All very laudable – and it would be lovely if the state were able to provide salaries for all those who wanted to spend their lives making the world a better place – not only in the realm of politics, but in all sorts of other spheres of human activity. But sadly that’s not the way the world works. And – sorry to be blunt – green as I was when I was at college, I knew that much!

As for one-dimensional career politicians – what worries me is the prospect of parliamentary candidates being selected primarily from among those who have followed a political “career” rather than having to “make their way in the world”. Not a very representative way of choosing representatives. And what also worries me is that career politicians will be so anxious to protect their careers that they may make that – rather than political principle – their overriding priority.

(mainly teasing as I know your University is also in a Lib Dem held seat)

I think there are clear arguments for exempting charities but to compare MP’s to charities is in itself laughable in the extreme. Listening to the report, that is the point at which the law is broken because once an intern is expected to work regular hours they become employed. If ‘liberalism’ means to defend the maintenance of slave labour I am defiantly not a liberal….

If we think that volunteers should be paid if they agree to work regular hours, does this mean that charity shops need to pay all their volunteers, if they do regular shifts? I “work” regular hours on my church creche – do I have to be paid? Regular hours seems a bit of red herring – there is no liberal reason why someone should not volunteer regular hours.

Hywel – I was sloppy in referring to pupilages. I was thinking more of mini-pupilges and placements, which are all valued by employers (http://www.lawcareers.net/barristers/minipupillages.aspx). But I admit that my impressions of restrictions to entry into the law are merely impressionistic and it may be that recent reforms have opened it up?

MPs misuing degree interns is another matter: that should not be accepted by the university concerned.

So despite many years of political and campaigning experience and having held a post as a Public Affairs Manager in a blue chip before I started a family, I am turned awat from jobs due to the huge pool of people who have recently worked as unpaid interns.

I have considered taking on such a role, but even those who pay travel expenses only pay within London. I am in the Home Counties. Add on childcare costs and it is prohibitively expensive for me to take on such a role. And so my route is effectively blocked at the bottom.

Politics is an employment “sector” now, apparently. Oh dear.

I’ve seen a lot of soul-searching about ways of getting more women candidates, more ethnic minority candidates and so on. All very laudable, but I wish there could also be an appreciation of the need to get more candidates who aren’t one-dimensional career politicians who have been intent on climbing the greasy pole since the day they graduated. And I dare say if that could be done it would in itself take care of one or two of the other concerns.

That system was scrapped several years ago. There now all funded to at least some degree and have to be openly advertised.

@ Tim
“They are volunteers – no-one requires them to do it”
The point is that several MPs are recruiting interns to work specific hours for a set term. That (arguably) means they cease to be volunteers and fall under minimum wage legislation. There are also students who have to spend a year working for an MP as part of their degree. From what I’ve heard some are treated pretty badly (arrangements to pay expenses not kept, “work experience” including clearing out the MPs loft – as it is part of their degree there is an obvious difficulty with saying “f*** this” and walking out”.

Tim does liberalism now mean not paying people for doing a full days work and showing some commitment and dedication? If it does then I am not a liberal.

No, because they are party members who do volunteer they are not doing a job and interns are. Often they are poor and need the support as well. They would be classified differently. I think the capability should be there to pay interns.

If interns should be paid, should members of FPC and working groups be paid? When I met Shelter to discuss the planning system, should they have been required to pay me for an hour of my time? Do Amnesty International have to pay people who write letters in defence of the wronging imprisoned?

There are also foreign students who do one day a week internships, partly to understand how politics works here. As I understand it, they are not allowed to work for payment. If we ban unpaid interns, these people would not be able to do this. Would that really be good?

Finally paying people the minimum wage would still favour people who do not have to pay housing costs. Try working in central London for £40 a day with no external support – it would be an easier proposition if your parents live nearby than if your parents don’t.

It seems to me that the more important issue is that of MPs’ staffing allowances. The article alludes to the discrepancy in workload between an inner London MP and one out in the sticks, and my experience as someone in a highly educated, politically ‘switched-on’ university city is much more akin to the former than the latter. It is ridiculous that the staffing allowance is not tailored to each constituency. In constituencies like this one, it means that the MP simply does not have enough resources to offer high quality services to constituents, and the payment and fair treatment of interns is low on the agenda as a consequence. As Alistair Carmichael admits, he can only afford to pay his interns because of where he is.

In the current climate it seems impossible that MPs will be offered more resources for staffing, but it is the only realistic option. It cannot be right for elected representatives to rely on unpaid volunteers barely out of university to provide essential support.