The Telegraph reports today that two Lib Dem MPs – Malcolm Bruce and Matthew Taylor – are among the 17 MPs who have protested to Sir Christopher Kelly at the proposed ban on employing relatives:
Malcolm Bruce
Liberal Democrat MP for Gordon
Employs wife, Rosemary Bruce, as Office Manager and Diary Secretary
“Having my wife as office manager, diary secretary and constituency PA operating from an office in our home is invaluable not only to me but, I strongly believe, to constituents and other organisations I deal with as part of my parliamentary and constituency duties.”Matthew Taylor
Liberal Democrat MP for Truro and St Austell
Employs wife, Victoria Taylor, as part-time Researcher
“As with many small businesses this can be the most viable way of running an MPs’ office and keeping family together, especially given MPs are working at two ends of the country and unsocial hours.”
Many will have sympathy with the arguments each puts forward: there are clearly some very good reasons for MPs employing spouses or other relatives. The trouble is – and this is true of a number of the Legg and Kelly proposals – that too many MPs have abused the self-regulated system in the past for there to be any public trust that the system might not also be abused in the future. The guilty few have spoiled it for the innocent many.
Lib Dem MP Norman Baker – one of the doughtiest of Parliamentary reformers – acknowledged just this point yesterday in his Guardian article, while also flagging up some of the practical problems that might arise from such a blanket ban:
Kelly also proposes, it seems, that MPs should not be allowed to employ family members. This is also right, and inevitable, given some of the abuses that have occurred, most notably those involving Tory MP Derek Conway. But it will mean that some spouses who have genuinely worked hard for their other halves will find themselves out of a job. Under these circumstances, they may well have a case for unfair dismissal. The new ban may also lead to “wife-swapping” between MPs, to get round the ban. It also raises difficult issues in determining exactly who will be banned. Suppose a relationship is struck up between an MP and a member of staff. At what point will that trigger an employment ban?
What do LDV’s readers think: is the ban right and necessary, or is it a sledgehammer to crack a nut? (Or both?)
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
18 Comments
I know we’re all supposed to be enthusiastic about accepting Kelly, but I’m totally behind Malcolm and Matthew on this. The important thing is that there is no abuse of public funds like there clearly was in Derek Conway’s case, but I think that Rosemary and Victoria and many other MP’s staff who are relatives give the taxpayer exceptional value. They work extremely hard and, as Matthew says, we should not be discouraging keeping families together.
There’s also the important point of Rosemary and Victoria’s employment rights. Why on earth should they lose their jobs, which they’ve had for many years, on this basis? In any other job it would be unfair dismissal.
Of course, they could just get divorced!
Given the unusual situation where MPs work in two places at once, with their time split ~50:50 between their constituency and Westminster, I think it is reasonable that an MP should be able to employ their partner.
But I would draw the line at that. No other family members. This would stop another Derek Conway situation occurring.
I’m not sure it’s right to say they have protested at Kelly’s proposals. Aren’t these from their submissions before he reached his conclusions?
I agree with Stephen, in most cases where MPs employ their wives or husbands, those people do an effective job as staff members and do a lot to keep their parliamentary spouse sane as well. That’s good value for the taxpayer.
But, sadly, in the current climate it looks far too much like a cosy arrangement to channel more taxpayers’ money into MPs’ pockets.
My letter this morning to the Oxford Mail:
Sir,
I don’t often agree with MP Andrew Smith on anything really. But he is right about Christopher Kelly’s quite unnecessary outright ban on MPs employing their spouses. I had hoped that the expenses scandal would lead to real reform, such as turning the Palace of Westminster into a “novelty hotel” like our Oxford prison, and turfing its current occupants and their hangers on out on the streets (without golden goodbyes!) and consigning them to the recycling-bin of constitutional history!
But while we have to make do with this anachronistic system of political representation it seems to me that spouses are the ideal accompaniment for the hard working MP. It’s not exactly a nine-to-five job, it involves work both at home and in London, and it can make calls on you at times when any other employee at your side would certainly raise eyebrows! I’m quite sure there are a few for whom working for the MP spouse is simply better than being left alone in the moated manor on some northern blasted heath, and, after all, Harvey Nicks is just down the road, so there are a few positives. But for most, like Val Smith, I am sure they do a job that it would be extremely difficult to find someone to fill who was not bound to you by more than salary and perks!
This does seem like a case of babies and bath water.
Sincerely,
Jock Coats
Norman says: “This is also right, and inevitable, given some of the abuses that have occurred, most notably those involving Tory MP Derek Conway.”
Hang on a minute… “some” of the abuses? Which ones? Can Norman identify any MP who is guilty of exploiting the current system? Is he aware that Conway’s wife has never been criticised for her role as his employee? The criticism was aimed at the role (or lack of it) played by his son.
