you'd be in the hospital or in-firm-a-ree... No, wait, that's 'wellies'.
The big Scottish Politics news today is the release of Sir Neil McIntosh's report on Holyrood's expenses system with the most signifiant conclusions being that MSPs should not employ relatives and should pay Capital Gains Tax on their tax-payer funded homes.
The conclusions are to be welcomed but, in all honesty, I think they are just common sense finally writ large on Scottish Parliament headed paper.
I did talk about politicians employing relatives recently when Sir Christopher Kelly released his report which included the same recommendation in Westminster and my opinion is unchanged:
In any other industry, if a recruitment drive had been completed and the result was that the interviewer's husband (or wife) 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.
The ever-sensible 'Indy' left a comment on that post saying the move was "one of the most stupid things that Westminster will ever do" as it will means the Parliament losing its most experienced and reliable staff.
I reckon that completely misses the point and is similar to saying we should keep nuclear weapons because they provide employment (sorry Indy, I know you won't like that one, but I think it's true)
It's ridiculous to have politicians who need to be, and be seen to be, above reproach employing their spouses. Not only that, apparently three MSPs have employed two family members at the same time. It smacks of tossing some easy work to your mates rather than getting the brightest, best and most deserving in the door, even if that's not necessarily the case in each situation.
To avoid any questions, the practice of employing any relative or partner should be ended and hopefully, given this report, soon will be.
Anyway, everybody.... 'cos you would have a dose of the flu or even pleurisy if ye didnae have yer feet in yer weeeeellieeeees!'
Ah, Frankie Boyle, cracks me up every time...
Salmond vs Trump
6 minutes ago
26 comments:
I think, overall, this is to be welcomed, as you say.
And for some reason, I'd never even thought about the reaction if something like this were to happen in the private sector until you brought it up. You're right, if a family member 'just happened' to be the 'right man/woman for the job' they'd be laughed out of town.
It just seems to unlike the Scottish Parliament that this has been allowed to go on for so long.
This is a crazy move, and is included I feel to placate the mob with their pitchforks, rather than being based on any pragmatic evidence.
All we will see is MSP's employing each others family members - why? Because no one else would take the job.
How would you fancy a job when you are on call 24/7 and you don't have a job description? And - as recent events have shown - you don't have a private life either.
To say that this is comparable with other employment is a false premise. People who are employed by politicians are employed by them because they live and breathe politics themselves, as anyone from a political background can tell you.
You won't stop this practise by banning it, all that will happen is that relatives will be employed at arms length. Because at the end of the day nobody else is as well qualified to do the job.
Frankie Boyle??? It wiz Billy Connolly......god, you're very young!!
to the substantive point; wouldn't appear to be ending soon and 2015 long enough to find alternative employment. Observer ignoring all the 'bright young things', politically active, who will work 24/7 if given a chance. Relatives should not be part of the employment picture if funded by the tax-payer.
As for capital gains, seems long overdue..but how many sons and daughters of MSPs will find themselves the reipient of a 'transfer of ownership'?
I agree.
These people must be seen to be above reproach. Especially after the nonsense in Westminster with people being employed to do nothing.
There seems to be some sort of assumption that people working for MSPs must be on call 24/7. That there is something special about them; their jobs are different from other people's
They aren't. Top businessmen need PAs that are on call 24/7 from all over the world. They rarely employ their spouses or other members of their family. Civil Servants need secretaries and assistants at all times of the night and day. It’s what you take on when you work for someone reasonable well placed. They work long hours, so do you. You don’t need to marry them.
When I worked for the Civil Service (JC+) no one was allowed to be employed in the same office as a member of their family. Why should MSPs be different?
All state funded jobs should be open to anyone to apply for. If you employ your mum, and your wife and a son, were the jobs advertised? Did they get interviewed? Do they have appraisals, the same as other civil servants?
I noticed that some partners in Westminster were being paid huge amounts for their work. Wasn't the husband of Jacquie Smith getting £40,000 for being her constituency assistant. I know someone who is a constituency assistant and they don’t get anything like that. Of course they are not related to the MP!
