Wages soar for relatives of MPs on public payroll

FAMILY members hired by MPs at taxpayers’ expense earn thousands of pounds more than other staff and are seeing their salaries rocket, a report reveals today.

Their pay is on average £5,600 higher, and going up at twice the rate of other staff in Parliament, raising concerns that politicians are using it as a way of boosting their family income.

Over the last Parliament, one in four MPs hired a family member. In that period, the total cost soared by nearly a quarter to a total of £4.7million a year.

By the General Election, relatives’ average salary was £31,350 a year.

The details were revealed in a report by the expenses watchdog – which is now considering banning MPs from hiring new staff who are their relatives after the next election.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority report also revealed other worrying details of the Westminster gravy train.

Astonishingly, Ipsa is now considering ditching a ban on staff bonuses – raising the prospect that MPs could be allowed to hand over lump sums for ‘ performance’ to their wife or husband. Last night Ipsa officials played down this idea, but would not rule it out.

Nearly £1million was given in redundancy payoffs to all staff who lost their jobs at the election but were then rehired within weeks by new MPs. A total of 125 staff were paid £975,000 in redundancy before returning.

Staff in MPs’ offices were also paid nearly £650,000 at the end of the Parliament for working their notice. Ipsa found two thirds of that could have been avoided if MPs who were standing down had told their staff in good time.

The taxpayer coughed up £743,000 for MPs’ staff holidays which were not taken.

The report also revealed a ‘surge’ in expenses claims for computers and other IT equipment – which MPs are allowed to keep after leaving Parliament – in advance of a pre-election ban on new purchases. But it was the figures on hiring of relatives which caused most concern. Between 2010 and 2015 MPs’ relatives earned £21million of public money for working for them either in their Parliamentary or constituency offices. In 2010 a total of 150 members of staff earned £3.1million, although this was not a figure for the full year. By the end of the Parliament that had rocketed to 171 earning £4.7million a year.

Salaries of ‘connected parties’ – typically wives or other relatives – rise ‘at twice the rate of other staff’ the report concluded.

It said ‘significantly’ higher wages were explained by MPs hiring their relatives to do more senior jobs.

The total number of MPs hiring family members fell after the election, and now stands at 139, because many who hired family members lost their seats. But the pay bill is still £4.5million a year.

Ipsa is considering a ban on MPs hiring new staff who are family members – but will allow existing staff to remain.

Many MPs argue that their wives and close family members work much harder for them than any other member of staff and are pre- pared to stay late. But Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life said: ‘It’s just a way for MPs to boost their family income.

‘I’m sure they do do some work, such as answering the telephone, but I’ve argued for many years they should have to compete against outside people and go through a process that is genuinely competitive and open. We need proper and effective oversight.

‘There is huge potential for abuse of this, and we have had notable cases where it has been proved.’

Jonathan Isaby, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance campaign group, said: ‘MPs should remain free to employ family members, but only on the proviso that they are subject to the highest levels of transparency.’

Ipsa admitted in its report that controls to prevent misuse of public funds in payments to family members are ‘limited’. There is no central time keeping system for MPs’ staff, and MPs are responsible for monitoring and paying overtime.

Ipsa said it was ‘difficult to discover whether MPs are breaking the rules’ and said there was a risk MPs could break the rules or ‘act fraudulently without detection’.

It added: ‘The quality of our data records and the absence of controls to prevent false declarations of connected party status means that there is a high risk that any instance of an undeclared or inaccurate status will not be identified.’

‘Huge potential for abuse’