w4mp | eni | Meeting with Chris Bryant MP

Meeting with Chris Bryant MP - Deputy Leader of the House
1.30pm Wednesday 29 March - Committee Room 5

UPDATE: The notes of the meeting are now added below

This Thursday (30 April) MPs will vote on whether we should be centrally employed. The Deputy Leader of the House, Chris Bryant MP, has accepted an invitation from the staff union to answer questions from staff members about this at 1.30pm in Committee Room 5 today - Wednesday 29 April.

As chair of the staff union I invite you, whether you are a union member or not, to attend.

Alongside other branch officers I have met with the Government Chief Whip and Deputy Leader of the House over the past few days, both times asking for reassurances that if the motion is passed, staff terms and conditions will be protected and that staff will be consulted throughout the process of centralisation.

I think it’s important you get the opportunity to ask some questions as well. I hope to see you today.

If you can’t make it, let me know what your question is, or the point you want to make, and I’ll try to obtain an answer for you. My email: whittled@parliament.uk.

Dan Whittle
Chair, Unite Staff Branch

Chair Dan Whittle (DW) (Chair of T&G Parliamentary Staff Branch). Taken over by Russell Cartwright (RC) (Vice-Chair of T&G branch) half way through.

DW also set out the T&G branch’s position which was decided by the branch at a branch meeting on Tuesday 28^th April “This Branch believes that the Branch cannot at this time support or oppose the Motion on the Order Paper for 30 April entitled “Members’ Staff” as its terms are not defined, but it is imperative that the Terms and Conditions of Members’ staff should be protected and improved. The Branch should be included in the process at every stage and we require sufficient time to consult with our membership.”

DW stated that he has received over 100 questions by email from constituency staff and he will be reading some of them out as well as taking questions from the floor.

1. “It seems this is being rushed through at an alarming pace and there has been little detail of the proposal. I agree entirely that out terms and conditions should be protected and proper consultation. I hope you’ll be able to get some assurances”

2. “Can you expand on what you mean by centrally employed? I and my colleagues in the constituency office always through we were centrally employed – our wages come from the House of Commons”

Sian Norris-Copson Secretary’s and Assistant‘s Council: Given the lack of consultation and detail the council cannot support the motion in its present state. There were many questions raised by our members.

1^st Question from floor: Is this designed around preventing what happened with Derek Conway MP? If so we need a new layer of management to ensure that fair pay, contracts, hours and so forth are overseen and enforced. Is that what is behind this?

Floor cont’d: Yes but regardless of families and so forth is there an intention to introduce independent management of staff. I oversee 30 staff with no personnel help.

2^nd Question from Floor: Union recognition would help for a start. We need uniformity. We have to fight for everything and we are sick of it. No automatic up-rating for the cost of living. Many MPs do not even give contracts.

Floor cont’d: That is not my experience. The fees office always help members not staff they always side with the MPs and will use loopholes to get round having contracts or paying what is fair. When I tell people outside what goes on they are disgusted - the employment terms are despicable.

Floor cont’d: No I am not saying that but you can be uniform regarding terms and conditions.

3^rd Question from the floor: Would we become civil servants if employed centrally?

DW read email question from constituency staff: “There are a number of staff who have worked for individual MPs for many years who are over retirement age. When the HoC becomes the employer what happens to them? Will they be given notice on reaching a default retirement age of 65?”

4^th Question from the floor: The Commissioner for Standards review will report its results to the House but it seems there may inevitably be unintended consequences once that happens. Will we have the right to consultation along the way and will the report be open to amendments?

5^th Question from the floor: I want to emphasise the point about continuity when working for more than one MP. You loose all your earned employment rights if you change contracts form one MP to another - this happened to me. It seems very unfair.

6^th Question from the floor: What happens to MPs staff who are funded by sources outside Parliament e.g. those who provide secretariat for APPGs or those funded by Unions for example?

All these need to be addressed I think all these practices should continue to be allowed.

7^th Question from the floor: What about interns? The situation is not satisfactory will they look at their pay and expenses?

I will not criticise colleagues who have interns and I know people are prepared to volunteer because they are so passionate about it. It is not our intention that the independent Committee on Standards and Public Life will look at that although the work being done by Alan Milburn on access to the professions may address it. I think interns should be a separate issue and I would support a formal system of internships like they have in the EU.

8^th Question from the floor: I think our top issue is that we want a proper HR department which is there for us to go to - a neutral department that serves staff and MPs equally.

