Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Keeping it in the family: Fifth of MSPs have relative on their staff

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 November 2008
ONE in five MSPs have a family member on their staff, it emerged yesterday, prompting concerns over nepotism.
Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, who employs her mother, Joan, as a constituency assistant, is among 25 MSPs who employ relatives.

The information was revealed in a new register for Holyrood created in response to concerns about the wa
y Westminster MPs were employing members of their families.

The proportion of MSPs employing relatives is higher than that with MPs at Westminster, where the practice caused a storm of controversy.

Patrick Harvie, the Green MSP, has criticised the practice and said MSPs should make more of an effort to recruit staff properly, by advertising positions in newspapers.

Pointing out that MSPs from his party had never employed family members, he said: "We wouldn't support an outright ban, but it is hardly something which builds public confidence in the Scottish Parliament."

The 25 MSPs – 11 SNP, 11 Labour, two Tories and one Liberal Democrat – employ husbands, wives, sons, daughters and, in some cases, in-laws. No salary details have been given, on confidentiality grounds. MSPs can claim up to £56,650 for staff.

Michael McMahon, Labour's business manager, is the only one to employ two family members – his wife, Margaret, is an office manager and his daughter, Siobhan, works part-time for both him and Jim Murphy, the Secretary of State for Scotland.

He said: "It was all open and above board, and nothing has ever been hidden on this subject. Frankly, one of the reasons family members are employed is because few other people would work so hard for so little money."

He said his daughter received £2,500 from the Labour group and £6,000 from his staff allowance per year.

Another MSP to employ two family members, but not concurrently, is Aberdeen North's Brian Adam (SNP). He employs his son Alan; his other son, David, used to work for him.

Employing relatives is not against the rules at Westminster, but since August MPs have had to register the names of all family members paid from the public purse.

The rule was introduced after Derek Conway, a former Tory MP, was accused of misusing public funds earlier this year. He was suspended from the Commons and stripped of the Conservative whip after it emerged he had hired his son as a parliamentary researcher while he was a full-time student in Newcastle.

About one in six MPs hires family members as researchers or secretaries. Indeed, some MPs insist, like Mr McMahon, that non-family members would never agree to work such long, awkward hours for relatively small salaries.

Given the demands on MPs, who are away from home for most of the week, keeping wives or husbands on the payroll has also helped to keep some marriages together, it is claimed.

A new version of the Westminster list, Family Members Employed and Remunerated through the Staffing Allowance, was published this week.


FACT BOX

MSPs who employ family members are:

SNP: Brian Adam (son Alan), Nicola Sturgeon (mother Joan), Willie Coffey (sister Helen), Angela Constance (mother-in-law Mary Knox), Kenneth Gibson (wife Patricia), Jim Mather (wife Maureen), Tricia Marwick (son Steven), Stewart Maxwell (wife Mary), Alex Neil (wife Isabella), Andrew Welsh (nephew Gary Ferguson), and Sandra White (son Christopher).

Labour: Rhona Brankin (daughter Ruth), Michael McMahon (wife Margaret and daughter Siobhan), Helen Eadie (husband Robert), Charles Gordon (son Gavin's website and IT firm GMG Solutions), Hugh Henry (sister-in-law Lindsay McAlpine), Cathy Jamieson (son Michael Sharpe), Andy Kerr (wife Susan), James Kelly (wife Alexa), Tom McCabe (sister Kathleen Ferguson), Elaine Murray (husband Jeff Leaver) and Elaine Smith (aunt Agnes Rodgers).

Conservative: Ted Brocklebank (sister Pat Anthony) and Jamie McGrigor (wife Emma).

Liberal Democrat: Jim Tolson (wife Alison).



Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

28/11/2008 00:10:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Fifi la Bonbon,

28/11/2008 00:39:00
I agree with the McKellarator about this. Politics in alll parties is a murky business at local level. An MSP or MP needs staff he or she can really trust, and often that means family members. So long as there's some kind of audit control so that people do the work and are paid a salary commensurate with the responsibilities, then it's perfectly reasonable.

The phone line to the Taxpayer's Alliance office in London must have been engaged last night - no quote from them!
3

Scunnert,

28/11/2008 01:08:37
As lonf as they're actually doing work I don't see the problem.
4

,

28/11/2008 03:49:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Guga II,

Rockall 28/11/2008 04:09:45
#4 Hi Scott, hope things are going well.

