Who else is on the payroll?
Are there more family businesses such as "Conway PLC" earning tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money from working in the House of Commons?
The answer is we do not and cannot know. The reason for that is the House of Commons, led by the Speaker, has consistently blocked attempts to reveal basic information such as the names of the staff MPs employ, whether they are their relatives of their employers and what they are paid (see ).
Even those who sympathise with the desire of MPs not to see their staff's salary levels published may wonder why the public cannot know who it is we are paying to employ.
The only information that is available is the list of those with Commons passes who include unpaid helpers and family members who simply want easy access to the building. Thus, the information on last night's Newsnight and in many papers this morning about how many spouses maybe employed has come from scanning the pass list for staff with the same names as their MP and ringing to ask if they are in fact relatives and if they're paid.
Even if we did know which family members were on the payroll there are no checks on what these paid staff do. MPs are issued with guidance on contracts, pay rates and levels of bonuses but there is no audit to check that work is being carried out.
Honourable members are treated as, yes, honourable and, therefore, not requiring checks. The Senior Salaries Review Board recently recommended that this should change.
What this demonstrates is that the current rules did not and could not reveal the existence of the Conway family business. There would have been no investigation if it had not been for a leak of a secret document to the Sunday Times.
What's more, if Conway had not paid his son above the recommended rate for the job and an excessive bonus it’s unlikely any questions would ever have been asked about whether his son really did the work he was being paid for.
PS: My colleague, Martin Rosenbaum's excellent Freedom of Information blog has followed the story of MPs blocking FOI requests closely.
PPS: More interesting detail on this can be found on blog.
I'm 
Comments
Dear Nick,
"Answer this, How many ex Mps are still being financed by the House of commons as researchers and advisors."??
The problem is that Derek Conway has put the staff issue back in the spotlight. Hire your wife, they might be the best diary secretary you'll get, and it is quite common, but your entire family? It's asking for trouble and undermining the hard work that some relatives do.
Nick,
I thought the list of Members' Interests listed staff?
Time that this scam was stopped and questions need to be asked as to why MPs need staff at all. Ordinary workers don't have these and and next thing we know is that there will be permanent under secretaries to the "researchers" as well. What a gravy train .
TL lEEDS
Surely Nick you could use the register of interests details which HoC employees fill out. It would be more complete that the passes list.
Many organisations 'block' FOI requests for information they'd rather not be made public. The inference made is that most organisations block FOI requests to avoid embarrassment because they have something to hide.
Interestingly, as a large organisation spending public money, the 91Èȱ¬ is not immune to FOI requests, and recently the 91Èȱ¬ blocked an FOI request for information about the content of it's News broadcasts. Martin Rosenbaum covers the story in the excellent blog to which you refer:
The 91Èȱ¬ v Steven Sugar: The Balen Report
/blogs/opensecrets/2007/03/the_bbc_v_steven_sugar_the_bal.html
I think it's time that parliament was dragged, mewling and puking, as it frequently is, into the 21st century. We need them to 'modernise' in order to 'face the challenges' of 'change' and 'the future'. The NHS have had to, the Post Office have had to, the Armed Forces have had to, the Civil Service have had to as have the Police and the Fire Service and everybody else! It's just no good for a claque of red-faced politicians to cling grimly on to antique modes of practice, or indeed malpractice, (Whilst filling their boots, of course!) in the name of some outmoded 'tradition' when for everyone else 'tradition' means cuts in this and cuts in that, with higher taxes and levels of 'government' but no discernible benefits.
Ho hum! At least it is clear now who does guard the guards: It's the guards, stoopid! And they've been getting away with it for years.
I don't have a problem if an MP hires his whole family and the cat too, well maybe the cat.
Provided those family members are actually carrying out needed work in a professional manner.
However if they do employ family and friends then it needs to be declared and audited, in fact all employees of MP's need to be audited to ensure that the work is required and being done.
This means that FOI should apply to MP's in detail.
