The wives and husbands of MPs have protested against proposals to ban their spouses from employing them.
Sir Christopher Kelly’s report on the House of Commons expenses system has recommended a ban of MPs employing family members to staff positions on the public payroll.
The 199 MPs who already employ their wives, husbands or other family members should be allowed to keep them in post for the life of the next Parliament or five years, said the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
The ban should apply not only to spouses, but to unmarried partners and people in a civil partnership, said the committee.
However, the report said there should be no ban on MPs employing other parliamentarians’ relatives, provided they were hired after a fair and open recruitment process - potentially clearing the way for a “wife swap” arrangement of the kind proposed by some spouses.
Following the report’s publication, a group of five parliamentary spouses called on the new expenses watchdog, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, to reconsider the recommendation when it meets in the spring.
They insisted that the value of their work and the existence of contracts of employment had not been properly taken into account by Sir Christopher’s inquiry.
Many MPs’ spouses argue that being able to work for their husband or wife provided the only practical arrangement to keep families together while an MP was working far from home at Westminster. And they say that a family link provides added dedication and commitment to what is effectively a small business, with long and unpredictable working hours.
Today’s statement from family employees, headed by Suzy Gale, wife of Tory MP Roger Gale, urged IPSA chief executive Andrew McDonald to reconsider the Kelly recommendations in order to find “a satisfactory way forward”.
“A number of working spouses made submissions to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and some gave evidence in person, in the expectation that the unique nature of the job that we do would be recognised,” they said.
“Sadly this has proven not to be the case. The proposed transitional arrangements do not address or recognise the value of existing arrangements.
“We believe we give value for money to the taxpayer - indeed, we are taxpayers ourselves. We are a highly professional group of people, dedicated to serving our MPs’ constituents. Like other workers we have contracts of employment and we are paid to scales scrutinised and approved by the House authorities.”
The statement was also signed by Sally Hammond, the wife of Stephen Hammond MP, Eve Burt, the wife of Alistair Burt MP, Steven Wilson, the husband of Angela Smith MP, and Phil Cole, the husband of Caroline Flint MP.
Following the report’s publication, a group of five parliamentary spouses called on the new expenses watchdog, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, to reconsider the recommendation when it meets in the spring.
They insisted that the value of their work and the existence of contracts of employment had not been properly taken into account by Sir Christopher’s inquiry.
Many MPs’ spouses argue that being able to work for their husband or wife provided the only practical arrangement to keep families together while an MP was working far from home at Westminster. And they say that a family link provides added dedication and commitment to what is effectively a small business, with long and unpredictable working hours.
MPs can currently claim up to £103,812 a year for staff for research, secretarial, casework and other administrative support in Westminster and their constituencies, in a system which costs the taxpayer just under £60 million.
The sum is supposed to cover three and a half full-time posts, and 199 MPs employ at least one family member, with a dozen or so employing more. Of more than 2,600 staff employed by MPs, 213 are relatives - 143 wives, 16 husbands, nine partners and 45 other family members.
