Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 29th August 2008

RBS Ambassador, Luke Donald

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Ban on MPs employing offspring is limited



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 August 2008
By Daniel Bentley
MOVES to ban MPs from employing their children will not apply to the dozens already being paid out of public funds, officials said yesterday.
Harriet Harman, the Commons leader, has put forward proposals to outlaw offspring from being handed taxpayer-funded jobs as researchers, secretaries and assistants.

A consultation paper issued yesterday flagged up the Derek Conway scandal and said
the employment of sons and daughters by MPs was damaging to the House of Commons.

But Ms Harman's office said any ban would not apply retrospectively or prevent the employment of spouses and partners. At least 22 MPs currently employ their children, with some giving jobs to more than one of their offspring.

Nine sons, 14 daughters, one daughter-in-law and one son-in-law are all declared in the latest Register of Members' Interests.

The total number may be higher as there has not yet been a publication of the register since the declaration of staff-relatives became compulsory on 1 August. The move follows recent uproar over abuses of parliamentary allowances and the publicly funded jobs occupied by MPs' relatives.

Mr Conway was stripped of the Tory whip and suspended from the Commons for ten days after being found earlier this year to have overpaid his son out of his staffing allowance.





The full article contains 222 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 August 2008 8:44 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

06/08/2008 00:42:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

,

06/08/2008 00:42:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

,

06/08/2008 00:43:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

,

06/08/2008 00:43:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

,

06/08/2008 00:43:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

,

06/08/2008 00:43:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

,

06/08/2008 00:43:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

06/08/2008 00:43:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

,

06/08/2008 00:43:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

,

06/08/2008 00:43:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Pilrig.,

Livingston 06/08/2008 05:41:31
"Phew" say MPs.
12

Pilrig.,

Livingston 06/08/2008 05:42:46
1 - Davie Marshall pride o' the working class !
13

donald,

glasgow 06/08/2008 06:41:36
There are plenty of Broon envelope jobs, local government and quangos for cronies.
14

Jimmy Le Pie,

06/08/2008 07:03:25
Pilrig

Any word on when the 'far reaching polis enquiry' will start into allegations that an ex MP was on the fiddle???
15

Guga II,

Rockall 06/08/2008 07:49:14
The London parliament seems to be just as rotten and corrupt as Mugabe's parliament.
16

Grahamski,

Falkirk 06/08/2008 07:54:21
Jimmy and Guga,
Where did Fergus Ewing work when he was at uni? Here's a clue: with his maw. At the public expense. See pots, see kettles, see black?
17

aljok.23,

the world 06/08/2008 08:07:43
The sons, daughters and spouses are not entitled to any job in parliament. The employer should answer to the authority who deals with employment discrimination. If not then they will be dealt with by The Mob.
18

Boggle fey the Bog,

06/08/2008 08:28:05
16 Grahamski,Falkirk 06/08/2008 07:54:21

No spin on this, if that is the case.
1) Did she try to hide this fact?
2) Did she declare who was working for her and their relationship?
3) Was this acceptable at the time?
4) Do you have any proof

If you can give, and publish, documented evidence that demonstrate that she,

1) Did try to hide this fact
2) Didn't declare who was working for her and any relationship
3) That the above was not acceptable at the time.
and last but not least
4) Show us the proof!

then, no problem what she done was wrong.

If, however, this is just another of your usual irrelevant, negative unionista rants, designed to lay a smokescreen and fog the issue, then I suggest you have the good grace to admit it as such, apologise and withdraw your comment.

17 aljok.23,the world 06/08/2008 08:07:43

Are you awake yet, or do you just ramble on with vacuous statements all the time?

