w4mp | representation | unite: t&g section

Staff who responded to the survey (see below) covered a wide variety of jobs, including caseworkers, office managers and parliamentary assistants. What most of them have in common is dealing with constituents. Some staff have to clean, move furniture and carry out home visits, and much of this has serious health and safety issues. What has raised concerns within the union is that a large number of constituency staff do not have the same facilities or health and safety protection which Westminster based staff have come to expect. Almost 60% have no dedicated fire exit and have to use the main entrance in the case of fire or other danger. Although the responses state that they are able to sit comfortably at their work stations with good support for keyboard use, the fact that more than half suffer from work related back pain and nearly a third have RSI shows that more needs to be done on this.

More than half the respondents suffer from work related stress. We knew this from a general survey the union carried out in 2008, but it is important to remember that when this arises in constituency offices, it is usually to do with having to deal with the public. Another issue is the eye tests which all staff who work with a computer are entitled to claim back from their employer. 90% have not claimed this, and MPs should be made aware that they should budget for this when employing staff.

Although over 80% of respondents believe that their workplace is secure against intruders, it is important that we look more closely at the 19% who do not think that this is the case. Only a small number rely on video entryphones, panic buttons and rules about staff working alone. 23% have no security arrangements in place at all, and again MPs as employers should be made aware of the Speaker’s Fund for security equipment, brought in after a member of staff was killed in an MP’s advice surgery some years ago. Specific problems raised including having to work unsocial hours, people coming in unchecked, and where offices are shared with council employees, people being buzzed in and allowing unstable constituents to wander into the constituency office. Although I have found local police crime prevention officers very helpful in offering advice in my own constituency office, one respondent has been told that there is no solution to the problem of unprotected staff and threatening behaviour by constituents.

More than half of those responding had experienced problems getting maintenance problems sorted out in their constituency offices. Responses include complaints about having to work in cold and draughty offices, one office with an electric heater in one room but not in the room where they have to see visitors, a faulty heating system which cannot be repaired, and on-going problems in several offices during the summer where it is too hot to work, but too noisy with the window open. One constituency office is lucky enough to have air conditioning, but their heating is inadequate in cold weather. Unfortunately, the only attempts to get an Occupational Health or Health and Safety assessment carried out in the workplaces has involved approaches to the Occupational Health Department based at Westminster. As MPs are individual employers, it is their responsibility to carry out these assessments. The Occupational Health department do have some literature which can be made available to Members listing some of the private companies they can employ out of their allowances for running their offices.

All these concerns have been discussed at the union’s branch meeting, and we are looking at ways in which we can approach MPs as a group to address these issues. The survey was confidential, which means that unless branch members ask us to raise their concerns with their employer, all that we can do is begin campaigns to ensure that MPs are aware of their duties as employers. We already plan to carry out an awareness campaign on payment for eye tests. It may be appropriate to contact all newly elected MPs to make sure that they start off as employers with a good health and safety policy in place.

I would like to thank all those who took part in the survey, and to assure them that we have taken on board all the concerns raised and will take steps to address them as a union in the very near future.

Unite union Members’ staff branch Health and Safety questionnaire for constituency office staff is on www.surveymonkey.com/s/GSYJFQ3. Sorry for the length, but there are a lot of issues in constituency offices and we need a full picture. Please encourage your colleagues to complete this survey, whether or not they are union members.

On the 19^th October the House of Commons Commission discussed union recognition, see below the minute of that discussion:

The Commission noted that it was not legally possible for it formally to recognise a trade union as representing Members' staff, but agreed that officials should discuss possible memoranda of understanding with bodies representing Members' staff and report back to the Commission.

I am disappointed that the Commission did not accept our legal argument but I will work with members of the Commission and officials on a memoranda of understanding and will keep you updated.

The arguments we made that: a) the terms and conditions of existing staff should be preserved or improved in any process of centralisation, b) we should not have to be politically impartial, c) we should be given the option of being made redundant, with appropriate redundancy pay, when the Member we currently work for leaves the House, were accepted, amongst many of our other recommendations. The House will now determine whether centralisation should be taken forward at all.

The report also notes 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 applies. Interns are invited to contact branch officers if they do not receive the minimum wage and would like further information.

Sir Christopher Kelly’s Report will be published next week (Wed 4^th Nov). The union has a meeting for relatives of MPs who are staff, 5pm Room U PCH on the same day.

