Union lawyer to advise 'under threat' spouses

The proposal to ban MPs from employing relatives may have seemed like a logical step as part of the overall shakeup of expenses, but it has provoked fury from some hard-working spouses. Skip related content

One of those who faces the sack, Suzy Gale, wife of Conservative MP for Thanet Roger Gale, said that after 26 years as his secretary it is "quite extraordinary" that she may be "arbitrarily removed after all these years to satisfy public perception".

She has sought advice from Acas, the employment relations body.

Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, proposed the ban in a draft of his recommendations to clean up the Commons in the wake of the expenses row.

On Wednesday Sir Christopher will present his final report, and trade union Unite is to hold a meeting later that day for the 200 or so employees who may be affected by the ban.

Dan Whittle, chairman of the Unite parliamentary staff branch, told ePolitix.com that the public support the spouses.

"The majority, according to the Demos and Ipsos MORI convention on MPs' expenses, support the idea that MPs should be allowed to continue to employ family members as long as they fulfil the duties laid out in standardised job descriptions," he said.

"That seems fair to me."

At Wednesday's meeting a union lawyer will be on hand to give appropriate initial advice.

"Because the House of Commons does not allow union recognition we can only represent those who are members," Whittle explained.

Even the 'compromise' solution of a future ban on employing relatives could run into problems.

"If there were a ban, in a situation where a member of staff becomes an MPs' relative while working for them (for example gets married to them) we would represent them," Whitte said.

"It's unfair to be sacked for falling in love and getting married.

"Stopping someone from applying for a job because they are a family member is a different matter, if they were not already a branch member we would not be able to represent them.

"However, there is nothing to stop the union branch taking a position on this in future, and I know there are views on boths sides of the debate among members."

Many hard-working spouses have blamed the behaviour of one MP, Derek Conway, for bringing the employment of relatives into disrepute.

Last year he was suspended from the House for 10 days for paying his son to work as a researcher.

He had claimed that his son worked an average of 17 hours a week for him, insisting that the payments running to thousands of pounds "were well within the published grade".

But a report from the standards and privileges committee said that Conway's son "seems to have been all but invisible during the period of his employment".

Whittle said Conway's was "the one case of a family member not doing the work they've been paid for".

"Deciding that because of the conduct of one person we should sack 200 others is unfair, and should Sir Christopher Kelly make that decision, it would be his, and not the fault of Derek Conway MP," he said.

"However, I acknowledge that the whole system is not transparent and needs improvement.

"I think that the House of Commons should look at the fact that around 250 staff of MPs have no registered contract of employment, and that 450 interns work without being paid the minimum wage, that they will not recognise the staff trade union.

"These issues need to be dealt with too before we can move on from expenses."

On Sunday Commons leader Harriet Harman pointed out that the final decision will be made not by Sir Christopher but by the new Indepdendent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), which may decide to allow the practice of employing relatives to continue.

She said that the decison is "entirely a matter" for Ipsa, "not for Sir Christopher Kelly and not for us either as MPs".