The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has this week unveiled its new regime for governing what MPs can and cannot reasonably reclaim as expenses. Whilst in general the recommendations sound justified and sensible, it has left me a little confused over the decision to allow MPs to employ one family member as a way of achieving “value for money”.

This is not because I believe that there should be a blanket ban of employing spouses, more that the subject of the decision (and the subsequent debate) is irrelevant.

To ensure “value of money”, the onus is on the MP to recruit the right person for the job, regardless of who they are. Objective, fair and transparent selection has the greatest predictive validity and best return on investment. It is about ‘best fit’, not convenience or familial relationship.

Broadly, MPs should be considering the following:

• Firstly, defining clear and justifiable criteria that have direct relevance to the requirements of the role.
• Secondly, implementing an objective, transparent and robust assessment process to evaluate candidates’ skills and motivations against the criteria required.

In doing so, the chosen individual is far more likely to be committed and productive.

Whilst it is quite possible that the MP’s family member might very well be the best person for the job, stating that MPs can employ ‘Cousin Nick’ because he will deliver “value for money” is a fallacy. Personally, I’d rather they spend the money on duck-houses; it’s cheaper in the long run.