The public are ‘supportive of retaining the current levels of staffing, or increasing them’ according to leading polling companies. The Demos & Ipsos MORI Convention on MPs’ Expenses looked at a range of allowances and expenses.

It found - though the second homes allowance, and living allowances, were unpopular – support for staff of MPs was high.

One participant said 'I don't know what they need. But, if we are being realistic, I'd say it was important that they have the resources to do a good job.' Rather than expressing enthusiasm for cutting allowances across the board, many of the participants recognised the need for MPs to have sufficient resources to carry out their jobs effectively.

Dan Whittle, Chair of the Unite Branch that Represents Staff of MPs said “These results are not a surprise. MPs staff are the first point of contact for constituents who are often in desperate need of help, we are public servants valued by people – but this is not reflected in our pay and conditions. 20% got no pay rise last year and some of us get less than the minimum wage.”

The report also found that the vast majority of members of the public thought MPs should be allowed to employ family members if they fulfill duties laid out in standardised job descriptions.

Channel 4 news gave coverage to the Unite campaign to make internships in the House of Commons transparent, structured and funded. They reported that the Speaker is backing moves to improve internships; as is Phil Willis MP.

Unite has made its submission to the Commission consultation on centralisation of staff, which can be summarised as a request for:

W4MP has been provided with the text of the opening statement to the Committee on Standards in Public Life - scheduled for 12.45pm on Tuesday 30 June 2009 by Dan Whittle, Branch Chair:

OPENING STATEMENT: COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE
by DAN WHITTLE, UNITE THE UNION - Tuesday 30 June 2009

First may I start by saying that we are grateful to the Committee for undertaking this inquiry, and I speak on behalf of the some 400 members of the staff union, Unite.

This month Unite celebrated 25 years of representing staff of MPs, and of making the case for reform of the system of MPs' pay and allowances. We want to see an end to the abuses of the past because we rely on faith in, and respect for, politics and politicians, to be able to do our jobs.

More than two thousand staff are employed in MPs' offices on a remunerated basis. In addition hundreds of volunteers and interns also work in these offices. The recommendations you make will have a significant impact on the working lives and employment opportunities of these individuals. Whether employees or volunteers we are the first point of contact for constituents in desperate need of help. We actively manage the caseload of MPs and provide that help whatever the problem. Were it not for the goodwill these individuals have built up over the years, the standing of MPs would have fallen further during the expenses row. It follows that supporting and properly resourcing MPs offices so they can continue to provide that service is integral to rebuilding trust in MPs. As such I would urge you to consider the affects of your proposed reforms on those employed in MPs' offices at all stages.

I note from your opening statement on the 16^th June that the areas for reform include: Arrangements for recruiting and employing staff which command public confidence. It is our belief that the current system lacks transparency and falls short of commanding public confidence.

We note the importance of the seven principles of public life and invite the committee to treat the following additional three principles as fundamental to any new system.

1. MPs' offices should be resourced sufficiently to ensure the volume of queries from constituents is able to be addressed.

2. The House of Commons should be a model employer, and assist MPs in the management of their offices, including proper management of employees.

3. Staff should have formal representation on each and every committee and body that makes decisions regarding their employment terms and conditions. We believe that this should begin with the recognition of Unite for the purposes of collective bargaining.

I now turn to some areas in which we believe the current system falls short, in terms of the three principles above, and with reference to the seven principles of public life.

First I want to talk about the workload of staff employed in MPs’ offices. This workload has grown in recent years and exceeds the resources available to meet it. The SSRB concluded in 2007 that “the volume of casework appears to be growing inexorably”. I’ve brought with me the contents of a caseworker’s in-tray, and I hope the height speaks for itself. A better system for deciding how MPs' offices can be fairly resourced is required as a matter of urgency.

Second I would invite you to consider the effect of under resourcing on the way in which MPs’ offices are staffed. To meet demands a large number of MPs are employing interns to work for free on an ad hoc basis. We estimate there to be approximately 450 interns. A well structured and transparently advertised internship programme for the House of Commons is needed.

Thirdly, the current system impedes rather than facilitates the enforcement of staff employment rights. The same is true of the House of Commons’ own rules. For example 164 MPs have failed to lodge the contracts of their staff with the Fees Office and some MPs are paying staff below payscales.