Norman’s comments are, at best, an ill-thought out attempt to gain popularity with the media by jumping on this particular bandwagon, or, at worst, a smear on MPs’ spouses who also work for them.
Tom:
I rather suspect there are laws that prevent me naming one that *I* know of who, according to one of his other office staff, employed his wife who then went off to teach English in Saudi or somewhere similar, for months at a time. But it *would* need to be properly investigated to establish the facts.
@ Tom Harris – “Is [Norman] aware that Conway’s wife has never been criticised for her role as his employee?”
Tom, where does Norman attack Conway’s wife? Here’s what Norman says, as I quoted above: “Kelly also proposes, it seems, that MPs should not be allowed to employ family members. This is also right, and inevitable, given some of the abuses that have occurred, most notably those involving Tory MP Derek Conway.”
I’m with Caron on this. Can anyone tell me where an MP is expected to get an experienced secretary who he / she trusts implicitly and immediately, who is on call effectively 24 hours per day, and who knows their boss’s personality well enough to communicate this to constituents? Add this to the fact that it’s simply a good way of keeping in regular – if not constant – contact whilst the MP is in London and there’s a clear benefit to the family and marriage.
My concern, though, is that Kelly’s gone way over the top with this one issue, resulting in a real possibility that some – probably mostly Tory – MPs will use this as an excuse to push back on all Kelly’s reforms, simply damaging reputations further.
How does the party’s recent support for anonymised job applications fit into all this?
The idea struck me as overly bureaucratic, but if it is what the party supports we can hardly demand that our own MPs should be exempt from it.
Stephen Tall: “where does Norman attack Conway’s wife?”
He doesn’t, and I simply asked if he was aware that no criticism had been attached to her or any other spouse working for an MP.
KL – I think he goes over the top on housing too – or perhaps not over the top but finds a potentially worse solution by only allowing rented housing qualify for expenses.
As to whether Tory MPs will resile from Kelly’s recommendations, don’t you think they would have a difficult time doing so given he is one of theirs, and a significant figure in the party at that, whom Cameron has made clear the hierarchy trust such that his recommendation will be implemented whatever they say.
Certainly one would hope that the potentially new member for Dudley South would not reject his reforms!
Public money pays for MPs’ secretarial support, so these jobs MUST be publicly advertised & applicants interviewed by an independent panel. Should MPs’ spouses or other family members apply, then they should be assessed against the job description like any other applicant. A blanket ban is unnecessary, but transparency is required, especially where remuneration & other contract terms is concerned.
Our Tory trougher, the appalling Julian Brazier MP, has displayed the expected NuLabCon arrogance, refusing to reveal how much his wife is paid and the details of her employment contract. Last year the Sunday Times claimed that she was paid, pro rata, more than he was, thereby trousering as much of our money as possible.
How can ANY LibDem MP defend this system? Or do they still not get it. If they don’t then deselect them.
I agree with Colin, to an extent, about transparency of application process. But I am very against the idea of a blanket ban.
I’ve long thought that having MPs as a direct employer of people is a waste of their time and a distraction; they shouldn’t need to be doing things like work out employees salaries, NI contribs or similar. Have their staff employed by the HoC on proper contracts, and allow spouses to apply.
If either Jennie or I were to run for office, we’d run on the grounds the other would be heavily involved after election, that’s frequently going to be the case, it definitely is the case in, for example, Torbay, where Alison has long done a sterling job for Adrian with the incredibly daft hours he’s got to work.
A lot of Kelly’s recommendations seem a bit arbitrary, hair shirt like and ultimately unneffectrive for people who want to abuse the system – For example MPs could swap houses and wives to get around the new system and make money from both. Employing spouses makes a lot of sense, especially when MPs represent areas that are difficult to get to. There are a million different ways that the system could be tightened up and made more transparent without a total ban. I’ve said it before but if we can’t trust our MPs with the most basic judgments such as employing a small staff or claiming their expenses then why are we trusting them to make our laws?? Surely we should just have a better system of transparency and a better way of ousting them when they get it wrong.
It is unlikely the current family staff could be ditched without a massive fight in the employment tribunals but it is perfectly fair to say that any incoming MP or any MP getting a new member of staff should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us re open advertising and selection. There should a standard pay rate to and a standard number of hours they clock in to get that pay.
The expenses investigations have become a fiasco. Instead of investigating and prosecuting the extreme violations, Kelly and company has just gone after the “soft” targets like employing spouses! Not only that, we have a new Speaker who goes along with the whole idea. This all stinks and will become a real hot issue leading into the next election.
The electorate is not so stupid as to accept this posturing for real action.