w4mp | representation | unite: t&g section

Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch demands IPSA change
their treatment of maternity and paternity leave as a ‘contingency’

The Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch, a trade union representing over 400 staff of MPs, has called on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to change provision for maternity and paternity leave for staff in the MPs’ expenses scheme.

The branch has written to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to share their concerns about the legality of the scheme whereby maternity and paternity leave and cover must come from a ‘contingency budget’.

After months of campaigning by the union branch, IPSA updated their guidance to the scheme to give maternity, paternity and adoptive leave as examples of allowable claims from the contingency budget.

However the scheme itself, which was revised in July, still appears to place conditions on claims from this budget. IPSA is able to accept or reject a contingency claim at its “sole discretion” and in doing so takes into account whether the MP “could reasonably have been expected to take any action to avoid the circumstances which gave rise to the expenditure.”

The union branch says this is not acceptable because it gives those reading the scheme the impression that claims for these costs may not be allowed and that MPs will be asked what steps they have taken to prevent the need to claim.

The union branch wants IPSA to create a separate and unconditional budget for maternity and paternity leave in order to comply with employment law and reassure MPs and their staff.

Union Branch Secretary Louise Haigh said:

“The revised expenses scheme does not make it clear to MPs and their staff where money for maternity and paternity leave is to come from. The scheme itself does not contain a written guarantee that these claims will always be paid by IPSA.

“Instead the scheme makes it look like conditions still apply to maternity and paternity leave payments. Maternity and paternity leave are entitlements and are not subject to IPSA’s discretion. There is also a great deal of ambiguity around what action an MP could reasonably have been expected to take to avoid the need for these payments. We are concerned that IPSA’s approach could deter some MPs from hiring female staff.

“IPSA is reviewing the MPs’ expenses scheme this autumn. One of the first things they must do is to change the scheme so that it is absolutely clear that maternity, paternity and adoptive pay claims will be accepted unconditionally. The most sensible way of doing this would be to create a separate maternity and paternity leave budget to move away from the term ‘contingency’ and give MPs and their staff peace of mind.”

Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch welcomes
IPSA review of policy on trade union subscriptions

The Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch has welcomed news that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) will review their decision not to allow trade union subscriptions for MPs’ staff to be deducted at payroll.

In response to a parliamentary question from Jim Sheridan MP, IPSA said they were currently reviewing the situation in relation to trade union subscriptions and hoped to offer this facility in the near future.

“We welcome IPSA’s decision to review their policy regarding trade union subscriptions as the union branch has been campaigning for this change for months. The decision to prevent MPs’ staff from having their trade union subscriptions deducted at payroll came from nowhere and has impacted a fifth of our membership.

“It is crucial that IPSA’s operating team makes the necessary changes so that trade union subscriptions can continue to be deducted at payroll. Anything less than this is an attack on the trade union rights of MPs’ staff.”

Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch seeking legal advice
on IPSA’s plan to publish MPs’ staff salaries

The Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch is seeking further advice on the legality of IPSA’s plans to publish the salary details of all MPs’ staff in £5,000 bands. Based on previous legal advice from Thompsons, the union branch believes the publication of job titles and salaries of MPs’ staff could breach data protection law.

“Previously we have received legal advice that if the salary of individuals could be identified from the information IPSA planned to publish then this would be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. We will now be going back to the lawyers to check the legality of IPSA’s plans and how we can fight this on behalf of MPs’ staff.

“Most MPs employ three or four staff at most, therefore they will usually only employ one Parliamentary Researcher, one Senior or Junior Caseworker, one Secretary or one Office Manager. This means staff will be instantly identifiable to anyone who knows which MP they work for and in which role.

“It is not standard practice in the public sector to publish details of staff salaries and MPs’ staff should not be treated any differently. Especially as most of the staff involved will be on such small salaries - the average pay for staff of MPs is around £20-25,000. They should not be unfairly punished for the MPs’ expenses scandal by having their privacy breached.

“IPSA requires staff salaries to fall within IPSA-approved pay scales before they are paid. As IPSA is an independent body we believe this is enough to reassure the public that MPs’ staff salaries are not above market rate and that they represent value for money to the taxpayer. There is already transparency for the public as the total amount each MP spends staffing their offices is published online.”

Small IPSA victory for the Unite (T&G) Parliamentary
Staff Branch and other MPs’ staff groups

The Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch, working with the Members and Peers Staff Association (MAPSA) and the Liberal Democrat Staff Group, have secured a small victory from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) regarding MPs’ staffing budgets.

In May a cross-party letter signed by over 100 MPs was sent to IPSA. The letter expressed concern at IPSA’s decision to take MPs’ employer contributions towards the pensions of their staff members from individual MPs’ staffing budgets instead of a central budget. This action resulted in a significant cut to MPs’ staffing budgets, with some staff on pre-IPSA contracts facing pay cuts or redundancy.

IPSA said they would help MPs in November if they thought they would exceed the new staffing limit because of existing contractual arrangements. However the union and staff groups made clear this wasn’t good enough and sought a stronger assurance from IPSA that staff would not face pay cuts or redundancy before November.

Thankfully IPSA listened to our concerns and took action on this issue, as detailed in earlier MP Bulletins and this letter we received from IPSA in July. Now, instead of waiting until November, MPs who think they will exceed the staffing limit this year owing to existing contractual obligations have been encouraged by IPSA to get in touch immediately to apply for contingency funding.

We hope affected MPs have contacted IPSA and have received assurances that their staff costs will be met. If your MP’s situation fits these circumstances and they have not had their contingency claim accepted by IPSA, please let us know.

69 MPs have signed a cross-party EDM recognising that MPs’ staff are significantly worse off under the new IPSA expenses scheme and calling on IPSA to improve the employment terms and conditions for staff in a forthcoming review.