There needs to be appropriate arrangements for investigating all alleged breaches of the rules, and appropriate sanctions for those found to have done so.

Fourthly staff standard contracts and payscales are currently set in private between a committee of MPs and the Fees Office (Department of Resources), this is neither open nor accountable^[1]. These should be decided independently of MPs in negotiation with staff.

Fifth, family members who work in the offices of MPs. I can tell the committee that most of them do an exceptional job, there are very few instances of favouritism. The employment of family members should not be banned. I hope to have the opportunity to expand on the reasons for this as part of the session. The priority should be to make the employment of staff more transparent and accountable, including a toughening of the external audit of MPs who employ family members.

I have always considered staff of MPs to be employed by the House of Commons. The pretence of labeling MPs "the employer" has led to many of the present difficulties. MPs have neither the time nor the expertise to discharge the full duties of an employer.

Unite believes that unless the House of Commons is recognised as the employer, staff employment rights will remain unprotected. The recognition of the Unite union now, would enable collective bargaining rights in respect of redundancy pay, salary scales, pensions and other benefits. These are the basic employment rights which have been denied to us. As trade unionists we consider this deeply relevant to the issue of transparency and accountability. The inability of Parliament to find consensus on these issues has prevented their resolution for 25 years.

Parliament should be a leading example to employers. This committee has the opportunity to give us fair and accountable employment.

Footnote 1. When the maximum hours on the standard contract increased from 37.5 to 42 in January, Bill Etherington MP wrote an article in the House Magazine in which he said “It’s the sort of thing I would expect from an old cotton mill or coalmine-owner”.

MPs' Staff – Reassurance from Press Complaints Committee:
Daily Telegraph agrees not to publish Staff personal details

w4mp received e-mails from MPs' staff who were deeply worried that their personal details would be published by the Daily Telegraph. The matter was referred to Unite the Union's Parliamentary Staff Branch who made enquiries. Unite Branch Officer Karen Lawrinson contacted the the Press Complaints Commission for advice who, in turn, contacted the Daily Telegraph. Within minutes, the PCC confirmed that the newspaper had agreed not to publish staff personal details as part of their campaign of revelations on MPs’ allowances and expenses.

This will come as a relief to the hundreds of staff employed by Members of Parliament, some of whom have already taken the precaution of changing their bank details in anticipation of a breach of the personal data.

Message from Dan Whittle (Branch Chair):
Since the security breach one of our colleagues has had phone calls from someone saying they are her bank but refusing to leave any kind of message. If there are other instances of this, apart from taking the obvious precautions of reporting the crime to the bank and police, we would be grateful if MPs' staff could notify a Unite rep so that we can bring this up with the Department of Resources.

Member of Parliament’s Staff – Breach of Data Protection and Daily Telegraph

The following letter has been sent to the office of the Information Commissioner. We are also taking up this issue with House authorities and The Telegraph, and will keep members and staff updated of any developments.

Submission from the T&G (Unite) Parliamentary Staff Branch to
Sir Christopher Kelly, Chairman of the Committee for Standards in Public Life

Today the union branch that represents 400 staff of MPs made their submission to the the Committee on Standards in Public Life inquiry into MPs' Expenses.

The submission includes the recent article by Kathryn White, who is one of those providing leadership on expenses reform.

It calls for a properly resourced, transparent system for staffing MPs’ offices.

The Unite Staff Branch has been in the business of campaigning to reform MPs’ expenses for the last 25 years. Over that time there have been major improvements: a staffing allowance, contracts, payscales, job descriptions – improvements that have not only benefitted staff but have aided transparency.

There are still problems though, and the Standards in Public Life inquiry is an opportunity to put forward ideas for a better system that will benefit MPs' service to their constituents.

The demands on an MP's office are growing beyond the resources available, as concluded by the 2007 SSRB review: “the volume of casework appears to be growing inexorably”. Casework involves immigration, housing and tax credit problems, and people in desperate need of help.

A 2008 MPs’ staff survey showed around half of caseworkers are dealing with between 10 and 30 new individual cases per day, and around 70% of all MPs’ staff suffer from stress. The strain is often felt most by staff, and this may be part of the reason for the results of an APPG Mental Health survey which found 45% had personal experience of a mental health problem compared to 19% of MPs.

