Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals on how to improve MPs' allowances or expenses are due be set out later today with one of the most controversial reforms being MPs not being allowed to hire their husbands.
Politicians have been pleading their case that due to the long hours involved, due to the good working relationship married partners have and due to couples working together often being the only way to keep their marriages going, that this proposal should be dropped.
One MP was on GMTV this morning saying that 'any other family business' has to work long into the night and this couldn't reasonably be expected with someone who wasn't related to the politician. The MP's assistant, who was also on the breakfast programme, promised to prove thousands of letters had been answered and the role was being filled competently. They were also insistent that noone out there could do a better job.
I am amazed that so many politicians can so spectacularly miss the point.
In any other industry, if a recruitment drive had been completed and the result was the interviewer's husband got the job, they would be laughed out the room and probably disciplined. It shouldn't be any different for Westminster and, incidentally, it shouldn't be any different for Holyrood.
It is a massive conflict of interest for an MP to hire her husband or son in an assistant role and even Nick Clegg's talk of the medicine being "hard to take" misses the point.
Not only should they accept these proposals, MPs should have the broad-mindedness to see that they are steeped in common sense.
When a woman is elected as an MP she has won 1 job. Not 2 or 3. And definitely not a 'family business'.
(*Note that these proposals also affect male MPs. Not that you would know from the reporting in the press going on about 'husbands and sons' all the time.)
Does competition help the NHS?
21 minutes ago
11 comments:
I think this is one of the most stupid things that Westminster will ever do.
At one stroke they imtend to fire many of their most experienced and reliable staff, creating a gap which will not be easily filled.
Any business that behaved like that would not be in business for long.
There is, of course, a definitional problem here.
There seem to be at least two "principles" underwriting it. Firstly, "spouses". There is a sense, I think, that we're talking about marital property, held in common by MP and Mr/s MP. From this perspective, hiring your partner is a way of indirectly enriching yourself.
Secondly, the Wean exclusion. Here, the argument doesn't seem to be about self enrichment so precisely as broader ideas of nepotism, unfair advancement and the like.
Obvious problems include the usual ones of framing general rules. What about people with whom one is in a relationship but one is not married to? What happens if you unromantically hire staff and then matters turn amorous? Ought they to be fired?
Either way, I'd expect that any such rules will be met with what scholars of regulation call "creative compliance", using the letter of the rule to defy its aim. If marriage - or civil partnership - is the standard, expect to see a few more folk living in sin. Alternatively, and much more plausibly, the already-mooted idea of MPs "spouse-swapping" or hiring each others' brats is a predictable result of any such cull.
In particular, as Indy suggests, if MP A's spouse has 20 years of experience, allegedly, in serving in the Commons, you can see how that would strengthen MP B's meritocratic argument for hiring them.
This is how I see it. There are basically two categories of people who work for politicians. The first comprises people who want to be politicians themselves and are doing the job for the experience and to make the contacts that will help them get on in their chosen field.
The second category comprises people who do not want to be politicians but who have a commitment to the individual MP/MSP, to the party they represent and therefore have the greatest possible incentive to provide an excellent service because they want that person/party to win at the next election. This group comprises most SNP staff in my experience and often includes family members as well as councillors who work part-time. These people all have a strong personal connection to the individual they are working for, a strong loyalty to them and to the party. There is no conflict of interest because the interests of the member of staff and the politician are identical. They want to win their seat and the public benefits from that because people will go the extra mile to deliver for constituents because they want their vote.
You could say that is nepotism – politicians giving jobs to people on the basis that they have a close personal relationship with them and trust them completely. Well any politician who does not employ someone they have a close personal relationship with and who they trust completely is an idiot.
I think people really need to be careful about embracing this argument because what is the next step? If politicians can’t employ family does that mean that they cannot employ personal friends and party colleagues – how could you distinguish between the two?
Should they not be allowed to employ fellow party members – after all, in any other industry if the recruitment drive was completed by giving the job to someone on the basis of their political commitment would that not also be laughed out the room and probably disciplined? You could end up with a situation where nationalist members were forced to employ unionists because on paper they were the best person for the job and vice versa. That would be ludicrous I am sure you agree.
I am amazed that so many politicians can so spectacularly miss the point.
To be honest Jeff, and with the greatest respect, I think you're missing the point.
I'm entirely relaxed by MPs and MSPs employing spouses because having known one or two in my time I know just how bloody hard the spouses work. In fact, if we don't pay the spouses I would suspect that a great majority would continue to do the job anyway - unpaid. This would result in the family income of a MP being roughly £60k - which despite the hysterics from the anti-politics lobby is not that much cash, and certainly not enough to properly maintain two homes etc.
I strongly feel that without a proper salary settlement, the Kelly reforms (including the employment of spouses) is going to make politics a rich man's sport.
While the whole "scandal" is great for a few blog headlines and the bank balance of the Telegraph we really need to move on and start worrying about ensuring that a career in politics remains open to all walks of life: The current debate is being whipped up by a few right wingers that wouldn't be bothered if the common man was priced out of politics.
