home
news & listings
HoC commission report
House of Commons Commission's Report:
Employment of Members' staff by the House
Added 28 October 2009
You can read the report in two versions:
Response of Unite Parliamentary Branch
The union representing staff of MPs in the House of Commons (Unite) has said it will use employment law to stop Sir Chris Kelly sacking MPs staff who are family members.
The Unite Parliamentary Staff branch has invited spouses and other family members of staff of MPs to a special meeting, in Room U, Portcullis House on the 4thNovember 5pm to issue guidance in reaction to Sir Chris’s report.
Dan Whittle, Branch Chair said: “Whether it is unfair dismissal or discrimination law we will offer our members whatever protection we can. Family members of MPs staff save the taxpayer money by working many hours in unpaid overtime. The majority of the public want employment of family members to be transparent and regulated – not banned.”
Unite, the union representing staff of MPs says it has won the argument to preserve the pay and conditions of staff and their political freedom.
In their earlier submission to the Commission the branch demanded:
- That there should be no deterioration in the terms and conditions of existing staff, and they should have the option of redundancy rather than reassignment if the Member they work for leaves the House.
- That staff should not be politically restricted.
These were included in the recommendations of the report published today: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcomm/1059/1059.pdf
Dan Whittle branch chair said:
“Unite has won the argument for the terms and conditions of existing staff to be preserved or improved in any process of centralisation. We also welcome that the report points to the inequality in pay, health and safety and terms and conditions between MPs staff, and the investment the House would have to make to address them if employment is to be further centralised.”
“I also welcome the reports’ conclusion that even if centralisation does not go ahead there should be greater support to Members as employers. Currently with over 200 staff without contracts and many grievance procedures ending in payouts to staff, there is room for improvement.”
“I also welcome that the report makes clear that as soon as they are expected to be at work at specific times or to complete specific work, interns are no longer volunteers but employees and minimum wage legislation will apply. Unite will be happy to take up the case of any intern working for an MP who is not currently getting the minimum wage.”
“I am disappointed that the report ignored the recommendation of the PLP that the Unite union should be recognised immediately by the House of Commons.”
The branch also welcomed these recommendations which reflected views advocated by the branch:
- The employing body should be a new statutory body with Members represented on it.
- Provision would need to he made to enable the House to meet its obligations under employment law, especially as regards equal treatment.
- The House could fulfil its health and safety responsibilities for constituency offices.
- If the
proposal that the House should become the employer of Members’ staff is
to proceed, it will be essential that there is extensive consultation
both with Members and with their staff on a specific detailed proposal
before it is put to the House.
The branch is pleased that the report noted the criticisms from some Members’ staff that there was no consultation before the House took its decision in April. - That innovative arrangements such as collective employment should be able to continue.
- The House would wish to ensure that no current member of staff experienced any deterioration in their existing terms and conditions.
- Existing employees of Members should be given the option of being made redundant, with appropriate redundancy pay, when the Member they currently work for leaves the House. (Paragraph 89).
- It should be confirmed on any transfer of Members’ staff to the House that length and continuity of service are not affected by the transfer.
The branch raises this concern:
The employing body should be a new statutory body with Members represented on it. The branch recommends staff of MPs should be represented on the new body.
The branch will consult with members before providing a debate pack and lines to take for MPs when the issue returns to the House of Commons.Click here for the Unite Parliamentary Branch pages on W4MP