The branch submission to the Standards in Public Life inquiry expresses concern that many staff do not have contracts, that some staff are paid below official pay scales (Though average staff pay is around £20,000, 9.6% of staff responding to a survey in 2008 said they received below the minimum wage) and over 20% of staff did not get a pay rise last year.

The submission makes the point that the Department for Resources has not done enough to enforce the rules, and to support MPs to be good managers. MPs may want to be good bosses – but the system makes that very difficult.

Currently decisions about staff standard contracts and payscales are made by the Committee on Members Allowances, which sits in private. Decisions are then interpreted behind closed doors by the Department of Resources.

In January this system led to a rise in the maximum weekly hours on the standard contract from 37.5 to 42. Bill Etherington wrote in the House Magazine: “It’s the sort of thing I would expect from an old cotton mill or coalmine-owner”.

The staff union, because it isn’t recognised by the House of Commons, doesn’t have an official voice in these decisions, but is working to change that.

Parliament’s most recent move on this has been to vote to centralise staff, to make them employed directly by the House of Commons, a process that will not start until October at the earliest. But it is not a panacea for these issues because it could, in its most basic form, just involve moving staff pay from one balance sheet (the Members Estimate) to another (the Administration Estimate).

Changes in accounting are not enough. Because of its secrecy and unfairness the system will need root and branch reform to command confidence from MPs, their staff and most importantly the public.

1. The group that has most to personally lose or gain as a result of your inquiry, apart from MPs, is their staff.

2. There are approximately 2000¹, 415 of whom are represented by the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch, the largest staff group.

3. Therefore we hope our expression of interest in giving oral evidence to participate in the public hearings will be considered with due weight.

4. The branch believes that for the public to regain trust and confidence in the regime of allowances a range of changes need to made to improve the conditions of employment of staff and increase transparency in the system.

5. As a point of clarification staff are not an “expense”, a better description is that they are public servants paid from the Members’ Estimate and managed by MPs.

6. Members of Parliament have shown a great deal of support for the views and campaigns of our branch in the past, and we hope the Committee will give proper consideration to this submission.

7. We understand that in undertaking the inquiry the Committee will be guided by the Seven Principles of Public Life, and we will refer to these seven principles in our submission.

8. We submit that the current system of employment of staff of MPs, in which for example there is no fair grievance/disciplinary procedure, no right to collective bargaining for staff, in which enforcement on issues such as staff employed without contracts and paid below payscales has been ineffective, and in which staff terms and conditions are decided centrally in secret, does not meet any of the standards set down in the principles of public life.

The recommendations (agreed at our branch meeting on the 19^th May 2009) will be repeated at the end of the paper.

Response to the question 1. What are the necessary elements of a system which both supports MPs properly in the performance of their important and demanding role and commands public confidence?

And Question 2. Is it right that the House of Commons should be in a position to determine the nature and size of its own expenses scheme? If not, what are the alternatives? Who should be responsible for approving the content of the Green Book which sets out the basic rules?

10. Currently staff standard contracts and payscales are decided by the Committee on Members Allowances which sits in private, interpreted behind closed doors by the Department for Resources.

11. Because of its secrecy this system will need to be reformed to command confidence from staff, MPs and public. It does not meet the accountability and openness principles of public life.

13. Mohammed Sarwar MP published an article in the House Magazine in March 2009 opposing the restrictions on redundancy payments “the terms and conditions of my staff are decided centrally…”, “the constraints I operate under as an employer do not allow me to treat my staff as I would ideally like…” He tabled EDM 599 which asked for better redundancy payments for staff.

14. 9th February 2009 Bill Etherington wrote in the House Magazine criticising the system. Regarding the lack of formal consultation over a change to the maximum hours in the standard contract he writes “It’s the sort of thing I would expect from an old cotton mill or coalmine-owner”.

15. EDM 1057 expresses the opinion of 130 MPs that the Unite trade union branch should be consulted more on these matters.

Recommendation 1: Staff standard contracts and payscales to be decided by an independent body, or at least with public scrutiny, and trade union input. Conditions of staff to be protected or improved.

Q3. Are the range of expenses which are currently reimbursable correct? Are the correct judgements being made about the resources MPs need to perform their jobs effectively?

16. The work of MPs staff is growing beyond that which MPs are resourced to provide, as concluded by the 2007 SSRB review: “the volume of casework appears to be growing inexorably”². The demands created by increased expectations of constituents and new electronic communications, for example email, is a growing concern. Our staff survey shows around half of caseworkers are dealing with between 10 and 30 new individual cases per day, and around 70% of all staff suffer from stress.

