretary, however I think Conway was taking the p1ss employing his son as a 'researcher'

[ludwig]

If they're doing a genuine job and earning the money I don't see why not. The MP gets to employ someone they know well and can trust and they also get to preserve some kind of family contact instead of potentially being away from the spouse all week.

The difficulty is in distinguishing these genuine cases from the snout in trough nepotistic tosspots like the bloke currently in the news. (who bizarreley seems to have been rewarded with a 10 day holiday for his embezzlements rather than being sacked like the rest of us would be).

[moonshadow]

I was absolutely disgusted to read Conwy cut the salary of a very hardworking member of his staff, who is a single mother of three and then started to pay his son's friend a salary for doing s*d all. It will be interesting to see how much he pays back if he does at all.

[LoftyLottie]

Personally AOG I think that all public sector employees should be interviewed by a panel and selected on their merits alone. As in other council/civil service positions applicants should have to declare any relationship to anyone in the organisation.

As much as anything else, it protects the employer.

I think this present situation has shown up how scandalous this age old practice of employing your friends and family is. It is our money they are playing with.

Personally, I think Conway should be brought to trial for his fraudulant use of public money. If he were a mere clerical officer working for the Government this would certainly happen.

[moonshadow]

I totally agree with everything you say LoftyLottie but it's one law for them and another for the rest of us.

[mike1222]

When will the stupid people who vote for these "snouts-in-the-trough" politicians ever learn? They are ALL the same, whatever party, and who puts them in office? Little green men from Mars? No, it's YOU, the gullible idiots who deride one party and then go and vote for the candidate from another one without realising that they are ALL lying, conniving, fiddling parasites no matter which party they are from!

[LoftyLottie]

I tend to agree with you Mike. I suppose there are the odd exceptions that prove the rule. We moan about it but we never ever do anything about it though. Apathy breeds apathy and I am as much to blame as all the others. A revolution is called for!!

[Gromit]

The best person for the job should be employed to be an MPs help. In a lot of cases I am sure that the spouse is the best person. Because the relationship is already established, there will be a lot of economies of time and communication. I can see why an MP would want to do this and I see only benefits from it in terms of getting value for money for the tax payer.

It is the fact that MPs want to keep it secret that arouses suspicion. When they exempted themselves from any Freedom of Information legislation, they made sure that you or I could not demand to know if they employed their spouse. In the Conway case, it was only because it was leaked to a newspaper that we knew about it.

So, in principle, I have nothing against it but greater scrutiny and openness of record keeping should be mandatory.

Maybe if the Secretaries were paid a universally set prescribed amount direct from the House of Commons, and proper timesheet produced as evidence the work had been done, then a repeat of the Conway embezzlement can be avoided.

[jno]

harsh words from The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/colum nists/alice_miles/article3273119.ece

Amont the points made are that jobs like this at the heart of power are sought after and therefore should all the more be open to competition rather than nepotism. Especially as the junior Conways seemed to spend all their time partying.

[ludwig]

The Times article makes a good point - when people can be jailed for benefit fraud on a much smaller scale, why haven't these thieves been arrested?

[persianlady]

It is deception, fraud, outright fraud. And I will bet it is only the tip of the iceberg.Thid practice of being able to employ family funded by the taxpayer must stop. At the very least it should be properly scrutinized.
These "honourable gentlemen" are anything but, they are not to be trusted.People who are elected to public office must be beyond reproach.

[anotheoldgit]

I think LoftyLottie has got it about right, and I fully agree.

I totally disagree with the pratice of employing one's relatives, because even the most trustworthy MP(and these are very few on the ground) would obviously tend to show favoritism towards their relatives.

But if things are not allowed to change (and I think this will be the case). Then I think something as suggested below by Gromit would be about right, except for the method of the House of Commons setting their pay. We have enough now of the MPs setting their own pay.

Maybe if the Secretaries were paid a universally set prescribed amount direct from the House of Commons, and proper timesheet produced as evidence the work had been done, then a repeat of the Conway embezzlement can be avoided.

mike1222.
We must use our right to vote. But once again I say don't vote for this present lot that are in Parliament at the moment (all parties). Then we will get a complete new batch in, doing away with the present old boys school system.

Then if they do not listen to the people who employ them, we can put another new lot in. They will soon begin to get the message, that they are servants to the electorate, not the other way round.

[mike1222]

AOG, You can use your vote to help put these parasites into positions of power, but personally, I am disenfranchised because my principles just will not allow me to vote for a liar. Ask yourself who is to blame for allowing these people into office, the likes of you or the likes of me?