Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 14th October 2008 Change Date

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.

More than 100 MPs admit to employing their relatives



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: 25 April 2008
MORE than 100 MPs have declared that they employ relatives at the taxpayers' expense, it was revealed yesterday.
They include Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary and Caroline Flint, the housing minister. Others included Sir George Young, chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and Sir Stuart Bell, one of t
he senior MPs reviewing parliamentary expenses.

All listed their relatives in the first publication of the Register of Members' Interests to include such details in the wake of the Derek Conway scandal.

Mr Conway was stripped of the Conservative Party whip and suspended from the Commons for ten days for overpaying his son out of his expenses.

There is no suggestion that any other of the 106 MPs to declare their interests since 1 April have broken the rules. The declaration of relatives paid out of MPs' expenses has only been voluntary since 1 April, although party leaders have urged their MPs to do so as soon as possible.

It will not become compulsory until 1 August, when it will include all relatives paid more than 1 per cent of an MP's basic salary – or £618 a year.

Mr Conway declares that he still employs his wife, Colette Conway, as an "office manager/executive secretary". The pay range for such a role is from £21,320 to £40,052.

Ms Smith lists her husband, Richard Timney, as a "senior research/parliamentary assistant", who will be earning between £27,780 and £40,052. Sir Stuart employs his wife, Margaret Bell, as "office manager".

Ms Flint's husband, Phil Cole, occupies the same position in her Commons office as does Sir George's daughter, Camilla Young, in his. Mr Benn's wife, Sally Clark, is listed as his "research/parliamentary assistant", which entitles her to between £14,212 and £34,240.

Among other prominent politicians, David Davis, the shadow home secretary, employs his wife, Doreen Davis, as "executive secretary".

Peter Hain, a former work and pensions secretary, lists his mother, Adelaine Hain, as "part-time secretary". Michael Howard, a former Tory leader employs his wife, Sandra Howard, in the same position.





The full article contains 359 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 April 2008 9:46 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Politicians' expenses
 
1

Toast,

25/04/2008 10:00:26
Lets sort out the business of MP's 2nd,3rd etc jobs,being an MP is either a full time job or they should have their other earned incomes deducted from their MP's salarys
2

Highland Mighty,

25/04/2008 10:47:29
2. Totally agree. No MP should have the time to work in business and no MSP should also be an MP (plus this equals two part-time jobs, NOT one full- and one part-time).
3

Alan B,

25/04/2008 13:51:36
#3 Do not know how Mcletchie when leader of the conservatives could have another job aswell.

Why are they employing anyone if they have 2nd jobs.
4

Paula,

25/04/2008 17:52:22
I don't mind relatives being employed, after all many small businesses are family run.

However these people aren't running a small business, they are public servants and as thus their staff should fall under the same rules and regulations under employment law.

Were these positions advertised, people interviewed?

Perhaps it would be easier if the MPs had to apply through the government and have the whole decision be taken out of their grubby, greedy little hands. They are always banging on about getting people back to work, these jobs look like excellent opportunities!
5

truthsleuth,

26/04/2008 01:27:50
What is the definition of 'employing'
The problem is not that MPs CLAIM they EMPLOY their relatives the real issue is Do they PAY them for what they do (or do not do).
Of course everyone slates MPs but no one questions payment to 'directors' of private companies.
Lets have a serious inquiry into what they do/get paid to do.
6

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 26/04/2008 02:31:52
Private business is accountable to its shareholders, and if they want to waist money on nepotism that their business.

MPs are however swilling at the taxpayer funded trough and it seems are accountable to no one.

Surely a manager in any government department would have strict guidlines about hiring relatives. Why should MPs be exempt?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.