Recommendation 2: MPs should move to a system where they are allowed to employ a specified number of staff rather than having a staffing allowance. Each member of staff should be employed according to pay scales and a system of up rating set independently. The MP must employ sufficient staff to meet the demands of the office and within the system there must be opportunities for staff and MPs to report if this is not the case. Existing staff must have their current conditions protected or improved.

Recommendation 3: Staff training should be improved from the current minimal provision. Staff should have input into decisions on who provides the training and what training is provided.

Q4. Are the arrangements for policing the expenses system adequate? If not, how should they be reinforced? Is there adequate independent involvement? Are the new arrangements for internal and external audit introduced at the beginning of this financial year adequate?

17. As shown by the enclosed survey, there are a number of ways in which MPs are failing their staff, which shows they are not getting the support they require as managers from the House of Commons, and the current system is not adequately policed.

18. One of the seven principles is “Leadership”: Holders of public office should show a good example. There are many ways in which the House of Commons could improve as an employer, and MPs as managers, to show leadership to other employers/managers.

19. The branch is concerned that many staff do not have contracts³, that some staff are paid below the agreed pay scales⁴ (9.6% of staff responding to a survey in 2008 said they received below the minimum wage) and that the majority are not paid for the overtime they work. Over 20% of staff did not get a pay rise last year according to our survey.

20. The current system whereby a Department of Resources acts on behalf of MPs and does not sufficiently enforce the rules needs to end.

21. The current system whereby there is no effective right to appeal in disciplinary/grievance procedures must end. Current staff who have their disciplinary/grievance case heard by their managing MP, and want to appeal, can only make an appeal to that same MP, which is unfair.

Recommendation 4: An HR department that does not act solely on behalf of MPs, and that has the capacity, and mission, to help and encourage MPs to be good managers. A new HR Department should be responsible for all conditions of service and the application of all staff policies. This includes a formal grievance procedure which is lacking at present.

Q7. Where reimbursement is made in respect of expenses such as the cost of running an office, should this payment continue to be made as an additional personal expenses allowance to MPs? Or could the payment be made directly by the House authorities or in some other way? Is there a case for more centralised procurement through the House of Commons authorities? If so in which areas might such procurement take place?

22. We are currently working on a submission to the House of Commons Commission which deals with our views on the centralisation of staffing, we will send it to you when it is available.

Q10. Is it acceptable that MPs should be able to employ spouses or other family members? If so, what safeguards are necessary?

23. We support the right for Members of Parliament to employ their spouses or members of their own family provided that each individual that is employed in suitably qualified.

24. The branch would not support any measure that would mean existing spouses or family members lost their jobs or were made to feel like second class employees. There may be a case where an MP marries a staff member and it would be wrong for the employee to be made to resign.

Recommendation 5: MPs should demonstrate to the authorities that each employee is suitable qualified be it a spouse, family member or neither.

25. Additionally pay and bonuses for staff should be discussed by the member with the Department of Resources or another body each year and the member should make a decision in consultation with them.

Recommendation 6: Employees who are not family members should have a recourse to raise their concern confidentially should they feel they are being unfairly treated in favour of a family member.

26. The committee may like to consider the issue of some MPs⁵ seeking to avoid the transparency of employing staff through the staffing allowance by asking the House of Commons library to carry out all research.

What level of detail of expenses claims should be routinely available to the public without the need to make Freedom of Information Act requests for it?

27. MPs’ staff often deal with serious and emotive cases and no information that could lead a member of public to be able to identify them should be released.

28. MPs’ staff have been subjected to attacks from constituents and it should be remembered when releasing information that is the MP who stood for public election, and not their staff.

Recommendation 3: Staff training should be improved from the current minimal provision. Staff should have input into decisions on who provides the training and what training is provided.

Recommendation 5: MPs should demonstrate to the authorities that each employee is suitable qualified be it a spouse, family member or neither.

Recommendation 6: Employees who are not family members should have a recourse to raise their concern confidentially should they feel they are being unfairly treated in favour of a family member.

Recommendation 7: The staff union should have recognition and full negotiating rights.