The question is does it matter? Of course the taxpayer 'should have a right to know' but isn't this whole affair just blocking out the things we really should be talking about like the future of our country in the upcoming debate on the EU treaty? This clamour ny the media to unlock every corner of MPs life is degrading to our democracy. This should be dealt with by the Commons and no one else. Getting the police involved is just stupidity - they have better things to be doing than chasing corrupt MPs around.
As has been discussed on many a news outlet, I am sure that there are many family members who are legitimately employed by Mps and work diligently for their salary, but the Conway issue (and similar anecdotes from the blogs) and the refusal of the Commons to release details (as above) doesn't cast the system in a good light. The whole situation brings into contrast the 'them and us' of British politics.
Nick
The time has come for "honorable members" to be treated the same as "honorable members of the public"; that's you an me in plain talk.
Unfortunately MP's are now considered to be "on the make".
They enter Parliament for the first time the same as the rest of us, they quickly find ways to benefit from the allowances and expenses that they are given and leave with a pension paid for by you and me.
They require no receipts for bills less than £250 so can live the high life and the ability to set off their London homes against expenses allows them to move up the property ladder at our expense.
A high profile minister was asked in a Sunday paper the price of milk; was 200% out yet previously had claimed that Labour was the party of low inflation (believe that and you will believe anything)
The time has come for MP's to comply with the same laws that they pass. ALL expenses should be detailed and placed on the Internet. The cost of living in London should be tied to the cost of a reasonable hotel room in the capital for the days that they are there. This "troughing" has to stop and the first party to put a stop to it gets my vote.
To quote that old saying "Sunlight is a great antiseptic". MP's need to live in the desert for a while to clean up their reputation.
As has been discussed on many a news outlet, I am sure that there are many family members who are legitimately employed by Mps and work diligently for their salary, but the Conway issue (and similar anecdotes from the blogs) and the refusal of the Commons to release details (as above) doesn't cast the system in a good light. The whole situation brings into contrast the 'them and us' of British politics.
Forget the arguments on legal or otherwise. It is a principle that you do not employ members of your own family unless you are the business owner. If you are not the business owner then you need to justify why a particular member of your family is better suited to the work than any other person and get agreement from your superiors or peers to employ them. Then you ensure that the work they do is seen and checked to ensure that your choice is justified. This is common-sense and avoids charges of nepotism. Just common practice and if you do not adhere to it then you will lose your job and deservedly.
Amazing, isn't it, that the Speaker can protect MPs like this while the parliamentary privilege he also upholds allows them to attack the reputation of others outside the House with impunity? What could possibly be wrong with all MPs stating whether they employed family members or blood relatives using HoC money in the past year? No names need be published.
Come on, Mr Speaker, wake up. There's so much discontent on MPs pay, allowances and perks already that this just looks like the clubbable old HoC turning its collective back on public opinion...again.
That's interesting. So Parliament's rules were broken hence the disclosure. Is there to be a leak enquiry? Or doesn't it matter since this particular leak serves the Government's purpose? Clearly someone with an axe to grind did reveal the information and I wouldn't have thought that too many hands have touched the information that was leaked. This is no way deflects from Conway's actions, and he seems to have accepted the punishment he has been given - just as well, since I guess he couldn't have done otherwise.
A bottom up redesign
I think all MPs have fallen into a hole, one that has been 50 years in the making as regulation governing government and the people of government has been patched and re-patched and touched up here and there and even got the odd coat of paint.
Now, in the name of the British Public who have to pay these idiots, it is time to call for a redesign.
This need not be a complicated affair, in reality. It is a question of sensible approach. The system is cumbersome and complicated be cause it focuses on what MPs, and other associated people, CANNOT do.
Better would be guidance on what they CAN do. That has the chance of being simple enough for both public and MPs to understand.
For instance:
MPs may receive donations for campaigns. These donations must be transferred from a UK based bank account registered to a UK voter ... etc, etc.
Any thing out side the proscribed method is automatically illegal. So, no interpretation needed, no confusion as to who needs to be told - they are given one way to do anything.
Surely even an MP could understand such an approach?
