Another MP in trouble?

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by BBKing

...It's important to recognise that he's been collared not for giving jobs to his family (which is fine) but for paying them more than reasonable amounts (which isn't)...

So maybe the committee can put together a pay scale (or borrow one from Whitehall)? Perhaps a contract of employment, too?

Aren't these standard in the real world?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

So maybe the committee can put together a pay scale (or borrow one from Whitehall)? Perhaps a contract of employment, too?

Aren't these standard in the real world?

Thing is, there is a pay scale, he was on the lowest one, being paid 6% above the mid point. So wasn't being paid as much as he could have been.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Thing is, there is a pay scale, he was on the lowest one, being paid 6% above the mid point. So wasn't being paid as much as he could have been.

Oops - you did say that earlier!

So what is all the fuss about?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Oops - you did say that earlier!

So what is all the fuss about?

Lack of evidence that the work done was actually done by him. I say it like that because the comittee have said the work needed doing, and he was qualified to do it, and if there was evidence that it hadn't been done, surely that would be evidence that he hadn't done it, therefore there must be evidence that the work has been done, just no evidence as to who actually did the work.
Hmm, person employed and paid for work, person qualified for work required, work done, but lets get uppety because they didn't fill in timesheets etc.
Oh and they said the bonuses he gave his son were larger than they should have been.

Course, the BNP candidate who brought this investigation didn't have an axe to grind over losing the election while standing as an Independant, oh no, definitely not.

[TheNorm]

Don't the guys on this committee have better things to do with their time? Who is paying them anyway?

Oh, hang on...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Don't the guys on this committee have better things to do with their time? Who is paying them anyway?

Oh, hang on...

Maybe a comittee should be set up to investigate?

[ntluser]

Given that this is all public money why is it that MPs are not required to keep accurate records of their expenditure?

Is it any wonder that the country is in the state it is in while this ridiculous system exists?

Parliament is clearly in need of reform.There needs to be a clear set of rules and operating procedures for MPs and we need a Parliamentary Ombudsman with powers to dismiss MPs not just give them a slap on the wrist when they breach them.

Vast amounts of money are wasted in Parliament, which is not as transparent or as accountable as it should be. Why each MP needs a personal support team is beyond me when an executive typist/PA pool for all MPs would save money?

Not only do MPs have overinflated salaries and overabused allowances they also want to abuse the priveleges they have and have incomes outside Parliament.

Pity we do not have a payment by results system as the taxpayer might get better government and less wastage of public funds.

[TheNorm]

Here's an idea: MPs salaries and other expenses are paid by their constituents, so when you get your "begging" letter from the local council each year it explicitly includes the amount paid to your local MP.

Might make more people vote at general elections.

[Xaccers]

Funnily enough, he's lost the party whip at Dave's request, and has been suspended from parliment for 10 days.
Not to mention he's actually appologised for any mistakes he made.

Stark contrast to more serious breaches of law from the government's ministers.

So he's been punished like this not for paying his son to do nothing, that's never been proven, so in this nation, if we uphold innocent until proven guilty, then we must take his word that his son did the work he was paid for, he's been punished for not keeping timesheets of his son's work.
Loss of party whip, 10 day suspension, chance of being speaker of the house gone, and having to pay £13,000.
Now, how long did it take Hain to leave? Was he suspended from parliment or lose the party whip? Nope, didn't think so.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Funnily enough, he's lost the party whip at Dave's request, and has been suspended from parliment for 10 days.
Not to mention he's actually appologised for any mistakes he made.

Stark contrast to more serious breaches of law from the government's ministers.

So he's been punished like this not for paying his son to do nothing, that's never been proven, so in this nation, if we uphold innocent until proven guilty, then we must take his word that his son did the work he was paid for, he's been punished for not keeping timesheets of his son's work.
Loss of party whip, 10 day suspension, chance of being speaker of the house gone, and having to pay £13,000.
Now, how long did it take Hain to leave? Was he suspended from parliment or lose the party whip? Nope, didn't think so.

"Employing" his own family as members of his parliamentary support team is surely a conflict of interest.

If this were to happen in private industry he would be sacked as a minimum and would face charges of fraud since there is no evidence that his son did any work.

The punishment needs to be more extreme for a priveleged person on a good salary, generous expenses and a gold-plated pension.

Politicians are only public servants and it's clear that they do need monitoring. A totally independent organisation is needed for this as politicians tend to keep matters like this in house and can only be relied on to hide the truth.

As for Hain, he should have gone a long time and would have done if we had clear operating procedures & standards as well as a Parliamentary Ombudsman with powers to dismiss errant MPs.

MPs it seems are no longer honourable just self-serving.

[Osem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7215386.stm

Here's another ... there must be something in the House of Commons water..

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by ntluser

"Employing" his own family as members of his parliamentary support team is surely a conflict of interest.

If this were to happen in private industry he would be sacked as a minimum and would face charges of fraud since there is no evidence that his son did any work.

The punishment needs to be more extreme for a priveleged person on a good salary, generous expenses and a gold-plated pension.

Politicians are only public servants and it's clear that they do need monitoring. A totally independent organisation is needed for this as politicians tend to keep matters like this in house and can only be relied on to hide the truth.

As for Hain, he should have gone a long time and would have done if we had clear operating procedures & standards as well as a Parliamentary Ombudsman with powers to dismiss errant MPs.

MPs it seems are no longer honourable just self-serving.

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.

[ntluser]

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.

[Xaccers]

You don't have to submit to HMRC timesheets for your employees.
As long as you can show how much you've paid them, and that they've paid the required amount of tax, they're happy. I used to run my own business with my ex as my company secretary!

This has nothing to do with there being a relationship between the person paid and the person paying.
Had he paid Mrs Mop off the street the same amount and Conway not been able to provide evidence that the work was done by her, he'd be in the same state.

Can you please understand, the issue is not that a family member was employed, but that Conway is unable to prove that the person paid to do the work actually did it.
You'll also notice that the comittee is unable to provide any evidence that his son did not do the work, it acknowledges the work was done and his son was qualified to do the work.
It also acknowledges that his son was on the lowest pay scale, so not over paid.
The issue of overpayment comes from the bonuses, which the comittee disagrees with.

Storm, teacup, severely dealt with by the party which makes a change from how Labour treat similar cases.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Here's an idea: MPs salaries and other expenses are paid by their constituents, so when you get your "begging" letter from the local council each year it explicitly includes the amount paid to your local MP.

Might make more people vote at general elections.

Here's another idea - How about MP's setting an example to us all by acting beyond reproach?