Oh - and your comparisons with other employment processes really don't stack up - MPs are not just like any other employees and neither is the team that supports them. They do have "special" duties, responsibilities and pressures. I mean if politics was a true meritocracy Richard Baker would be flipping burgers for a living....
Missing the point seems to be the point. This whole employment of family members issue is a canard. For many of the sound points made above, banning wives/husbands/etc from employment is not going to happen. Problems of definition, of anticipating the future, of policing the bedroom make such a ban impossible to implement.
Consequently it will be dropped. That's why it is in the report, as a sweetmeat for MPs. Suits me.
Conflict of interest? Jeff you must have a different definition to mine, I don't follow yours.
Wow, I'm amazed at the strength of opposition.
Maybe I am getting it wrong but I don't think the expertise that will be lost has much to do with it. if the jobs shouldn't be filled by relatives, then they shouldn't be filled with relatives and they have to go.
And exaggerating the point out to Nationalists employing Unionists is surely just silly. The rule is spouses and offspring, that's the line in the sand, that's all that should be debated here and now, surely. The EU seemed able to bring a similar rule in (that includes lovers) without much fuss. Why do Brits find it so difficult to recognise what's right and what's wrong?
As for the immediate loss of talent, maybe the jobs can be phased out but I don't have much sympathy for the overall argument that because someone's been doing a job for 20 years then they should continue to do it, irrespctive of the principle at stake.
Chris, you talk about barriers to entry but it seems who you know rather than what you know is the main game about getting a job at Parliament these days. As for money, £60k should be plenty to get by but I do agree that the salary should go up and that would solve some of the problems.
Me, you and George Foulkes agreeing on something, remarkable!
In terms of a conflict of interest, I just think the chances that an MP's spouse is the best person for a job so many times seems odd. And given that working for an MP is the best route to becoming an MP, the jobs should be freed up for anyone out there to take.
MPs, above all other professions, should be and be seen to be 100% transparent. Husband and wife teams running 'family business' offices for the constituency doesn't stack up for me.
The rule now may be spouses and offspring but would that really be the end of it?
You have to ask the basic question why do people like you think it is wrong for an MSP to employ a spouse or offspring.
The reason is surely because they have a close personal relationship outside of work as well as at work. But that is also the case with most MSPs and their staff, even when they are not married or related. So if it is wrong to employ someone because they are your wife or son it is also surely wrong to employ someone because they are your friend/election agent/party colleague?
The essential problem is that you cannot easily disentangle the personal and the professional in politics. People are political partners as well as marital ones. So what you are talking about is breaking up a successful team because they happen to be married. That just doesn’t make any sense and will not benefit the public.
You are right that it is who you know rather than what you know that gets you a job in politics and it always has been. Although perhaps it would be more accurate to say it is what people know about you that will get you the job. It is open to any person to join the political party of their choice, become active, get themselves known and eventually get a job. But nobody should expect to get a job without being able to demonstrate their commitment to the party in their personal as well as professional life. You need people who will give their lives to the job.
At the risk of being shot down in flames, I don't actually think £60k is a lot of money: It represents just about what two people on the national average wage would earn, and probably comes out at about £3,400 per month net before other deductions.
Assuming that when wives and husbands are barred from doing a job and the Telegraph supplied hairshirts have stopped other allowances then this is likely to be the household income.
Again, at the risk of being unpopular (just stop and think you trolls before you comment) I would suggest that this is not enough to run two homes and perform in the way that we expect of MPs - even if one had the rent paid - and all the incidentals that mount up when you work away from home for long periods of time. I know - I've done it in my line of work.
Take a modest home mortgage, throw in council tax, a car payment, normal (first) household bills etc, then add on the amounst that all the parties demand from their elected members and whats left is not a lots of hundreds. And then you've got to factor in the costs of living in two places that can't be recovered, the endless demands on your wallet/purse that people expect you to fulfill because you are a MP -and suddenly it stops being financially viable.
One of the great and often overlooked reforms of Lloyd George was to ensure that MPs were well funded and could act independently of patronage or personal wealth. Yes, the route to power is often a grubby affair, but as a principle I still strongly believe that without a salary review these expenses reforms will result in politics being a rich man's sport...
Surely that is what we should be focussing on now, instead of following the pack with their ill-considered anti-politics agenda?
I might just accept the argument that wives in England have enormous correspondence to deal with, but wives with Scottish MP husbands don't have to deal with Housing, Education, Local Government, Crime and Justice, Planning matters. So why are they employed? (as if we didn't know).
Kelly should have looked at this also.
Anonymous that's a fair point about the differing workloads of MPs/MSPs but it is not actually central to the argument of whether politicians should be allowed to choose their own staff or whether restrictions should be imposed on that.
Indy, My post was short but I was trying to make the point that Scottish MPs do not have large correspondence workloads therefore they do not need wives to work 24 hours. A temp could do the job (more cheaply).
Post a Comment