Some have said it’s the only way to keep the marriage working... Well tough. Lots of people have to work away all week. It’s a hard life out there. Get used to it.
The whole thing is open to corruption, and even if many of them are not corrupt, unfortunately the average person assumes all MPs to be as bent as a nine bob note.
They brought it on themselves, but they MUST be treated like ordinary people. They must NOT ever be allowed to do things that no one else is allowed to do. That way they may continue to have some notion of what the world outside parliament is like.
Hi Jeff,
Don't quite know where I stand on the MP /MSP's family employment issue. I can see both sides, but business is far from free of nepotism. Consider the case of the owner of the Sun's son. What's his name ..... Oh,yes, something Murdoch head of News Corp. I have heard that he is an excellent businessman so no beef there.
And as far as I can remember, socialist millionaire Robert Maxwell (Labour), of great infamy in pension circles, promoted his son to number two in the company before it crashed, though there has never been any suggestion that I am aware of that he was to blame for the crash.
These are just two that spring to mind I am sure there are many more.
Regards,
Observer, I just can't envisage the 'wife swap' scenario where MSPs hire colleagues' spouses. For a start the press would see through it and go through offenders like a tonne of bricks.
And there's plenty of people who live and breathe politics who'd love that first rung on the ladder but aren't lucky enough to have a relative as a politician.
Are you sure it wasn't Tommy Cooper who sang it, I never forget a fez.
(I know it was Billy Connolly, I'm not THAT wet behind the ears, sadly)
Rab, you're not citing Maxwell and Murdoch as reasons for why MSPs should hire spouses are you?
Anyway, I have no doubt there is some nepotism in private sector but that misses the point. If it's wrong in one sector then it's wrong in the other.
The timing of this, following on from the Mark MacLachlan/Mike Russell story kind of underlines my point.
The relationship between an MSP and a member of staff is not typical of the kind of relationship which normally exists between an employer and employee.
It may be that people have to be arbitrarily fired as a consequenes of this report and what I am wondering is - who will replace them?
To be really blunt about it how many MSPs could now be dragged through tribunals because they employ staff who want the same kinds of conditions of service as folk who work elsewhere in the public sector?
Far be it from me to point to the blogosphere's very own Kezia Dugdale, but as far as I remember that woman, as much as I disagree with her politics, has two degrees, is clearly very able and works for 18 grand a year.
The idea that there aren't enough political obsessives and career politicians wanting on the first step of the ladder is ludicrous.
Yes anonymous but the idea that everyone who works in politics is doing it for a career for themselves is just plain wrong.
Of course it is a career rung for some people - I can think of loads of MSPs who started out as researchers. However if you look at parliamentary and constituency staff overall most of them do not go on to become MSPs. Their job is to support the MSP and it is 24/7.
It may be the case as Tris says that in the private sector you get PAs who work 24/7 but I suggest they get paid a salary to match. Equally, civil servants may have to work extra hours but they get paid overtime. Indeed the amount of overtime paid to civil servants working directly for the Scottish Government has shot up since the SNP came to power, even though the Government itself has become smaller.
These arguments are just not appropriate because comparing PAs to private companies and civil servants with MSP staff is apples and pears.
I'm afraid this is a ridiculously short-sighted move designed to play to the public galleries and one which will ultimately cost the taxpayer more and/or reduce the level of service MSPs are able to offer.
Further, the notion that this doesn't happen in other indusries is, frankly, garbage. There are hundreds of family business all over the country (some of which are amongst our most successful) where jobs are 'given' to sons, daughters, spouses and in-laws as a matter of course. It is unbelievable that someone can think otherwise and, in my view, seriously questions the credibility of his views on this entire matter.
The major issue here is that MSPs need an extraordinary level of personal trust from their staff. On this criteria alone, it could be argued that only family members have the right qualifications.
So what will happen now? Maybe, as someone else suggested, we will just have 'spouse swapping' going on. If not, then MSPs will have no alternative but to go through long drawn out recruitment processes which will distract them from getting on with their real job, will burden the parliamentary corporate body with additional support work and which will ultimately result in the average salary of MSPs staff going up.