Nick, This is rediculous and comes from petty jealousy. Believe me, my wife and I have lived it for 25 years whilst we've worked together. I employ my daughter too. Some colleagues have no problem with it at all but others just can't understand it. "I couldn't work with my Family" they say as if I should stop working with mine because of their problems at home. Employing Family is not a scam. It makes sense if they have the skills and/or commitment. We've worked through many weekends and other unsociable times and love it. Derek Conway should be told off for not declaring this use of public money more openly but that's it. End of story. There's a lot worse going on.
Many organisations 'block' FOI requests for information they'd rather not be made public. The inference made is that most organisations block FOI requests to avoid embarrassment because they have something to hide.
Interestingly, as a large organisation spending public money, the 91Èȱ¬ is not immune to FOI requests, and recently the 91Èȱ¬ blocked an FOI request for information about the content of it's News broadcasts. Martin Rosenbaum covers the story in the excellent blog to which you refer:
The 91Èȱ¬ v Steven Sugar: The Balen Report
/blogs/opensecrets/2007/03/the_bbc_v_steven_sugar_the_bal.html
Perhaps all members of an MP's staff should be allocated a Civil Service pay grade. The payscales for these grades are public information. All the MP would then be required to do would be to declare the names and the paygrades of the people they employes.
"What is good for the goose is good for the gander" they say.
The government has overlooked this set up and is looking to place heavy tax on family businesses because it thinks they are not a genuine set-up ie the work the spouses (in most cases) is not commensorate to the salary they are paid.
Well, I say, they should look at the MPs fisrt who are taking from the pot before they look at small family businesses who, as they claim, are refusing to put in 'enough' the pot.
On the payroll? how about keep it in the family? The Alexanders/Benns/Millibands. New Labour now has so few members it has to recruit from within its own families.
Talking of keeping it in the family...what does Mervyn King know that would derail the Blessed Leader's economic miracle if he were to be set free to tell his tale?
The answer to the question "Are there more family businesses such as "Conway PLC" earning tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money from working in the House of Commons?" is almost certainly numerous. While it may not be the whole family, the wife or husband may be paid a substantial amount of money for not doing very much. Perhaps only answering the phone if the MP has forgotten to switch on the answering machine.
No mention by your journalists or any MPs of either the Working Time Directive or the National Minimum Wage and the records that need to be kept in order to comply with these regulations.
Reality seems to be in complete contrast to yesterday's statement by the errant Mr Roger Gale who stated that Mr Derek Conway "did not keep time sheets" and he further stated that "I don't keep time sheets either".
Surely he needs to be investigated by the bodies responsible for both the WTD and NMW.
Mr Gale further states that one is not "guilty until proved innocent" but unfortunately the government have changed so many laws that in many circumstances one is guilty until proved innocent.
This is the way the government framed the law and regulations for WTD and NMW i.e. if you don't keep the records to prove your innocence you are deemed to be guilty.
Possibly my understanding is incorrect? or these laws and their regulations have been removed?
Over the years I have met many MPs and mostly when they are off their guard.I was often saddened by the number that displayed total contempt for the electorate and saw politics as a way of lining their own pockets. We have too many 'career politicans' and not enough of them have either the understanding or the desire to really change our society for the better. I replied to your original blog Nick, regarding Hain's fall from grace. I said that many other politicians would be sweating. I know them too well. This is just the tip of a very big ice-berg.
If as an MP you do something dodgy like Conway appears to have, you risk total ruin. Self-interest seems to be the best shield against abuse of the system, as Conway will now pay a very large price.
It's all very well huffing and puffing about transparency, but the vast majority of people have no interest in or knowledge of what MPs do - or what to expect from them. Creating further rules on disclosing information will in reality only serve the media.
I do feel sorry for the families of the MP's identified as possible 'culprits' who undoubtedly now WILL be under fire from journalists trying to find out what they are doing for the money they are being paid. It is the MP who has chosen to step into the public spotlight, not the families.
Greater transparency is needed, and the House of commons must come into line with the rest of us who have to comply with FOI.
According to a table of MPs who have at one time or another employed family members, it's very noticeable that not a single Liberal Democrat MP is mentioned. There's only one real anti sleaze party.
