Amidst all the sensible suggestions flying around about how to reform the House of Commons there is one which I completely reject - that MPs should be banned from employing members of their family.
I see the temptation. There is a fear that expenses will continue to be abused by some MPs who won't demand that their spouse or offspring puts in adequate effort. Another worry is that it is nepotistic, and unfair on others who would like the chance to work for a politician. (Believe it or not, loads of us would.)
I think we get too het up about nepotism. It makes perfect sense, for example, for an immigrant to build a business that can offer financial security to later generations of their family. It is not reasonable, right or realistic to (try to) force everyone to pick their employees solely on the basis of a disinterested analysis of a pile of CVs.
Then there is the fraught matter, if such staffing situations are banned, of what happens if an MP and their secretary start a relationship. (And there is precisely no possibility of that never happening.) Will the secretary have to resign? Does David Cameron really want that headache?
Some Conservative MPs have behaved abominably in the past, forcing late sittings in the House of Commons not to ensure effective scrutiny of legislation but simply out of spite. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members don’t tend to be my cup of tea but I wouldn’t for one minute contemplate harming their family life for sport.
This is an opportunity for David Cameron to strike a small blow for the family - albeit one that I don’t suppose will be particularly popular. But it’s the right thing to do. A good leader can sometimes resist the chance of a cheap headline victory.
It is inevitable that some Tory MPs will chase their secretary round the office. If that secretary is also the MP’s husband, wife or civil partner that’s one less thing Mr Cameron has to worry about.
Far from being a universally awful thing, nepotism often has a lot to recommend it.