When does sexual relationship cost MP's assistant a job?
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Bedroom police will be needed to check up on MPs who might be having illicit affairs with their staff if the ban on employing close relatives is to be enforced fairly, the husband of a senior Labour MP said today.
More than three dozen wives and husbands employed by MPs as office managers, personal assistants or constituency workers are facing the sack if the report by Sir Christopher Kelly, published tomorrow, is implemented in full.
Phil Cole has been employed by his wife, Caroline Flint, since she was elected Labour MP for Don Valley in 1997. They lived together for ten years before they married in 2001. That belated decision to marry is now likely to cost Mr Cole his job.
“What if an MP begins a sexual relationship with a staff?” he asked. “At what point does it become a formal relationship under the Kelly rules? Are we going to have bedroom policing?
“We are going to have a dual set of rules, one for single MPs, or gay MPs who have not been through a civil ceremony, and one for those who are married or have been through a civil ceremony. Would my position be different if Caroline and I were still living together but were not married?”
Mr Cole, who is 49, gave up a job with Burson Marsteller, one of the world’s biggest PR agencies, to move to Don Valley and run his wife’s constituency office. Previously, he had worked for years as a party organiser.
“The biggest concern in 1997 was the issue of MPs having undisclosed connections to the lobbying industry, so I took a decision that I would give up my job so that Caroline would not have a partner who was a lobbyist. I didn’t make that move for the money. Anyone will tell you that you can make more in international PR than you can on the standard salary scales set by Parliament.
“It’s very well known in the constituency that I work for Caroline, and I cannot recall ever having a letter or a word of complaint about her employing her husband.”
Sally Hammond is also likely to have to suffer for making a career choice to be with her husband, the Tory MP Stephen Hammond. She has worked in Parliament far longer than her husband, having started as a Tory MP’s secretary in 1984.
Her last employer, the Tory MP Richard Page, stood down at the general election in 2005. His successor, David Gauke, offered to keep her on, but on that same day her husband took Wimbledon off Labour, so she decided to work for him. Now she faces the sack.
One possibility is that her husband will do a ‘wife swap’ with a fellow Tory, so that each employs the other’s wife.
“I’m not very happy about the wife swap issue, but I will have to find another job,” she said. “I wouldn’t mind if somebody said to me ‘reapply for your job’. I could easily get it because I’ve got lots of experience, and I know the constituency, but I find the thought of being sacked for being married very distasteful.”
Another idea mooted in Parliament – in jest, rather than as a serious suggestion – is that wives could get a ‘quickie’ divorce so that they can keep working for their husbands. Eve Burt started working for her Tory husband Alistair Burt when he was first elected in 1983, took time off when they had small children, and has worked for him full time since 2001.
She joked: “Alistair said to me ‘what if I make you my living doll, darling?’ and I said ‘I don’t want to be anyone’s living doll at my age’.”
Some MPs have argued that working together makes it easier to stay married, in a profession where anti-social hours contribute to a notoriously high divorce rate.
Jean Hamilton, who the Midlothian constituency office for her husband, David, said: “I can understand that because it’s a very stressful job but if I told you that we have had our 40th wedding anniversary you’ll know that we’re in it long term.”
Sally Ainger, who runs the constituency office in West Carmarthen for husband Nick said: “When Nick has been in meetings all day he rings me at eight or nine about some constituency matter. I do weekend surgeries with him on Friday afternoon through to the evening, and Saturday morning. He wouldn’t want to ask somebody else to work those hours.
“There have been very few people who have abused the system to pay family members. It’s a classic case of the few spoiling it for the many.”
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Hysteria rules.
Another way is the many (as 'represented' by the media) spoiling it for the many. All my experiences (OK - four) of spice running their partners offices have been very positive. An extremely dedicated lot working for relatively little money and doing a fine job.
I want to know whether the commons is going to pay for the cover that husbands and wives are frequently called upon to do, and at very short notice. On the other hand I know the answer - NO - and we all lose out. This is rarely an abuse, for god sake the media should get a life (half one would help) and start looking at the positive in our representatives.
And no, I am not evn related to an MP, and I am also not a member of any party (but that is another matter).
What I believe most people want are for MPs to do regular hours under regular conditions i.e. for £64k per year in London, most people will work between 9:30am and 6:30pm, 5 days a week, 45 weeks of the year. They would expect to be expensed for any travel to another office on each occasion that they made that travel. They would expect to provide receipts on each occasion. They would not expect to be allowed to rent a flat for the entire year near the 2nd office if it was just down the road from their 1st office and definitely would not expect to have their mortgage paid for by their employer. They would expect a defined contributions pension and no golden goodbye. They would not expect to be allowed to employ their own relatives.
The MPs complaints seem to be:-
1. That renting a flat could be cheaper in certain circumstances than staying in a hotel - This may be true for MPs whose constituencies are further than 1.5 hours from Westminster and regularly attend that place. Employers typically find accommodation for overseas employees or specify a limit.
2. That their hours are much longer than normal commuters and regularly go in to the early hours - I find this highly unlikely. Many London commuters work irregular hours and have to do shift work. MPs stopped having long sessions some years ago, and they could start the sessions at a normal hour then they'd be able to finish earlier.
3. That no other employee has to pay for travel to a 2nd office out of their own pocket - Contract workers pay for travel and accommodation out of their own pocket, many of whom earn less than MPs.
4. That their wives/relatives are the best employees available and that to make them redundant is unethical - Their wives/relatives may be the best employees because they have been given an unfair opportunity in the past. They certainly shouldn't be prevented from applying for similar jobs with other MPs. However, as there's no independent scrutiny over the hours that MPs relatives do, and there are clear cases where no works been done then they can't expect the public to put up with this cosy set of affairs for any longer.