Dear All
An independent report has recommended that MSPs should be banned from employing their relatives.
The view of the authors is that giving MSPs public funds to employ family members undermines public confidence in them and in Parliament as an institution.
The public perception it concludes is fuelling “public cynicism” and the expenses row doesn’t help either.
In Holyrood at present 26 MSPs employ their relatives, right across the political divide.
For those who are currently employed the issue of fairness and human rights arises, is it proper that they should be sacked from their current employment?
I would say the answer is no!
I would think given that public trust and perception is an issue new MSPs via their parties should commit themselves to not to employ family members if elected.
In one case, there is a situation where an MSP pays his wife as his parliamentary assistant, who is also a councillor and Prospective Westminister Candidate.
If elected she would be able to claim three salaries from the public purse.
If that is not a case that fuels public cynicism, I don’t know what is, hardly ethical I would put forward as an argument.
The review conducted by Sir Neil McIntosh has the MSP expenses scheme “robust” and gave it a generally clean bill of health.
The way round the proposed ban of employing relatives is of course that MSPs have their relatives swop jobs which I circumvent the principle that banninh seeks to uphold.
Trust!
I would say that the sensible way forward is to allow those currently employed not to be affected but have the ban brought in to end the practice.
To dismiss someone currently working would be unfair, draconian and a breach of their human rights.
It would be appropriate to adopt the stance taken by the Welsh Assembly as I outlined above, it seems the fairness way forward and help build public trust.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
An independent report has recommended that MSPs should be banned from employing their relatives.
The view of the authors is that giving MSPs public funds to employ family members undermines public confidence in them and in Parliament as an institution.
The public perception it concludes is fuelling “public cynicism” and the expenses row doesn’t help either.
In Holyrood at present 26 MSPs employ their relatives, right across the political divide.
For those who are currently employed the issue of fairness and human rights arises, is it proper that they should be sacked from their current employment?
I would say the answer is no!
I would think given that public trust and perception is an issue new MSPs via their parties should commit themselves to not to employ family members if elected.
In one case, there is a situation where an MSP pays his wife as his parliamentary assistant, who is also a councillor and Prospective Westminister Candidate.
If elected she would be able to claim three salaries from the public purse.
If that is not a case that fuels public cynicism, I don’t know what is, hardly ethical I would put forward as an argument.
The review conducted by Sir Neil McIntosh has the MSP expenses scheme “robust” and gave it a generally clean bill of health.
The way round the proposed ban of employing relatives is of course that MSPs have their relatives swop jobs which I circumvent the principle that banninh seeks to uphold.
Trust!
I would say that the sensible way forward is to allow those currently employed not to be affected but have the ban brought in to end the practice.
To dismiss someone currently working would be unfair, draconian and a breach of their human rights.
It would be appropriate to adopt the stance taken by the Welsh Assembly as I outlined above, it seems the fairness way forward and help build public trust.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
No comments:
Post a Comment