10^th Question from the Floor: Has the house considered the Canadian and Australian model where family members cannot be employed by the member but can be by other members?

11^th Question from the Floor: A lot of MPs staff work part time particularly in the constituency they should not be out at a disadvantage by any changes.

RC: Thanked everyone for coming and stated the T&G and the SAC will submit to the consultations.



home news & listings deputy leader of the house meeting	Search the site
Meeting with Chris Bryant MP - Deputy Leader of the House 1.30pm Wednesday 29 March - Committee Room 5 Added 6 May 2009 UPDATE: The notes of the meeting are now added below This Thursday (30 April) MPs will vote on whether we should be centrally employed. The Deputy Leader of the House, Chris Bryant MP, has accepted an invitation from the staff union to answer questions from staff members about this at 1.30pm in Committee Room 5 today - Wednesday 29 April. As chair of the staff union I invite you, whether you are a union member or not, to attend. Alongside other branch officers I have met with the Government Chief Whip and Deputy Leader of the House over the past few days, both times asking for reassurances that if the motion is passed, staff terms and conditions will be protected and that staff will be consulted throughout the process of centralisation. I think it’s important you get the opportunity to ask some questions as well. I hope to see you today. If you can’t make it, let me know what your question is, or the point you want to make, and I’ll try to obtain an answer for you. My email: whittled@parliament.uk. Dan Whittle Chair, Unite Staff Branch House of Commons Staff Meeting with Chris Bryant 1.30pm Weds 29^th April 2009 CR5 Notes on the meeting for All Staff of MPs Chair Dan Whittle (DW) (Chair of T&G Parliamentary Staff Branch). Taken over by Russell Cartwright (RC) (Vice-Chair of T&G branch) half way through. DW began the meeting by reading the motion to be voted on Thurs 30^th: 26 – MEMBERS’ STAFF - Ms Harriet Harman (1) That, in the opinion of this House, staff who work for an hon. Member should be employed by the House, as a personal appointment and managed by the hon. Member; and (2) That the House of Commons Commission shall consider this decision and make recommendations for its implementation, including any transitional provisions which may be necessary, by 29 October 2009. DW also set out the T&G branch’s position which was decided by the branch at a branch meeting on Tuesday 28^th April “This Branch believes that the Branch cannot at this time support or oppose the Motion on the Order Paper for 30 April entitled “Members’ Staff” as its terms are not defined, but it is imperative that the Terms and Conditions of Members’ staff should be protected and improved. The Branch should be included in the process at every stage and we require sufficient time to consult with our membership.” DW stated that he has received over 100 questions by email from constituency staff and he will be reading some of them out as well as taking questions from the floor. Chris Bryant (CB) then set out what the motion was for and what it meant. Through the motion the House expresses an opinion and the asks a committee to come back and report. Nothing is decided though the motion itself. Terms and conditions should be protected as a minimum and there is an argument they should be enhanced. DW read out two emails from constituency staff: 1. “It seems this is being rushed through at an alarming pace and there has been little detail of the proposal. I agree entirely that out terms and conditions should be protected and proper consultation. I hope you’ll be able to get some assurances” 2. “Can you expand on what you mean by centrally employed? I and my colleagues in the constituency office always through we were centrally employed – our wages come from the House of Commons” CB: MPs staff are lumped in with MPs expenses and viewed a personal ‘perk’. It seems as though working for an MP is sullied. We want to address this. The measures at this stage express an opinion of the house not details. There must be consultation on measures. Sian Norris-Copson Secretary’s and Assistant‘s Council: Given the lack of consultation and detail the council cannot support the motion in its present state. There were many questions raised by our members. CB: It is clear that we need clarity and uniformity on pensions and contracts so reform is needed. Some work has been done by the members’ estimates committee previously. 1^st Question from floor: Is this designed around preventing what happened with Derek Conway MP? If so we need a new layer of management to ensure that fair pay, contracts, hours and so forth are overseen and enforced. Is that what is behind this? CB: The Committee on Standards and Public Life will look at family members and those issues. Equal opportunity and fair pay and so forth we are already investigating through that inquiry. Floor cont’d: Yes but regardless of families and so forth is there an intention to introduce independent management of staff. I oversee 30 staff with no personnel help. CB: We need internal work on for the sake of argument legal issues surrounding a third party employer. I am not advocating that model but we need consultation. Issues such as do rules apply to new applicants or all staff. There is no decided answer. 