As for employing family members, it should be banned for all MSPs and MPs as it leads to both nepotism and corruption.
6

,

28/11/2008 06:05:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Corky,

28/11/2008 06:18:55
Why should it be banned? Where's the proof that it leads to nepotism and corruption any more than employing anyone else? A few high profile cases does not prove anything. Are all marriages corrupt?
8

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 28/11/2008 07:07:03
#7 It already is nepotism!
9

Unimpressed one,

28/11/2008 08:03:11
Politicians doing what politicians have always done - getting as many of the family's snout into the public gravy train as possible. The Kinnocks are a prime example - teat-suckers par excellence. No wonder they fight tooth and nail at every election.
10

,

28/11/2008 08:06:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

,

28/11/2008 08:08:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Martinh,

28/11/2008 08:34:24
#11. As long as they are doing their jobs and not being subsidised from the public purse for doing nothing(unlike that Tory MEP claiming huge sums for family members not actually employed by him) then there is no problem with family members of MSPs being employed. Politics can be a family business, with the non elected spouse/relative often acting in an unpaid supportive role. By your logic, small family firms should not be permitted to employ family members because they should only be 'SUITABLY qualified and trained staff.' They actually achieve that as a direct consequence of being employed in this way.
13

The ghost of Harry Lauder,

Edinburgh 28/11/2008 08:44:14
I pay taxes to ensure that MSPs can have staff to support them in their work. Fine. I want to make sure that I get maximum value for money for my taxes. That means all jobs being properly specified and advertised so that the MSP can ensure that he or she is selecting the best possible person for the job. If all of the family members above have been selected through open and fair recruitment and have emerged as the best candidate for the job, then fine. If they have not gone through this process then it is wrong and a misuse of public money.
14

Martinh,

28/11/2008 08:58:03
#13. But if this was strictly applied then employees of MSPs could actually support opposing parties. I don't think that it an open market subject to equal opportunities legislation and clearly an MSP is entitled to have all his/her employees as Party members or supporters.
15

Martinh,

28/11/2008 09:03:29
Research Assistants to elected politicians are often politics students gaining work experience on low salaries that would not attract applicants on the open market anyway.
16

Who Am I To Say,

LASSWADE 28/11/2008 09:11:35
Are these family members interviewed for these posts and in fact, do they have the required qualifications to enable them to be put on the interview list?

Better still, WERE THESE JOBS ADVERTISED?!?
17

watcher,

Prestonpans 28/11/2008 09:24:28
They`re all tarred with the same brush. They have the right to distribute Taxpayers money as they seem fit.
Who else in the World can change a dictionary around and call Corruption Sleaze.
18

Alan B,

28/11/2008 09:34:27
I do not have a problem with msp employing family members along as we have clear rules and transparency and they are strongly enforsed.

Msps and mps have had so many minor corruption scandals and they seem to get of all the time and their own party backs them that it has brought the whole thing into disrepute. Mps with the much more lax westminster rules appear to be much worse. There seems little integrity.

The issue i would have round msp employing staff is the fact that some msp have second jobs. I find it incredible that say McLetchie was leader of the tories and still working in his law practice. i have no problem with msp needing staff to help with work if they are overburdened but not so they can work part time as an msp and make more cash in other areas.



19

subrosa,

28/11/2008 09:42:54
At least Holyrood are transparent about this matter. Nepotism? Look no further than Glasgow City Council. Weren't they the council that used to put out application forms already marked with 'suitable' on them?

Trust is imperative in politics. If I was in politics I would want someone I can totally trust working with me and also someone of my own political persuasion.

Now, what about David Marshall and his alleged £500,000 in payments to his family members?
20

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 28/11/2008 10:15:51
After the earlier scandals involving the likes of the ex-leader of the Scots Tory Party, who had the brass neck to claim a small fortune in taxi expenses, the system had to become more transparent.

However, the Scottish Parliament has been in existence for 10 years and it is still dragging its feet about many other matters involving financial expenses for MSP's.
21

,

28/11/2008 10:25:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

overshot,

perth 28/11/2008 10:29:04
No 7 both of mine were.
23

Miss H,

28/11/2008 10:44:15
20 What? Every single expense they claim is published, down to the last toilet roll!
24

Miss H,

28/11/2008 10:49:52
16 Don't know about other parties but the SNP website always carries vacancies for SNP parliamentarians.

I suspect that might be the next stage in this particular ladder of lunacy.

How many MSPs employ people who are members of the same party as them?

The answer I would guess would be 100%.

Cue outrage....

25

Rasco,

28/11/2008 10:54:02
BBC Politics Scotland, STV Politics Now ,Scottish press are now going to issue a health warning to everyone."You are now going to see and read Labour Party propaganda" so you have been warned ???? Just a thought.
26

Thistledhu,

28/11/2008 10:56:14
nepotism in the public sector is shocking its all over

and lets not forget soem of the scams run by partys involveing party offices the scotsman should look closer at that
27

FLUB,

a rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 28/11/2008 10:57:01
While this means that four fifths of MSPs don't employ family members, there is sufficient public misgiving that the practice should be discontinued.