It certainly looks like you have 'swallied' the 'sound byte pill' with a little touch of 'fantacism' added for 'added effect'.
19

Grahamski,

Falkirk 06/08/2008 08:37:18
18
D'uh, get with the programme! David Marshall is not accused of paying his family without declaring it. The self-righteous cant from the SNP supporters attacks him and other MPs for hiring members of their families. SNP MP and MEP Winnie Ewing (you'll remember her, Scottish mentalist with a penchant for cosying up to the extreme right in the Euro parliament before the nats were shamed into their current green(ish) group) did exactly the same. See nats, see hypocrisy?
20

Caratacus,

West Britain 06/08/2008 09:06:33
I am the opposite of surprised.
21

roughrider,

Glasgow 06/08/2008 09:25:46
Grahamski you are like a broken down record.
It is fact that labour are parasites crooks and liers.
Give up your hopeless quest of defending labour scum before it drives you completely mad .
The signs are starting to show.
22

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 06/08/2008 09:38:31
Why are no comments allowed on the Cathy Jamieson story?
23

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 06/08/2008 09:38:31
Why are no comments allowed on the Cathy Jamieson story?
24

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 06/08/2008 09:38:57
Why are no comments allowed on the Cathy Jamieson story?
25

Alan B,

06/08/2008 09:48:07
The fact that this change has to be made shows how corrupt so many mps at westminster are.

I can understand why an mp might want to employ a family member but the fact is abused by some means that it is not longer a tenible alternative.

We also have to be strick with rule breakers. Forcing them out of being mps would be a good start along with criminal prosecutions.
26

Scottish 'N British,

06/08/2008 10:16:26
25

Expenses, second homes, employing family members, it's all there to be exploited.

The responsibility is ours to bear down on these greedy schmucks.
27

Scottish 'N British,

06/08/2008 10:20:11
25

BTW, please try not to forget that this is a problem at Holyrood too.
28

Alan B,

06/08/2008 10:41:23
#Scottish 'N British

"The responsibility is ours to bear down on these greedy schmucks"

How would you propose that is done? The scottish press bringing down and exposing some of the things in the sp (eg mcleish and mcletchie) have woken the uk press to doing something similar in westminster.

The public have little they can do in westinster partially due to the first past the post system which tend to mean a 2 horse race. (i am not having a go at first past the post just pointing out a consequence). So if you regard the tories and labour as both bad when it comes to this then what choice do you really have. With labour moving to the tory ground it is maybe less of an issue but if you support the tories polices or labour then it is very difficult to vote for a party whose policies you do not like like just becuase they maybe less corrupt.

We can see that to a degree with people still backing and voting for labour despite them probably being the most openly corrupt government in my living memory. (Maybe becuase the tories were not as open about it.)

There is the issue of government corruption with dodgy donations and also the issue of diddling expensese. At westminster there is also the issue of expenses being so lax that you do not have to break the rules but what they are doing is morally questionable.

While i take your point about holyrood the problem i believe is significantly less. This is largely due to the much stricker rules in place and the much more openness.

I alway find it amusing that mcleish was brought down for breaking rules that he broke during his time at westminster. He was cleared by the standards body there headed by someone that was removed by blair for being too strick. Also it was reported that brown broke the same rules as mcleish.

I do dislike in holyrood the fact that mcletchie has not been run out the parliament and has remained an msp.

The good thing about holyrood is that the openess has lead to the press expo
29

Alan B,

06/08/2008 10:41:44
cont..

The good thing about holyrood is that the openess has lead to the press exposing wrongdoing. It has forced changes in rules. And most importantly has forced people like wendy, mcleish and mcletchie out. It is not actually people breaking the rules that is the biggest problem but lax rules and the failure to hold those that break the rules accountable.
30

cataibh,

over the Struie 06/08/2008 11:17:26
Grahamski Report back to your London Headquarters that you are out of your depth when trying to put forward a case for the union in Scotland.
31

MacGillicuddy,

06/08/2008 11:29:41
#21
It has ALREADY driven him mad.
See Grahamski, see nutter.
32

Scottish 'N British,

06/08/2008 12:08:46
28

Well public pressure can change events, of course. First past the post has nothing to do with it.

We have that at the moment, but the "John Lewis list" change was in part brought about by public response and naming and shaming.

Please spare me the 'Holyrood isn't as bad as Westminster' routine. MSP's of ALL, repeat ALL parties firstly supported then have gladly abused the public's trust by taking profits from second homes in Edinburgh. It's a scandal.

