Finnish parliament members can hire their own relatives as assistants without restrictions. This practice has sparked debate about transparency and potential conflicts of interest.
Several members of parliament have recently hired close family members. Kaisa Juuso from the Finns Party hired her son as an assistant. Jaana Strandman from the same party employed her spouse.
This follows similar cases from previous years. Veijo Niemi hired his son, while Mikko Polvinen employed his girlfriend. Other parties have also seen family members working together. Sari Tanus from the Christian Democrats is assisted by her husband.
Parliamentary Administration Director Pertti Rauhio says the legislature trusts members' judgment in hiring decisions. He notes that parliament removed the ban on hiring relatives when streamlining assistant recruitment processes.
"The person must be of legal age and cannot be a security risk. We didn't consider family relationships problematic," Rauhio stated. "If this creates critical discussion, that's the political price each member must assess."
Most parliamentary groups have moved to a centralized staffing model. Under this system, political groups hire assistants rather than individual members. This reduces direct family hiring opportunities.
Only about 50 assistants remain directly employed by parliament members themselves. The direct hiring model continues mainly in the Swedish People's Party and partially in the Finns Party and National Coalition Party.
Jani Mäkelä, chair of the Finns Party parliamentary group, says he doesn't recommend hiring relatives. He notes that in the traditional assistant model, hiring questions belong to individual members rather than the group.
Some parties have clear policies against family hiring. The Centre Party and Social Democratic Party both use the group office model and prohibit relative employment.
Anna-Mari Vimpari from the Centre Party says they haven't encountered situations where members wanted to hire relatives. Rami Lindström from the Social Democrats states they would clearly not hire family members.
Parliamentary assistants were introduced in the late 1990s. Members quickly discovered these positions could provide employment for relatives. Early regulations initially banned family members from these roles, but those restrictions were later removed.
The current system places trust in members' judgment while allowing public scrutiny of their hiring choices. This creates ongoing discussion about where to draw lines between personal freedom and potential conflicts of interest.