Two further reasons: "Council in cutbacks row gives Provost £2000 a year for clothes" and "Fraud can't be ruled out at Aberdeen Council, says auditor"

Interesting snippet: Helen Eadie (husband Robert) = Labour Councillor for Inverkeithing & Dalgety Bay
28

Miss H,

28/11/2008 10:59:55
9 That is always going to be the view of the cynics and there is nothing that anybody can do about it.

I would just make this one point. The independent review of MSPs allowances when it looked at staff pay said that it should be increased by about a million and a half quid as I recall to bring salaries up to what the market rate would be for the work.

So clearly people do not do the work for the money, as they have been under paid rather than over paid.

In my expertience a lot of people do it for the experience. That may take them on to jobs in industry or others sectors or into politics in their own right. In the SNP for example you have Alasdair Allan, Jamie Hepburn, Aileen Campbell, Joe Fitzpatrick who were all employed as staff before they became MSPs. So you could say the job provides a kind of internship for people who want to be politicians, which is why they will do it for peanuts.

But I don't think that applies so much to family members. I am not aware of any situations where a husband has employed a wife or where a parent employed a child where the employee has gone on to become an elected member themselves. That is just in the SNP - might have happened in other parties.

So to sum up the way I see it, no-one does it for money, some people do it for ambition, others do it for love I guess.
29

Thistledhu,

28/11/2008 11:04:37
#28 in a word nonesense, and the constincuancy office rental scam what about that?
30

Thistledhu,

28/11/2008 11:12:30
no answer miss H ?
31

The ghost of Harry Lauder,

Edinburgh 28/11/2008 11:30:55
In response to 14 I don't think it is reasonable for a MSP to insist that an employee is a party member or supporter; simply because it dramatically reduces the pool of suitable applicants (less than 1% of people in Scotland are pp members. I DO think it is reasonable, as many employers in other areas do, to set as one of the person spec requirements that the employee demonstrates sympathy with the employers' values or objectives and that this is unlikely to be achieved if the applicant were a member of a rival party. In fact, I know at least one MSP who had a support worker who was a member of another party but that did not stop him or her being a good employee. The fact that the posts are lowish in pay is no excuse for bypassing even basic requirements for equal opps or open recruitment.
32

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/11/2008 11:31:37
#10 Hahaha! I was wondering whether some numpty would say that. Ms Sturgeon is the Deputy First Minister. Do you really think it would be more "fair" to bury her later in the article? What a pathetic specimen of a Cybernat you are.
33

Thistledhu,

28/11/2008 11:44:20
duncan and the labour party dont indulge in hireing of family members?
34

Miss H,

28/11/2008 12:31:02
31 Legally they can't insist that someone is a member of a political party before they employ them but obviously in reality they will only employ someone they trust. Any MSP who employs a member of another political party is an idiot.

30 I would answer you if I understood what you were talking about.
35

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 28/11/2008 12:40:03
35 "Yes, but the problem is, when and where were these jobs advertised?"

That is a fair point. Surely these are public sector jobs and therefore must be subject to the same application and selection procedures as any others. Can a school headteacher appoint his/her spouse to a job in the school without going through these procedures? I'm sure they can't.
36

G,

dndy 28/11/2008 12:42:13
Employing family members looks and smell wrong.....it should be stopped now....com'on the SNP....this would mean doing something but it might be popular!!!
37

Moffat's Murkin,

28/11/2008 23:00:52
I disagree with this. MP's should be allowed to keep who they hire, how much they pay them, and the contents of employment tribunals closed for hundreds of years.
38

Thistledhu,

30/11/2008 11:47:37
34 MISS h I refer to the practice of local constituancy party's leaseing offices at the going market rate then renting them to msp's / mp's at a higher rate then pocketing the diffrence.

The rent of course is paid by the msp's/mp's expense allowance in other words public money being syphoned into party coffers through the back door, This sadly is a widespread practice and should be stopped.
39

Roy,

07/12/2008 09:14:27
Perhaps a bigger issue is the informal 'appointment' of assistants, researchers, etc., to posts which are not advertised and subjected to open recruitment. Aside from family members, there are a lot of 'mates' given these posts.
40

Libertarian!,

17/12/2008 18:07:40
"Corrupt" political practice is not confined solely to the UK. It is rampant worlwide and I am not suggesting that those named with family members or relations employed by MPs are in any way corrupt, but corruption and lying seems to be inherent in UK politics. If family members are genuinely performing tasks full or part time: they are surely entitled to be paid for their labour.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.