In Harriet Harman's statement on the reform of expenses part D proposes that in future all staff appointed by MPs without exception should become direct employees of the House of Commons; it also emphasises the right of the House to make an independent assessment of contracts between MPs and their staff.

I am pleased that the Government Chief whip has said that the staff union will be consulted throughout the process, including when the details are looked at in committee if the proposal is accepted by MPs.

The question the staff union is now asking is: could centralisation be the change we've been campaigning for?

The intention of the change is to reassert publicly that MP's staff are not their 'personal' staff, or some kind of perk, but instead provide a service people contacting their MP expect.

The intention is also that, though the employer would change to the House, there would be complete continuity of employment: MPs will continue to be the line manager, hiring, setting terms and conditions within the boundaries decided in the way they are now.

Already staff of MPs are centrally employed in most ways, their pensions, standard contracts, pay scales, training and accommodation etc. being decided and administered centrally. There is a strong argument that the Government's proposals are simply regularising this.

However, the change might not be as easy as the Government envisages. A change of employer is significant and many concerns, for example whether TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981) would apply, and whether any variation of terms/conditions would result in constructive dismissal claims, have to be dealt with in the detail that MPs vote on next week.

The second part of the proposal emphasises the right of the House to make an independent assessment of contracts between MPs and their staff.

It is thanks to the campaigns of the T&G Staff Branch officers and members over its 25 years that MPs and the media are well aware that staff are often underpaid. I know of Caseworkers doing hours which mean they are paid less than the minimum wage.

However, the detail of how "an independent assessment of contracts" would work is not yet clear. We know that the gentle reminders to MPs who have been bad employers have not worked over the years, an example being the many staff who do not have contracts.

All this is subject to the negotiations going on between the political parties. My concern is that the final wording will be drafted without a full understanding of the real working situation for staff, in which there are as many variations as there are MPs.

I am also concerned that the reforms do not extend to an improvement in the way changes to staff standard contracts and payscales are currently made: advice from a committee of MPs sitting in private interpreted behind closed doors by a House department. This may become for the press and public the next target.

As many of you know, the maximum contracted hours of MPs’ staff in the standard contract were increased recently from 37½ to 42 hours. This increase was imposed centrally, with no formal consultation process that involved them or sought their views on the proposal. This applies equally to MPs' staff based in constituency offices and those based at Westminster.

Following this increase, the staff union (UNITE) has decided to apply for the right to be consulted by the House Authorities on future changes to staff’s contractual terms. This means that whenever future changes are proposed to our working hours, pay, holidays or other employment rights, we will have the right to be consulted and to make representations on behalf of the staff before any changes are put in place.

In order to gain the right to be consulted on these important issues, the branch must show that a majority of staff wish this consultation to take place.

For those of you who do want this right to be consulted, please use THIS LINK to answer a short survey.

At the moment, the House Authorities are not formally recognised as the employer of staff who work in MPs’ offices. This has a number of disadvantages for those staff. One disadvantage is that changed terms and conditions of employment can be inserted into the Authorities’ standard contracts of employment, and staff have no formal say about that.

This has led to those who work in MPs’ offices being adversely affected. Staff on the Parliamentary Estate who do not work in MPs’ offices have more favourable holiday and redundancy packages, they have the right to sit down with the House Authorities and be consulted on their pay and other terms and conditions of employment. They also have the right to be recognised for Health & Safety purposes. In contrast, staff working in MPs’ offices in Parliament do not have these rights.

Unite Guidance

The change was brought in at the beginning of January and your hours can only be increased in agreement with your MP:

(iv) Hours of Work

At present the standard contract allows for a maximum weekly hours of 37.5. Additional hours thereafter are likely to be met through overtime payments or time off in lieu. From 1 January 2009 Members will be able to specify contractual hours of work up to 42 hours per week. A number of Members considered this was necessary to meet the extra demands they now face especially from constituents. Where hours above 37.5 become contractual then it is desirable to consider a proportionate increase to the salary. This would have impact on the salary range which is based on 37.5 hours. In such cases the current maximum can be exceeded in proportion to the hours in excess of 37.5.

Implementation

These options apply only to new employment contracts. They could be applied to existing staff contracts but only by negotiated agreement. In general, we would strongly advise that you do not disturb existing contractual arrangements unless you are levelling-up across the office.

As the recent increase in contractual working hours show, at the moment the staff in MPs’ offices can have working hours or other key contractual requirements changed without any formal consultation being required.