And for what? To stop people who have a personal interest in helping their MSP relatives do a good job getting (under)paid for an honest day's work.
There is a simple middle-ground here and that is to have an independent body assess each prospective staff member's suitability and qualifications for the job. That puts a control in place on the standard of staff employed but still allows MSPs to appoint suitably qualified relatives on whom they can depend and trust.
Unfortunately, because of the media environment, MSPs will not feel able to argue with the report in case they are accused of feathering their relatives (or own) nest.
Personal trust is the key. That does not mean that MSPs are restricted to employing relatives – in some cases their relatives might be the last people they would trust! But if they are sensible they will only employ people they KNOW they can rely on 100%.
Might seem an obvious point - but my concern is if we are going to use other forms of employment as a comparison where will it end?
I read and hear comments from people on this subject saying that MSP staff jobs should be advertised externally and people chosen impartially on the basis of their qualifications and experience. That’s just mental. In the SNP these jobs are advertised on the members section of the SNP website and that is the only place they should be advertised. Unionists need not apply. And who would you bring in to appraise if someone is a dedicated, passionate and loyal nationalist – because that’s the proper person specification for working for the SNP.
These people are not supposed to be civil servants, they are political appointees. Don’t try and take the politics out of politics. Yes they are paid for by taxpayers – so are MSPs. Does that mean we want MSPs impartially appointed on the basis of their qualifications and experience and not because people voted for them?
Another thought.
How do you sack your wife, or your husband, or cilld?
Has Smith's marriage recovered from her assistant's stupidity?
I'm sorry. Until the people who make the laws and rules that govern us, live by these rules, we will never have a decent and fair society.
It's very easy to make rules/laws that apply to other people, but not oneself.
Indy, the relationship between an MSP and member of staff should not only be typical of that between standard employer and employee but it should be a leading, whiter than white example.
Furthermore, with barriers to political careers already regrettably piled high, it is not ideal to have the best route into such a career clogged up by spouses and offspring of MPs.
You may claim 'if it's not broke don't fix it' but I don't think you're stepping far enough back to see the system is very broke indeed.
And the suggestion that people will be fired with noone around to replace them is nonsense. Piles and piles of applications come in for these jobs and the changes don't even come in until 2015 for existing staff!
Also, to answer Anon's point. Making the comparison to small family businesses is pointless. A large company with a proper HR function and internal audits etc would never allow anything close to resembling this arrangement.
As for 24/7 work, that shouldn't be expected of an £18k or so employee so is mostly a separate issue but even still, there are plenty of wet behind the ears, non-related, potential employees who would thrive in such an environment.
Jeff,
Slightly off topic, but I also dislike the whole dynasty bit with MPs and potentially MSPs passing their seats on to either their wives on their demise, or their children on their retirement.
Jeff,
I personally think it is utterly scandalous. I just can't get my head around the fact that people haven't cottoned on to the reality that is staring them directly in the face. And I quote:
"[your] opinion is unchanged".
Shocking.
Jeff -the relationship between an MSP and their employees cannot possibly be typical of a normal employer/employee relationship.
Go back and read your own post about Mark Mclachlan where you say it is optimistic of the party to expect him to take the rap and a lot was being expected of him. Yes a lot was expected of him. But it’s not a normal job. If Mike had employed his wife he wouldn’t be in this situation. He might be getting cauld kale for his supper but he wouldn’t be getting threatened by legal action or having his business discussed in the press.
Do you see what I mean?
As for barriers to a political career – what barriers? Yes we can all name a dozen MSPs who have come thru the ranks as party staffers. There are no barriers to that route. But I can also name you hundreds of past and current party staffers who have no interest whatsoever in becoming an MSP and wish only to serve the party in their capacity as a member of staff or councillor. Everyone involved in politics is not involved because they personally want to become an MSP. You need Indians as well as Chiefs.
Indy, you know I think you always write great stuff so firstly I assure you my mental shutters aren't down and I'm trying to see it from your end.
However, I simply can't see any telling link between this rule change and the Mark situation. You seem to advocating MSPS should be allowed to hire spouses to protect them from media attacks or legal action.