2^nd Question from Floor: Union recognition would help for a start. We need uniformity. We have to fight for everything and we are sick of it. No automatic up-rating for the cost of living. Many MPs do not even give contracts. CB: That’s incorrect you must have a contract to be employed buy the House and paid through fees office. Floor cont’d: That is not my experience. The fees office always help members not staff they always side with the MPs and will use loopholes to get round having contracts or paying what is fair. When I tell people outside what goes on they are disgusted - the employment terms are despicable. CB: Well if anyone is not employed on a contract please come to me I want to hear about it. I personally pay according to the scales and advertise publicly for staff. Each constituency has different demands for example one may have lots of immigration casework and you cannot be uniform in terms of what staff you employ for what jobs. Floor cont’d: No I am not saying that but you can be uniform regarding terms and conditions. DW: called the meeting to order. 3^rd Question from the floor: Would we become civil servants if employed centrally? CB: There is no intention to make staff of MPs civil servants. There are issues in unifying pension schemes and MP to MP continuity of service that we want to address. There is a political aspect to your role. DW read email question from constituency staff: “There are a number of staff who have worked for individual MPs for many years who are over retirement age. When the HoC becomes the employer what happens to them? Will they be given notice on reaching a default retirement age of 65?” CB: The Equality Bill with deal with that so please urge your MPs to vote for it. We do not want age discrimination here or anywhere. 4^th Question from the floor: The Commissioner for Standards review will report its results to the House but it seems there may inevitably be unintended consequences once that happens. Will we have the right to consultation along the way and will the report be open to amendments? CB: There are 2 Committees at work here. The first is the independent Committee on Standards and Public Life Chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly. They will look at issues of family members, pensions etc. They will not look at the detail and the structures of working for the house or an independent management level etc. The second committee is a committee of the House and they will make the decisions on the details. I think the T&G and the SAC should make submissions to both. 5^th Question from the floor: I want to emphasise the point about continuity when working for more than one MP. You loose all your earned employment rights if you change contracts form one MP to another - this happened to me. It seems very unfair. CB: We want to look at continuity and consistency and hopefully close just the loophole you mention. The only hesitation is we cannot have the House responsible for staff should an MP loose their seat the House should not have to find them a job. Floor cont’d: Yes I quite agree 6^th Question from the floor: What happens to MPs staff who are funded by sources outside Parliament e.g. those who provide secretariat for APPGs or those funded by Unions for example? CB: There are no decisions at this point but I think there are three issues in what you say. MPs who pay a chunk of salary themselves so staff can do other work for them. Money which is transferred from one allowance to another Money provided to fund staff by a 3^rd party All these need to be addressed I think all these practices should continue to be allowed. 7^th Question from the floor: What about interns? The situation is not satisfactory will they look at their pay and expenses? CB: Personally I feel very uncertain about the situation with interns. It is not good to employ people for free It is not right that people with contacts or wealth get on in professional life because they have those two things. I will not criticise colleagues who have interns and I know people are prepared to volunteer because they are so passionate about it. It is not our intention that the independent Committee on Standards and Public Life will look at that although the work being done by Alan Milburn on access to the professions may address it. I think interns should be a separate issue and I would support a formal system of internships like they have in the EU. 8^th Question from the floor: I think our top issue is that we want a proper HR department which is there for us to go to - a neutral department that serves staff and MPs equally. CB: Personally I would be happy to do that. I would be happy to have an independent HR sit in on interview with me. Other MPs would not be happy with that for a number of reasons. You may wish to lobby for that to the committees. 9^th Question from the floor: Is there any risk the House can override TUPE? (Transfers of Undertakings see: http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employment/tupe/page16289.html) CB: No. The House is bound by legislation over TUPE. MPs can be sued and so can the House. 10^th Question from the Floor: Has the house considered the Canadian and Australian model where family members cannot be employed by the member but can be by other members? CB: I don’t have any family members to employ but I am aware of colleagues who need the working relationship to make the actual relationship work. The long hours and time away from home puts a great pressure on them. There are models we can look at. The EU and US do not allow family members to be employed at all and I do not support that. 11^th Question from the Floor: A lot of MPs staff work part time particularly in the constituency they should not be out at a disadvantage by any changes. CB: Yes we have legislated elsewhere for that to be the case and I would like the House of Commons to be a shining beacon of good practise. RC: Thanked everyone for coming and stated the T&G and the SAC will submit to the consultations.	You can also See other Essential New Information items


Site map \| About this site \| Help \| Contact Us \| Copyright \| Terms of Use \| Feedback
© 2004-9 Working for an MP

You can also