Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Employing family members happens in hundreds of thousands of companies all over the nation, and mostly just as a tax fiddle where no actual work is done by the "employee"
Company secretaries, tea boys, perhaps you've never seen a company name followed by "& sons" then?
Get real!
Of course people should be allowed to employ family members if there is work to be done, especially in roles where you're likely to be far away from your spouse for instance.
The issue here is that there were no timesheets recording that his son (who lets not foget was being paid less than he could have been paid) actually did the work done.
Now, feel free to throw innocent until proven guilty out the window, personally, I like living in Britain where that persumption still holds true.
The comittee were unable to prove that his son did not do the work, they even agreed that the work needed doing and his son was qualified for the role.
They've only disagreed with the bonuses paid, and are unhappy that there is no record of him actually doing the work, but think about most people's work, if they're part of a team, how do they prove they actually contributed? Especially if there is no requirement for them to do so until one is brought in at a later date.
|
You are innocent into you are proved guilty but it does help if there is evidence to support your innocence. Courts are after all about proof not faith.
In what must be one of the most sleaze-ridden governments, commentators have repeatedly highlighted the need for transparency. In a democratic society, what applies to the government must also apply equally to members of the opposition.
If Conway had not employed a relative and had kept appropriate records he would not now be being censured by not only Parliament but his own party too. I commend David Cameron for taking the action he has done.
In politics, you have to be stain free and that means taking exceptional care to see that everything is done well above board.
In truth, this situation should never have happened in that when Ian Duncan Smith's wife was accused in a similar way every MP should have taken that as a wake-up call and should have ensured that they were free from such accusations. It seems that MPs do not learn lessons after all.
As for private companies employing relatives, companies are subject to quite a lot of requirements not least from the Inland Revenue who do require that accounts are submitted and that there is evidence in the form of staff payrolls, bank statements, invoices, purchase orders, cheques stubs, credit card statements, timesheets and receipts to support the accounts. The accounts they submit reflect their income and expenditure from trade unlike governments which have to account for public monies collected via taxes from the general public.
It's sad that MPs cannot work to the same rigorous standard. If they did we might have fewer of these tacky incidents where MPs have been less than honourable and in a way that disfavours the taxpayer.
What's the betting that we still have similar cases like this in the future? It will be interesting to see whether MPs take the hint and recognise that we want effective, efficient, transparently accountable government by MPs who genuinely put the needs of the nation before their own.
As usual only time and whistleblowers will tell.