In order to establish a right to be consulted on such matters, it has to be shown that there is a level of support for this among MPs’ staff. This applies equally to MPs' staff based in constituency offices and those based at Westminster.

The short survey HERE gives you the opportunity to show your support on this crucial matter.

In accordance with the law, the detailed results of the survey will be given to ACAS, an independent employment relations organisation, but they will not be given to your employer.

More on the new standard contract and redundancy arrangements for MPs' Staff.

The union currently has two EDMs down. Click on the links to check the current status of each EDM.

UNITE, the Union the represents researchers working for Members of Parliament have called for Acas to help resolve a dispute over consultation and representation in the House of Commons.

The House of Commons Commission turned down the request of the union to recognise parliamentary staff last month. But 130 MPs signed EDM (1057) saying staff of MPs should be consulted more.

This letter was sent to the Chair of the Administration Committee by the branch yesterday following their AGM:

EDM 1057 states: That this House congratulates the Unite (TGWU) Parliamentary Staff Branch on its recent recruitment drive; believes hon. Members' staff perform a remarkable public service; and calls on the House authorities to look at ways in which the branch could gain consultation rights so that it could have a say on matters such as terms and conditions.

Branch Secretary Kevin Flack reports: Continuing the informal meetings between ourselves, the Secretaries & Assistants’ Council and departmental heads (something we achieved through the Queueing campaign), I met with Joan Miller, Head of PICT, in July. She reported on the new tendering process for the computer contract, currently with Dell, to be opened next Spring; potential of new hand-held PDA gadgety things and a probable update from Internet Explorer 6 to IE7 in next twelve months. Staff are invited to speak to the PICT desk in the new one-stop shop in Portcullis House.

A similar and very encouraging meeting was held with John Pullinger, Librarian and Director General of this Department. He was keen to stress his attitude to abolishing the separation between MPs and their staff when providing services, is investigating video conferencing with schools, has introduced teacher training courses at Parliament, is re-examining the visitor routes and working on outreach projects. He stressed that we should encourage staff to take up the training courses on offer.

Following representations from the branch and the Secretaries & Assistants Council, we have received clarification that MPs' staff are entitled to make use of the Practice Nurse who is normally on duty at the Lower waiting Hall in the Commons from 9-5 on Mondays and 9-4 on Fridays on sitting days - recess times vary. She can provide information and advice, and minor treatments such as changing dressings.

A study by the All Party Parliamentary Group on mental health found that 45% of MPs' staff responding to a survey had suffered from some form of mental health problem whilst working for an MP. On a serious note, the report from the group highlights the need to raise aware of mental health issues and is well worth reading.

· Let's away to the Commons, where the more disgruntled types in the TGWU Unite parliamentary branch are canvassing MPs in support of their early-day motion seeking official recognition. They approach Nicholas Soames but the feedback is disappointing. "Sorry, no," he says. "I'd rather have root canal surgery." And this takes us back four years, for wasn't it the same ebullient Tory who then rejected the possibility of further preferment within his party on the basis that he would rather have "root canal surgery without a bloody anaesthetic". Have his visits to the dentist really been that grisly? Why doesn't he just get a new one?

A cross-party survey of staff of 159 MPs staff shows though the average pay is £20,000, more than 1 in 5 had a real terms pay cut this year, and 1 in 10 believe they earn less than the minimum wage because of unpaid overtime.

The survey was conducted by the Parliamentary Staff Branch of Unite who launch their bid for official union recognition at the party conferences this month. Journalists are invited to attend the event at Labour Party Conference 5.30-7pm at the Nags Head, Jackson's Row, Off Deansgate 22nd September.

The survey says 9.2% of respondents believe they receive less than the minimum wage and that 21.8% received either no pay rise, or a pay cut this year. Wages are as low as £14,000 in London and in constituency offices. 70% say they suffer from stress.

A separate study by the All Party Parliamentary Group on mental health found that 45% of MPs staff responding to a separate survey had suffered from some form of mental health problem whilst working for an MP.

Added 12 August 2008

TGWU/Unite survey of Staff 2008.

Click here for more information and for the link to the survey. Deadline 1 September 2008.

Added: 6 August 2008

Activists Training in Summer recess

The Union has agreed to put on training courses for branch members in the House of Commons in the summer recess. Issues to be covered include grievance and disciplinary hearings and health and safety matters. Please email/phone the branch secretary (Kevin Flack: flackk@parliament.uk ext 6273) if you would like to come along – no previous involvement required.