Why?
RBS and Standard Life etc are just as much 'clubs' as the SNP is and they don't have that luxury.
I fully appreciate that some people don't want to go on and become MSPs but even party members who just want to help out the party deserve a fair crack of the whip in getting the job they fancy.
20odd% of MSPs hiring relatives does not create a fair crack of the whip for everybody else.
(We're getting close to the agree to disagree stage!)
It's not about the rule change as such; it's about the attitudes behind it and specifically the suggestion that people should be selected in the same way that civil servants are or most employees in the private sector are.
That can just never happen. Politics is simply not like other jobs. We've all heard the saying that politics is showbusiness for ugly people and perhaps that would be a more apt comparison - Richard and Judy perhaps, or in some cases perhaps Punch and Judy.
I am not suggesting that MSPs should be allowed to hire spouses to protect them from media attacks or legal action.
What I am saying is that MSPs are best advised to hire people who will not make them liable to be attacked in the media, who will not write articles about them for the Sunday press and who will not try and take them to an employment tribunal.
In other words they should hire people they trust, who share their political commitment and who know the score.
That may or may not be a relative. For me that is not a consideration but you are right and we will just have to agree to disagree on that one!
I think it's a problem;
MSP's should be free to hire whomever they choose, but likewise, some oversight should occur to ensure that regardless of whether that person is a friend, a relative or even a spouse, or just some student taking politics, that they are doing the job they're paid to do. Not doing a political-campaign role (as that would be outwith the taxpayers remit), or just skiving off because daddy got them the job (although I'm sure no MSP's have done this, but I think at least one MP has been accused of it), but doing their job, properly.
I also think we should pay interns a fair wage, and also pay assistants a fair living wage.
Why is it the chief of my local council gets paid a staggering £115k, yet a councillor only gets £16k, not really a living wage?!
I think we may even have to look at funding some parts of the civil service as the Americans do, which is to say separate out some roles as clearly political and leave us where a change of government results in a lot of new appointments….
As i understand it all that is being proposed is a prohibition on MSPs employing relatives.
And to the defenders of the currents set up, nobody has suggested that MSPs are typical employers, indeed they are surely atypical in having state funded assistants they can appoint at their own disression?
To apply one pretty simple rule, that they cant employ relatives is hardly much of a restriction, indeed surely a simple safeguard needed to avoid any conflict of interests, real or percieved. Beacause we are talking about pretty large sums of monies and attractive job opportunities.
As for the "no one else would put up with it, no one else could be trusted" argument, I am unaware of MSPs who dont empoly family members - the majority - having any difficulty filling posts, and mostly with very high quaility dedicated and trustworthy people. And people, who if they dont shape up, they can realitically get rid of!
Even the new rule is being introduced humanely - six years for existing employees. Six years for these talented relatives to find new jobs. Or, if the new restriction is just too great, six years for the MSPs affected to find new job, though they might have difficulty finding another one that allows them to bring ma, pa and the weans with them on state funded salaries.
And as top the suggestion they will all just wife swop etc - that to me just shows how cosy and incestuous the current set up is.
Indy:
What I am saying is that MSPs are best advised to hire people who will not make them liable to be attacked in the media, who will not write articles about them for the Sunday press and who will not try and take them to an employment tribunal.
Does this apply to any other employee who deals regularly with a public figure? Should the PM be allowed to appoint his relatives as secretaries at Downing Street so that they don't tell anyone he throws Nokias at them? In fact, wouldn't he be best advised to fill his Cabinet with family members? Clare Short told a lot of tales about Blair following her resignation - presumably this wouldn't have happened if he'd hired Cherie instead.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not Indy. If I make a comment on a blog I leave my real name or Indygal. I know you're not saying that in this blog but I've been asked a few times so I thought I'd let you know. Anne
Hi Anne, thanks for that. I've understood the difference for 2 while now and wasn't trying to suggest for a second that you were trying to advance those arguments, as perfectly valid as they are.
Perhaps it's time to drop IndyGal in favour of your full name now you're an MSP? Not that it should matter but it would certainly help avoid confusion.
Post a Comment