Nick,
I am a Member's researcher. The fact that he employs me, and for that matter the level of my salary, is a matter for me, my employer, and HM Revenue and Customs.
I'm sure a lot of 91Èȱ¬ staff wouldn't like their names published alongside their salaries!
Dear Nick
There’s so much hype around this story that I’ve yet to learn precisely what the issue really is. It’s not against any rule to use family members, indeed it’s probably a good thing, and as the allowance is paid to MPs anyway, regardless of what they do with it, Conway’s arrangements cost the taxpayer the same as any other MP. As for proving that work was done, every small employer knows how difficult it is to ensure that employees work when his back is turned – employing a secretary/researcher isn’t like employing a bricklayer, where you can at least count the bricks
I do think the system is a bad one. It would be better if MPs were just paid a higher salary and it was up to them what support they hired with it, but apparently this is unacceptable as they’re not to be trusted. Alternatively then, the allowance for support staff could be administered by the House of Commons and professional administrators could deal with securing satisfactory evidence that value for money is obtained.
I would find your articles more helpful if you said clearly what the difference is between what Conway did and what you find acceptable. I have the impression that what most MPs do is unacceptable to you, is that so?
Isn't it true that a lot of these staff are, in part, paid out of a budget that would otherwise go in the MP's pocket? In other words, MPs pay staff out of their own salary. Obviously, this is because of the party-political nature of the work carried out by staff. If this is the case, however, then expecting MPs to reveal the names of staff is somewhat unreasonable: we don't expect any other public-sector worker to say what they spend their money on.
Perhaps we should be asking how many MPs friends and family have got positions on the various Quangos. I belive some MPs and ex MPs or their relatives have positions on several. Usualy these pay around £5000 per annum for a couple of days work per year.Quango members are appointed not elected and certainly these posts are not advertised.
Nick,
It is perfectly possible for family members to be paid out of the public purse by gaining employment in a local authority or other public sector body. If they got the job through the MPs or Councillor's contacts, does this also amount to sleaze? I think you might be surprised by how many such arrangements exist, especially with regard to Labour in Scotland.
This affair, and the response of the Speaker and MP's to it, highlights just how urgent a total reform of our parliamentary system has become. Whilst everybody else, in private and especially public, sectors have been forced to "modernise" and accept changes to their working conditions, parliamentarians just carry on in their insulated bubble, insisting that any proper public scrutiny or accountability would somehow infringe the "sovereignty" of parliament. Total and utter tosh, and such claims just make most of us, the people who fund their private club, even more angry.
As more and more real power is freely given by this same parliament (against the wishes of the people to whom such power rightly belongs by the way) to the European Union, it has less and less "sovereignty" to defend anyway. Quite how they keep up the pretence is beyond me, and it is increasingly clear that the argument is made more to protect MP's priviledged status as individuals than it is to safeguard their independence as true representatives of the electorate. A root and branch reform of our parliamentary system is long overdue, and it should be conducted in full public view, and with proper participation by the only people who really matter in a true democracy - the people. Fat chance of that of course, unless we emulate the French and set up some barricades.
Yet again we're let down by our representatives in the big house.
The only way this will ever change is when we have a truly independent body to police our government, with teeth to punish when they break the rules.
It'd be nice to think the standard police could carry out this function, but recent events have shown how easily manipulated and dependent they are on their paymasters.
Shame on us all for putting up with it.
Perhaps we should also ask how many members of MPs families are on government quangoes? which I believe pay in excess of £5ooo per year for a couple of days so called work. Some I understand are on lots of different quangoes, these quango positions are I believe not advertised but their members seem to be apointed but by whom?. I have never seen a position for a quango member advertised in the press and have no idea what qualifications are required. Perhaps the only qualification is to be related to an MP. So come on Nick lets have you making enquires.
I find it very strange that even a £12,000 p.a. administrative officer in the Civil Service has to follow tighter finance and accountability processes and procedures than our country's MPs.
I think a lot of people are missing the point and a key piece of information. Conway employed his son to fulfil certain duties that he did not fulfil. I have no problem with people employing family members if they are doing what they are paid to do.
For an MP to do the opposite is quite disgraceful.