Added 5 July 2008

T&GWU (Unite) Parliamentary Staff Branch
brief on Motion on Members’ Expenses for Debate 3 July 2008

2 July 2008

To signatories of EDM 1057,

Thank you for signing EDM 1057, which calls on the House Authorities to look at ways in which the T&G (Unite) Parliamentary Staff Branch could gain consultation rights.

This briefing sets out the views of the branch on the motion on Members’ Expenses to be discussed on Thursday. We ask that members of Parliament use this briefing to consider making contributions to the debate on 3 July in order that the opinions of staff may be heard.

Our branch has over 400 members of Parliamentary and constituency staff. We believe that it is in the interests of MPs and constituents as well as staff that our members should be better rewarded for the work they do.

Contents of this briefing:

i) What the motion says

ii) The branch’s submission to the MEC

iii) Points our branch would like raised in the debate

iv) Contact details for our branch.

To read the full briefing click here (Word document)

Added: 18 June 2008

Recognition Campaign - Why the branch is campaigning for official recognition:

The House of Commons should be setting an example of good employee relations.
The only thing stopping the branch from being recognised in the past is the complexity of being jointly employed by MPs and the House authorities. House of commons staff have recognition, and senior Government ministers have said there is no reason we should not be recognised.
Recognition would set out the rights the branch and its members now get on an ad hoc basis. The status quo is damaging to MPs and staff because staff representation is ad hoc and patchy.
Over 100 MPs have signed EDM 1057 which asks for more consultation rights for the branch.

The T&G (Unite) Parliamentary Staff Branch have written to the GMB
to complain about their attack on MPs staff.

The GMB Congress Advised House Of Commons Authorities To Abolish the Members’ Allowance Expenditure Schedule
Brian Strutton, GMB National Secretary for Public Services told delegates: "MPs continue to flick through their posh shop catalogues to work out what allowances they can claim on top of their generous salaries – and it seems not a week goes by without another story that smacks of greed and milking the system."
Kevin Flack, T&G (Unite) Parliamentary Staff Branch secretary, said, "who do the GMB think it is that answers the phone to their members when they take a problem to their MP? Who draft the letters and make enquiries on their behalf? It has taken years to get a decent staffing allowance for MPs, which is ring-fenced and can't be used for other purposes. It is sad to see such uninformed comments from a fellow trade union."
Robert Atkinson a Caseworker who is changing his membership from the GMB to the T&G Parliamentary Staff Branch said: "I am pleased I will be a member of a union that understands that MPs staff do an important public service job."
Another caseworker who is switching from GMB to Unite, Robin, said: ““Of course I don’t condone the misuse of Parliamentary expenses but our trade unions really should back up MPs office staff, the vast majority of whom work extremely hard, putting in long hours for low pay. The GMB seem to be moving away from representing their members and instead joining the opportunist tabloid bandwagon attacking all MPs offices”
Unite is now taking this up with the GMB at a national level.

Some of the inaccuracies in the GMB press release:

Members staff costs are ring-fenced, (not part of an open-ended system as said by the GMB).
House Authorities do not make decisions about changes to the system of allowances, parliament does.
The press release justifies the GMBs proposals saying Tory MP Caroline Spellman's payment of a nanny "should not be an allowable claim". However, this is why it is being investigated by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner.

The Queue Jumping campaign
Message from the TGWU/Unite Parliamentary Branch Chair, Dan Whittle - January 2008

The Queue Jumping campaign – making the argument that the rule that MPs can queue jump staff should be abolished.

I hope you all saw or heard about the petition Lembit Opik MP presented in the House.

To quote from Hansard: “The 380 signatories know that the staff keep this place running in the democratic interests of the country. I thank Unite, the union, for its tireless efforts on this campaign and hope that the Administration Committee will soon abandon the regime of common discourtesy and restore courtesy to the Commons. ” So he did us proud.

We will pursue this campaign in 2008 because there’s nothing more petty than an employer passing a rule that lets them jump a queue in front of their employee, in no other workplace in the country would this be tolerated.

UPDATE June 2008: The response to Lemibit Opik’s petition was that the Administration Committee will review the policy after a year.

Click below to see Branch newsletters: