Should family members be banned altogether?

The repercussions of the Conway affair continue.

Now MPs will be expected to register their employment of family members. Obviously that is a step forward. But I am not clear that it is enough.

Between the relatives who work full tilt for an MP and (I think pretty rare) complete scams of the Conway variety is a vast middle ground. These are relatives working on constituency correspondence for varying amounts of money, amounts that may or may not be appropriate given the work they do.

But how do you decide what is appropriate? The correct amount would vary depending on the quality of the staff and the other avenues of employment open to them.

This is a difficult judgment at the best of times, but entirely impossible when a vast conflict of interest is involved.

So I see no alternative but to cease to allow MPs to employ relatives from the public purse. It may be that a transitional period is agreed but, over time, the current regime surely can't continue.

MPs will not like this and I understand why. The attitude most people have to politicians - that they are lucky to be paid anything - is absurd and often quite unpleasant.

But MPs must see that public opinion will insist on this change - it's only a matter of time. They may as well do it themselves.

Comments

[John Wood]

Of course this practice should be stopped. It is purely and simply nepotism.

[Lee Watts]

The practice of employing one's family members to do odd jobs at the public's expense is an artifact of a bygone age when we completely trusted our politicians. When one compares this practice with the way public corporations put restrictions on family members even working besides each other in the same department, (much less being in a supervisory role with no obligation to document performance) one must come to the conclusion that the practice should end. It is impossible to argue that it serves anyone's interest but the politician's.

[Lisa]

I think they should let MPs employ family members but if, and only if, the family member was the most suitable candidate for job and they went through the appropriate recruitment procedure. Also, pay should be appropriate for the position. I met someone who works as a researcher for an MP full time (not a family member), who is paid only about £9,000 per year for a full time and demanding position(Oxbridge Grad), which is totally ridiculous.

[Anthony]

Your solution is far worse than the problem.

The MP's job is one of the least family-friendly jobs around - long hours, lots of travelling, and for most MPs their constituency/home are far from where they're expected to be during the week.

Employing your wife as your PA is nepotistic but means you get a semblance of normal family life.

Take away this right from MPs and you'll find the caliber of people wanting the job go down.

[D.Walker]

I have absolutely no objection to MP's employing their spouses or family members, providing they not only do the work, but also pay tax on their earnings. Anything less than this is not acceptable.
D.Walker

[dave]

Hmm,
Lets see now, MP's voted to abolish student grants. With this belated wave of puritanism sweeping the commons, can we expect student grants to be reinstated for economically useful subjects?

[Bob]

What I can't understand, is why anyone would send friends and colleagues such an awful family snap. I mean, WHO is Freddie, and WHAT on earth is Henry? The daughter looks all right, though.

[Raymond Jones]

Mr Conway's offence is quite simply fraud of the worst possible kind because he has betrayed public trust. Set an example once and for all and send a message to all MP's that such behaviour is totally unacceptable by a public servant. Put simply, Mr Conway should forfeit his "MP severance allowance" when he leaves Parliament; also he should forfeit his indexed linked final salary pension.

Ray Jones.

[William]

Once trust is lost it cannot be regained by telling us that " I am a decent sort of guy really". No, no meaningful attempt has been made to clean up British politics, the contrary is true. I understand why this is the case, the skeletons would rattle in the cupboard. Time for an independant authority to have oversight of all politicians. In a society where we are spied on from dawn till dusk - they appear reticent to join in !

[Roger Kendrick]

I don't think this is a case of "do you employ family members"
It is case of simple fraud - and the fact that Conway has the arrogance to say that he will step down at the next election beggars belief.
In the real world that most of us live in it would be "right clear your desk and be out of these offices within the next ten minutes - there will be a cheque in the post - and don't forget to leave your car keys and mobile phone !!"

[PAUL MACK]

I take it we (i.e. taxpayer) paid for the christmas card aswell.
What a fop and odious character that hooray Henry is.
If ever there was an arguement for the privilaged class being denied it's privilages it's No 1 Son Conway. Pass the sick bag Alice

[William]

Good grief is that the Conway's Thought it was Grandad Munster and Morticia ! Specsavers is due another visit !

