There are convincing arguments for and against the ban on family members. Many spouses do an extraordinary job. But even their supporters are often surprised to hear that almost a third of MPs put a family member on the Commons payroll. As Sir Christopher Kelly said today, it is out of step with most organisations in Britain and parliaments across the world. The US Congress outlawed hiring family members way back in the 1960s.
One other statistic that really stands out of the Kelly report is on pay and bonuses. Many spouses who work in the Commons no doubt deserve a bonus as much as any other hard working public servant. But should they they be receiving more than other staff? Take a look at this paragraph:
Family members are on average paid slightly more than other staff and receive higher bonuses (averaging 1,830 in 2008-09 as opposed to £1,400 for other staff who received bonuses). It is possible that this is because many of them have been employed longer than average, are appointed to more senior posts, or work longer hours.
Kelly does a good job at explaining why there could be a bonus gap of close to 30 per cent. But, even if spouses do carry on working in the Commons, it would seem only fair to end to a situation where MPs are determining the performance related pay of their loved ones.
Jim Pickard
Kiran Stacey
