I was particularly intrigued by the news that Peter Hain, our late lamented Secretary of State, was paying his 80-year-old mum almost £6,000 a year for, among other things, sending out his Christmas cards. It's hard to believe that he has all that many friends! On the other side of the House, the Tory whips hauled in their MPs one by one and then announced that 70 of them, including David Cameron himself, employed family members.

In the past week the local media has turned its attention to our own politicians and has discovered that quite a few of them employ relatives. Indeed, I think the five main parties have now admitted that there are wives, sons, daughters and assorted in-laws on the
payroll. Not the best time, then, for an independent body to release the news that it thinks our MLAs should have a 16 per cent increase in their salaries, taking them up to around £52,000.

I happen to believe that £52,000 is too much for some of the MLAs we have (particularly in the case of Sinn Fein, who allow their members to keep £20,000 as a "living wage" and put the rest into their central coffers to be used for other activities); but it's not too much if we want to attract educated, articulate, multi-skilled legislators.

We live in a free-market environment, which means that the most talented will be lured into other professions by high salaries. Put bluntly, if you want people to give up highly paid careers in other areas and bring their particular talents to politics, then you have to pay them well.

A few years ago I saw some research into the employment background of the MLAs elected in November 2003. Only a very few – and I mean a very few – commanded (or were ever likely to command) salaries anywhere close to the £40,000 that was the then going rate for MLAs.

But it is also true that the unsettled nature of politics in Northern Ireland since the late 1960s, along with the air of uncertainty which hung over the Assembly between 1998 and 2007, meant that the professional middle classes opted out of party political membership anyway and were not willing to be candidates, let alone MLAs.

There is no reason whatsoever why people shouldn't be attracted to a political career by the prospect of a good salary. That said, the electorate has a right to expect the talented and professional representatives that such salaries should attract. But when all is said and done MLAs shouldn't be allowed to vote in favour of a pay increase that takes effect before the next Assembly election.

I also take the view that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with MLAs or MPs employing members of their own family. It really is nonsense to believe that they should be obliged to put an advert in the paper and then employ the person with the best qualifications. Politics doesn't work like that. It can't work like that. If you are going to insist that you can't employ your wife or son, then why not go the whole hog and say that you can't employ party members either?

Political parties are very tight, close knit entities. Members of those parties – and there are many family groups within all of the parties – have a common bond and identity. They have worked together, recruited and canvassed together. They tend to know far more about on-the-ground constituency politics and issues than anyone you will find through a job advert.

More important, they understand the needs of the party concerned. It's about trust. It's also about your party colleagues knowing that constituency and office staff are part of the same team.
That said, the electorate does have a right to know that staff – who are, after all, funded through Office Cost Allowances – are capable of doing the job they are paid for; are doing the job they are paid for; and are being paid a salary that is commensurate with the work involved.

The simplest way of handling the matter is for all staff to be listed on a central register which includes details of the employment, the salary, family connections and party membership. Since we know what MLAs are paid and how much their allowances are, there is no adequate reason for not having a breakdown of their staffing costs. There is nothing like transparency to dampen down public concern.

On another matter entirely, Wednesday is by-election day in Dromore. While it hasn't really had much of an impact outside the immediate area, this is still an interesting electoral contest. For the first time in its history the DUP is facing a challenge from the right wing; that faction of unionism which still hasn't reconciled itself to the idea of Sinn Fein in government.

There have been very clear signs of discontent within the DUP's ranks since last May (the latest being the defection of a former member of their executive committee to the UUP at the weekend) and this will give us a chance to see how sizeable the discontented rump actually is. The outcome will also give us some indication of Jim Allister's chances of holding on to his Euro seat in June 2009.

Meanwhile, the Ulster Unionist Party, having had a slightly shaky start to the campaign, has pulled itself together over the past couple of weeks and, for the first time in a very long time, has proved capable of putting enthusiastic campaigning teams on the ground.

It still troubles me, though, that this is yet another election in which the focus is on intra-unionist divisions. When will we ever learn?