Politicans have been raking it in for decades.
That said, we can't just suddenly expect them to take their noses out of the trough.

Whether it's Holyrood or Westminster, we need a zero tolerance approach. We need an independent ombudsman.

Good to see the press (Unionist-biased, is it not) ate good for something, eh?
33

Caratacus,

West Britain 06/08/2008 12:58:01
#22-24
It does seem a rather personal, sad story to be in a newspaper.
34

Mcsnagpile,

06/08/2008 13:42:27
Politicians should be banned from having offspring.
35

Scottish 'N British,

06/08/2008 14:57:59
Politicians should be banned....
36

Alan B,

06/08/2008 15:08:25
#Scottish 'N British

"Well public pressure can change events, of course" How?

Currently it has been media pressure that has brought the issue to light.

The reason i mention first past the post is the only real power the electrate have is at elections. First past the post gives a more limit choice. In westminster you really have a 2 horse race. (as i said i am not particularly anti that voting system).

"John Lewis list" change was in part brought about by public response and naming and shaming"
But that was media naming and shaming. That was my point.

You argument would be more rational if you lost the unionist/nat overtones. I have not argued in these terms.

"Whether it's Holyrood or Westminster, we need a zero tolerance approach. "
do agree, (but will be unfortunate for the one that make a genuine mistake but the problem is so wide spread and so intrenched, there is no other way other than a zero tolerance). That is why i am disappointed McLetchie was not pushed out of parliament. Why i am disappointed labour did support wendy so much. Actually i did not have a problem with her initial donation ie 950 one but it was the cover up and the follow info that came out that did it for me.

"Please spare me the 'Holyrood isn't as bad as Westminster' routine."
If you are going to challenge my remark here atleast address the points i made.

1)holyrood is more open (that has allowed the press to name and shame, labour mps recently voted against more openness and i have seen foulkes on tv rejecting holyrood openness for westminster. Do you reject that holyrood is more open than westminster as you remark suggests?
2)why did mcleish have to resign for the same crime in holyrood as he was clear of in westminster.
3)the media with that openness mentioned above have brought down 3 leader of parties. Brown has not even been challenged yet apparently broke the same rules as mcleish. Look at the survival of harman who broke donation rules in the deputy co
37

Alan B,

06/08/2008 15:08:53
cont..

3)the media with that openness mentioned above have brought down 3 leader of parties. Brown has not even been challenged yet apparently broke the same rules as mcleish. Look at the survival of harman who broke donation rules in the deputy contest. My point is not that holyrood msp are any more honest but the media manage to get resignations for issues that would be laughed of at westminster.
4)the rules are much tighter in holyrood. do you challenge that point? (just look at what micheal martin can get away with)

My point was it is not whether they (msps/mps) break the rules but
1)that we have tight rules
2)they are kicked out if they break the rules. I would like a formal way of getting rid of mps/msps for breaking rules so it is not just a matter of resigning as a minister.

Your point about 2nd homes in Edin is abit more complicated. firstly it did not break the rules. They have much less advantages that westminster mps. What is the alternative. Renting could actually cost the public purse more. Having said that it does not sit well people making at profit from this.
38

Boggle fey the Bog,

06/08/2008 20:33:11
19 Grahamski,Falkirk 06/08/2008 08:37:18

D'uh,answer the questions!

Put up or shut up!

You really do talk keech, or is it just as Thatcher the Snatcher said about all you Trots, yer frit!!!!

If you have no proof withdraw your allegatons.

As I said before no spin, but obviously your spinning like Jenny.

39

AM2,

Scotland,UK 06/08/2008 22:40:25
Peter Hoskin hit the nail on the head:

"How long, I wonder, before they'd hit on the idea of employing each other's kids?"

Cynical? Moi?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/878781/has-harman-got-it-right.thtml
40

AM2,

Scotland,UK 06/08/2008 22:42:14
#15 Guga II

http://www.scottishunionist.com/2008/08/vilification-of-snps-opponents.html

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.