[TrevorH]

The only people laughing here are the bureaucrats - lots more jobs monitoring and ticking boxes.

We will get more waste of taxpayers money not less and absolutely no better service.

There is nothing wrong with family members working for an MP. Why not?

How do you stop some 'friend' of an MP working for him? And again why not. Is there any guarantees that the quality of service or research would be better? Just declare it thats all, or better still just give an MP a salary and let him do mwith it what he wants and be judged on research.

But please please do not give us more state sponsored bureaucracy.

[The 3rd Column]

Or perhaps limit the employment to ONE relative with a clear cut mission.

[richard brady]

Purely and simply a case of extended
nepotism.

[Mike Mather]

A position as an assisstant to an MP is a public sector job. As such it should be subject to the same conditions as any other. Equal opportunities should apply.the post should be advertised and a competetive process should determine who is appointed. No family members should be interviewed by the MP for obvious reasons. Of course, there is nothing to stop an MPs partner or children working for other MPs!Conways has paid the price for what is a corrupt system that many seem to be exploiting. I think it is time that this practice was stopped. If these are serious about restoring confidence in politics then they must do so.

[Emma.B.Jones]

I myself would only go as far a making a recommendation to a colleague as to the suitability of my relatives for a post and then it would have to be down to their merit. I would give my family unpaid work experience but I think it’s wholly wrong for family to be employed by family especially in the area of politics. I find it bizarre that these people who are supposed to be upholding public standards cannot see this for themselves, even with their supposedly sharp minds. Do none of these people take their positions and jobs seriously. It all seems to me as if they vast majority of them are laughing behind the British publics back and all having a jolly up at our expense. It’s a very sorry state of affairs.

[Peter Rennie]

If an MP needs researchers and secretaries let him pay for them out of his own MP's salary and not from an expenses account paid for by the taxpayer.

[Naomi]

Spoiled, opportunistic and greedy. The dyNASTY fur coat says it all.

[John Burke]

Surely Derek Conway's fellow Conservative MPs cannot tolerate this man remaining in the House of Commons. Is this not tantamount to acceptance of his behaviour. Or maybe, some of them are already looking over their shoulder! I am sure his constituency would take notice of his fellow MPs.

[Robert J Fox]

its incredible ? try saying on your tax return being self employed .salary £60000 ! Expenses for family £100000 ! would you get away with it . Its fraud

[Sidney Carr]

I believe that nepotism is wrong most cases, and that in this case it is total wrong. I think that you'll find that this the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to nepotism in parliament

[J McE]

Posted by Lisa 1 Feb 14:50: Take away this right from MPs and you'll find the calibre of people wanting the job go down.

Can they get much worse? MPs are very much self-regulated because they are deemed “honourable”. The truth of the matter is that some MPs regard themselves above the spirit of Parliament and indeed the law. Mr. Conway is one such individual. No if, no buts, it's fraud.

[Matt O'Leary]

I work in an organisation where my dad also works and a few years ago after some management changes, and my own promotion I was forced by HR to move out of his immediate group. As a result I was moved to Japan (am now in Singapore) all because the firm has strict policies on preventing people from benefiting from who their parents are. Politics should be no different.

[Derek]

As a public servant I had to account for every penny of my expenses, MP's are public servants (not the Gods they think they are) and as such should have to submit a claim form for every item they spend money on. These MP's who do not want to produce receipts for expenditure are potentially corrupt and as such do not deserve our vote at the next election, I will be watching my MP's vote on the matter to decide as to whether I vote for him next time, perhaps we should all do the same?

[Ben]

This just goes to show that you cannot trust politicians, MP's who further their career, social and wealth standing, via the TAX payer. instead of coming from the business sector who have made their own money prior to becoming an MP,who do the job for noble reasons.Sadly there are very few today,and most MP's are career politicians the worst kind you can have.

[Elizabeth]

The House of Commons is not a family firm. This is nepotism and not acceptable.