Come on Nick lets have you investigating the number of MPs family members who are on quangoes.Who they are?, how they got the jobs? and how many quangoes each is on?.Plus how much they each get paid out of the public purse I believe the answers will make sensational reading in the Daily Mail.
"how many spouses maybe employed...."
Indeed.
These people (MP's) need to be bought into modernity with respect to their work.
Their job is unusual in that they serve thousands of customers i.e. their constituents and have no security of tenure, the job being (or should be) purely performance related, with a regular benchmark i.e. an election, of that performance every few years.
I do not see why a standard generic contract of work could not be drawn up for MP's, specifying such things as a minimum number of hours to be worked per week - maybe 37-and-a-half with an appropriate wage, holidays, pension contributions, expenses and so on.
These MP's are effectively running a small business so may operate via a Limited Company or some other suitable vehicle.
However they choose to operate their 'business' they should suffer the same burdens with respect to HMRC as the rest of us do.
MP's work for us but they have gradually rigged the current system to suit themselves - becoming an MP now is like having the winning ticket in some grotesque lottery.
English democracy has been terribly abused for a very long time and we, the English people must start straightening it out.
I think that there is a place for employment of partners in general although the rest of the family is dubious to say the least.
Those who argue for the employment of only non-family members may wish to think again given the number of members who end up with their employees and divorcing their spouses.
I cannot entertain the employment of civil servants however, as they would be in a perpetual state of conflict of interest.
Keep asking those questions, Nick. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with employing family members. However, if someone is using taxpayers' money to do so, that's a completely different kettle of fish. To my mind, it then becomes essential that:
1) The job was given to the family member because that family member was the best person for the job
2) The salary should be appropriate to the job
3) There should be an auditable record of whether the person performs the job properly
If rules governing MPs are based on the assumption that they are going to behave honourably, then we have a big problem. I also find it outrageous that it's not possible to sack MPs if they have broken the rules. Anyone else caught embezzling their employer's money would be facing a P45 and possible criminal charges: why should it be different for MPs?
Conway PLC? Conway TFC more like: taxpayer funded company.
MP's should face stringent penalties for this kind of misappropriation. To simply have to pay it back and be banned from attending the Commons for 10 days is no punishment. If i tried this kind of thing at work i would be fired on the spot!
It's not as if it is simply on party doing this kind of things either it seems to be endemic. one solution would be fixed budgets on spending and surely their mail can be paid for and sent through the government postal system. £5 - 10 grand on postage, dont make me laugh!
"Kamikaze pilot" suggests he was under military discipline and that he was sent with clear orders not to return.
One assumes Conway's actions were voluntary.... So an inappropriate comparison.
Dear Nick
It is said that Conways behaviour is disgraceful but if he was not an MP it would be considered criminal.
If he has wrongly used £80,000 why is it being suggested the he only repays £13,000? It beggars belief.
I find it difficult not to see double standards when MPs can employ their spouses as secretaries, while the HMRC are introducing legislation to prevent everyone else from doing the same when they are in business:
My wife and I paid for our daughter to go to university £25000 approximately.We are ordinary working people why should we have to pay for Mr.Conway`s sons to go to university as well when he pays nothing.This surely is a matter for the police.
When I was a civil servant, my name and pay scale were published. I can see no reason for treating MPs and their staff differently.
In fact there should be a stop to all their unjustifiable privileges - such as not having to use the same insecure on-line tax return system as their constituents.
As a first step, what about providing a comprehensive and detailed list of ALL the ways they are treated differently to us?
And, for heaven's sake, stop terming them 'honourable' members. There may be some, I suppose; but I doubt if the majority now are.
At a time when HMRC is dragging hard-working married couples through the courts using the Section 660 settlements legislation, isn't it doubly unfair that MPs get to employ their wives and other relatives in nice cosy arrangements without being subject to the same harassment from the Revenue?
Interesting to see that the one side of the house is saying that it wants its front bench politicians to declare what they have been earning! Well most of it anyway!
Does this mean that any dodgy earnings will be held in trust for them by the back benchers? or their accountants?