February 22, 2008
So much for the big spring clean
Amid endless controversy over pay and perks, Parliament was about to start cleaning up its act. The first change would have been a move to make MPs declare any family members on their payroll. That was the plan, anyhow. All three parties leaders had expressed their support. But the measure, proposed by the standards and privileges committee - which would have sailed through the Commons and become law by early April - has run into sand.
It emerged today that the committee has taken legal advice that exposure of these names would breach employment law. What will happen is that the disclosures will instead be voluntary on the register of members’ interests. Any shift to an compulsory system will have to wait until secretaries’ and researchers’ contracts are changed to get around this. So much for the big spring clean.
A simple addendum to contracts - to be agreed with the employee - should suffice.
I expect most people would be happy to say that they were employed by a Member but less happy to have their salaries declared (even in bands).
None of these people are elected and are entitled to an element of privacy. Salary scales are publicly available for the standard posts.
Posted by: Therese Coffey | February 24th, 2008 at 12:53 pm | Report this commentI’ve heard that the government is thinking of allowing race and gender to be factored into the employer’s decision on whether to employ the candidate. So the Employer can legally choose a woman from a minority group over a male candidate, who is equally qualified. Is this right? Does this not harm race relations? Does it work both ways? Can I legally choose a white male over a woman from a minority group?
Posted by: Gary Lemonshell | March 17th, 2008 at 12:23 pm | Report this comment