Another MP in trouble?

[Osem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7212990.stm

....and it was only a few weeks ago that Stephen Pound was banging on about how hard they all work, how they're overscrutinised and how they deserve more pay etc. Well Mr Pound, if so many of your peers weren't either inept or worse, maybe you'd all receive a little more public sympathy.

[TheNorm]

MPs are given allowances to run their office and pay their staff and there are no rules to stop wives, husbands, sons, daughters and other family members working for them.

How can he break a rule if there is no rule to be broken?

Instead of moaning, why doesn't the Standards and Privileges Committee draft a standard contract of employment to be signed by MPs and their staff?

[jkat]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

How can he break a rule if there is no rule to be broken?

Instead of moaning, why doesn't the Standards and Privileges Committee draft a standard contract of employment to be signed by MPs and their staff?

i thought that but if u read further

Freddie Conway was paid at a full-time equivalent rate of £25,970 per year throughout his employment.

However, "no records appear to exist of either actual work that FC did for his father, or of the work he was required to undertake", the MPs said.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by jkat

i thought that ...

They don't seem to have a rule about keeping track of the work done. Why doesn't the committee write one, instead of trying to score political points?

If you add up the time taken, I wonder how much money the committee spent on considering this case?

[jkat]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

They don't seem to have a rule about keeping track of the work done. Why doesn't the committee write one, instead of trying to score political points?

If you add up the time taken, I wonder how much money the committee spent on considering this case?

true but
maybe there is more to it than reported otherwise why is he apologising? and u got to admit its wide open for corruption.

[Osem]

Whether there is a legal requirement or not, given the amounts involved, I'd have thought anyone in his position would have kept some record of work done by the family member(s) if only to serve as proof in cases like this where some doubt has been cast. Common sense not rocket science....

[BBKing]

Or even just produce something, anything, that would show that Junior wasn't just taking the money and running. Evidently he couldn't. It can't take much evidence to convince a committee made up of MPs, surely, but Mr. Conway seems not to have been able to do so.

[Aragorn]

Hmm - wonder how many other MP's are on that particular gravy train. As I read it, he got caught out because an opposing candidate decided to nitpick the MP's accounts. Maybe we should all do that

[BBKing]

Maybe we should all do that

Hell Yes. If they weren't scared of scrutiny they wouldn't try and hide everything.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Hmm - wonder how many other MP's are on that particular gravy train. As I read it, he got caught out because an opposing candidate decided to nitpick the MP's accounts. ...

Exactly. What is this, a "stab you in the back" committee? If they can't come up with a simple set of rules for MPs to employ staff, how do they think they can manage to run the country?

Or, to look at it another way, there are 646 MPs to "control", which is about the size of an SME.

[Aragorn]

If you are interested - the links at the top of this page give summaries of the expenses claimed by each MP. Unfortunately, it doesn't say who they each paid the £80K+ staffing costs to.

[Xaccers]

Hmm, how many businesses "employ" family members to get out of paying tax?
Hundreds of thousands I suspect.

If there's no rules for proving work was done for money paid, it doesn't matter if the money was paid to Joe Bloggs or Junior, something is wrong with that picture, and the comittee should look into sorting that out sharpish.

[BBKing]

In this case what the committee objected to was that he was paid more than the average pay for, basically, sitting downloading stuff of the internet, and then got a bonus on top, not to mention generous pension contributions. When asked to justify it they couldn't. His elder brother had previously pulled the same trick and apparently just coincidentally his appointment coincided with Mr. Conway moving from 81st to 1st in the most costly staff allowances list...

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).

Conway also apparently claimed for a second house in London when he's MP for, er, Bexley, which is 13 miles away.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by BBKing

In this case what the committee objected to was that he was paid more than the average pay for, basically, sitting downloading stuff of the internet, and then got a bonus on top, not to mention generous pension contributions. When asked to justify it they couldn't. His elder brother had previously pulled the same trick and apparently just coincidentally his appointment coincided with Mr. Conway moving from 81st to 1st in the most costly staff allowances list...

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).

Conway also apparently claimed for a second house in London when he's MP for, er, Bexley, which is 13 miles away.

Yeah but it's a long 13 miles, cabbies hate travelling south of the river and Bexley station's a bit nippy at this time of year.....

[Xaccers]

So he paid his son 6% more than the middle of the lowest payscale, for work which his son was qualified for and the comittee agreed needed doing, yet was still well below the maximum he could have paid his son?
So the only real issue is lack of proof that the work was done, strange, surely there would be evidence that the important work which needed doing wasn't done, and that his son was given bonuses?