In response to the scandal over Derek Conway’s employment of his son for doing no work, there have been understandable calls from some commentators to change the way parliamentary staff are employed and monitored. But what worries me about this discussion is that people appear to believe that there is one agreed way for an MP to do his or her job, and likewise for the way they employ their staff.
Some MPs are very Westminster focused and others are very constituency focused, and this is reflected in the way they set up their office. I know one MP who only employs a part-time researcher in Westminster, because to them their absolute priority is working in their constituency and as that is where they spend the majority of their time, that is where they want most of their staff. I know of another MP who whilst very focused on what they do at Westminster, has a constituency with so many social problems and immigration cases to deal with, that they have to employ all their staff in the constituency, and even then struggle to cope with the workload. There are so many different factors that will affect how an MP or their staff want to do their jobs that it is impossible to employ people centrally or come up with a single job description. MPs should be allowed to decide their own priorities and then be left to get on and do their job in the way that they want. It is up to the electorate to decide at election time whether they are doing it well or not.
I think it is right to be open about who an MP employs, and Nick Clegg has led the way on this by publishing on the national Liberal Democrat website who is on his payroll. Indeed he has gone further by showing which people work for him, even if the taxpayer doesn’t pick up the tab. As is the case with me. What I think would be wrong is to publish their salaries, as it invades the privacy of the individuals concerned. After all, how many people want their friends and neighbours knowing exactly what they earn?
Backbench MPs get around £80,000 a year to pay for staff, (which includes national insurance, tax, pension contributions etc), and I think that is enough for people to know. Indeed £80,000 is not a lot if you consider that most MPs need at least four staff spread between their constituency or Westminster, that the cost of living in London is so high, and if you are a frontbench spokesman for the Lib Dems you usually need extra research staff but don’t get extra money to pay for them. It is no wonder that so many MPs rely on volunteers to get the work done, or are only able to attract people who are on their first job, (and so less experienced), and therefore prepared to work for less.
There are numerous MPs who employ relatives to work for them, and as long as they are given the job on merit and get on and do the work then that is fair enough. After all, given the hours that an MP does and given the way that the job of an MP impinges on their home life, in some cases it is the only way that an MPs family gets to see them.
By all means, lets have transparency, but there is no way we can dictate to MPs how they run their offices or spend their staffing budgets.
MPs suspend Conway from the Commons
Is ‘honourable’ system to end?
MPs urged to declare family staff
1 response so far ↓
Aaron Trevena // 10 June 2008 at 9:17 am |
It’s not unreasonable to expect good practice and transparency when we foot the bill.
We should dictate that MPs run their offices well, that means if you pay your kids a fulltime salary, the taxpayer has a fulltime job done.
I’m baffled as to how you can run a “busy constituency” and not have any records of what work was done?
Seriously, it’s the 21st century, even in dickens era they were able to keep track of these things.