Analysis: That one-fifth of MSPs are employing relatives on the public payroll will strike many as a scandal, but in truth it�s a more complicated picture than that.
That one-fifth of MSPs are employing relatives on the public payroll will strike many as a scandal, but in truth it's a more complicated picture than that.
For a start, do we know how many MPs at Westminster do the same? Not a chance. Or MEPs in Brussels? Nope. Instead, what we have is the latest opportunity for Scots to beat themselves up in a way that does not happen anywhere else.
The Scottish Parliament has always been in a position of damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. It is doubtful whether any legislature in the world is as open and accountable as Holyrood. Does that get it a good press? You must be joking.
The more open its procedures, the greater the volume of information it releases, and the worse the headlines. Holyrood has pretty much had a monopoly on bad press, from the cost of the building through to the resignations of a First Minister for the minor felony surrounding his office letting arrangements, to the use of taxis by the leader of the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament.
Their pay is less than that of MPs, their allowances even more so, but it is our Holyrood parliamentarians who continue to get it in the neck for their alleged profligacy.
There has never been a scandal at Holyrood to compare with the Derek Conway case, the MP who disgraced the memory of Ted Heath in Bexley and Sidcup by paying his son through university by hiring him as staff without actually requiring him to do any work.
Freddie, you may recall, was meant to be studying at Newcastle University at the time he was being paid the equivalent of £40,000 a year for a part-time post at Westminster. The Committee on Standards and Privileges found no record of any work done by Freddie, nor his brother or their mother who had all at various times received such largesse.
It was a low point for Westminster, with scrutiny of MPs employment practices. But has it changed much there? No. Holyrood remains streets ahead of London, as acknowledged yesterday by even the Taxpayers' Alliance, who hate the Scottish Parliament and all its works.
It is a serious issue that the Scottish Parliament gave none of its leaders a moment's grace. Henry McLeish was hounded from office for a very small accounting mix-up on his constituency office letting arrangements.
Similarly, Tory leader David McLetchie was hounded from office for using taxis around town. If someone at Westminster was guilty of this it would not be regarded as an offence and it would not be captured as a piece of information.
Ordinary people, which is to say not the strange, driven folk who are involved directly in politics, will question why anyone should be allowed to employ their close relatives at all.
That is a fair call, but does not recognise just how different politics is. Issues such as trust and loyalty and commitment are embedded in politics, which is why so many politicians employ close relatives.
As taxpayers we probably get better value from these employees because their commitment is so ferocious, their clock-watching non-existent. But it is absolutely right that this whole area be monitored, and as a minimum request we might ask Westminster to follow the Holyrood example.
And as a further suggestion, we might tweak the new Langlands rules. Instead of asking about relatives and in-laws, we should also ask a supplementary question about fellow parliamentarians.
"I'll hire your son if you hire my daughter" ought to be made public. Michael McMahon admitted yesterday that his daughter worked for him only part-time, but she worked in his East Renfrewshire constituency office for Jim Murphy the rest of her time.
That is entirely legitimate, but if the new register is to have meaning it should add a category to its questionnaire - those who work for other parliamentarians.