The motion is sponsored by Jack Dromey MP and backed by the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch. It highlights a general downgrading in conditions under the new IPSA expenses scheme; including attacks on trade union subscriptions, a cut to staffing budgets, a reduction in redundancy rights to a statutory only basis, a ban on performance-related bonuses and treatment of maternity leave pay and cover as contingencies.

The motion also calls on IPSA to take positive steps towards making Parliament a blue-ribbon place of employment. This includes the creation of a central Human Resources department for MPs’ staff and an Interns Fund to allow MPs to pay interns a fair wage, in recognition that in practice many Parliamentary internships qualify for at least the National Minimum Wage.

IPSA have said they will be reviewing the scheme in the autumn and MPs are urging the authority to work with the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch and other groups representing MPs’ staff to resolve these issues through regular meetings.

“Front-line staff should not be unfairly punished for the mistakes of some MPs in the last Parliament through pays cuts, reduced redundancy terms and attacks on trade union rights. IPSA needs to take more positive steps to improve the way Parliament works as a place of employment. Representatives from IPSA should commit to meeting regularly with the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch and other groups representing MPs’ staff to work through these issues.”

“We are grateful for MPs from all political parties who have signed this motion and who are raising staff issues with IPSA. Despite the fact that pay and conditions for MPs’ staff were not a public concern during the expenses scandal, we have seen a dramatic downgrading in employment rights for staff under the new expenses scheme.

“All aspects of the expenses scheme which have unfairly penalised MPs’ staff must be reconsidered by the IPSA in their autumn review, including the cut of at least £2.4 million that has been made to the overall staffing budget. The Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch wants to see the staffing budget limit for MPs raised to a level where staff don’t lose out. Ultimately it is the public who will suffer if the service they receive from MPs’ offices is reduced because MPs cannot recruit and retain high-quality staff.”

The full text of Early Day Motion 569 is below. If your MP has not yet signed it, please ask them to do so.

EMPLOYMENT TERMS FOR HON. MEMBERS' STAFF UNDER THE INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS AUTHORITY

Dromey, Jack
Cryer, John
Russell, Bob
Morris, Grahame M.
Bone, Peter
Pearce, Teresa

That this House notes with grave concern the reduced employment terms and conditions for staff of hon. Members under the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) expenses scheme; recognises the real terms reduction in hon. Members' staffing budgets and urges IPSA to raise the staffing limit for hon. Members in the forthcoming review; further notes that redundancy rights have been reduced to a statutory basis, removing discretion to reward loyalty; further notes that hon. Members are also prevented from rewarding good performance through bonus payments to staff; urges IPSA to work towards the creation of a human resources department; further urges IPSA to reconsider the decision no longer to deduct trade union subscriptions at payroll; calls on IPSA to amend the expenses scheme so that payments related to maternity leave and cover can be made from a separate budget and not treated as contingencies; further recognises that in practice many Parliamentary internships qualify for the national minimum wage and further urges IPSA to create an interns fund to fairly pay them; further recognises that public anger at the previous expenses scheme was not due to staff costs and therefore opposes any arbitrary publication of staff salary details; and further urges IPSA to work alongside the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch and other staff associations to resolve these issues.

The Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch has urged the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to scrap proposals to publish the salary details of all MPs’ staff, arguing that to do so would breach data protection law.

IPSA has consulted on plans to publish salaries for all staff of MPs in £5,000 salary bands and the precise salaries for staff deemed ‘connected parties’. IPSA itself admits it is not standard practice in the public sector to publish details of staff salaries, and the union does not accept that MPs’ staff should be treated any differently.

“During the expenses scandal the pay of staff members was not a cause for widespread concern - there was only one case of abuse where an MP employed a family member for financial gain. Publishing the salary details of around 2,800 members of staff is not a proportionate response to this isolated case.

“The publication of staff salaries is a major breach of privacy and we are concerned that the safety of front-line staff working in MPs’ offices could be threatened. We have also had legal advice that if the salary of individuals are identifiable from the information IPSA plans to publish then this would be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. Their proposal would also potentially breach the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

“IPSA argues that the public should be able to satisfy themselves that the staff of MPs are not being paid above the market rate. But the average salary of our members is around £20,000, so any imagined fear that MPs’ staff are being paid above market rate is not supported by the evidence.

“IPSA is also an independent body which has cost over £6 million to set up and already requires the salaries of MPs’ staff to fall within approved IPSA payscales before they are paid. In our view IPSA itself is best placed to confirm to the public that MPs’ staff salaries are not above market rate and that the public is getting value for money.

“We also question the value for money of this proposal when the administrative cost of publishing these details is taken into account, especially as there has been no evidence of widespread abuse in this area. A better and more cost-effective alternative would be for the IPSA Compliance Officer to investigate any individual complaint – after all, he is being paid up to £90,000 a year.

“Staff of MPs have found themselves considerably worse off under the new expenses scheme and this breach of their privacy will add to the feeling that they are being punished for the mistakes of some MPs in the last Parliament.”

A copy of the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch’s response to the Consultation on IPSA’s Publication Proposals can be viewed here (PDF 39 KB).

The Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch is urging the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to create an Interns Fund to help MPs comply with National Minimum Wage (NMW) law and pay interns a Living Wage or London Living Wage. The campaign is backed by 65 MPs who have signed Early Day Motion 569 which calls for the establishment of the fund, including new MP for Erith and Thamesmead Teresa Pearce - a former Inland Revenue staffer.

IPSA’s original rules required all those engaged in Parliamentary work to have a contract of employment in order to comply with NMW law. Unfortunately this approach was not backed up by a dedicated fund and instead MPs’ staffing budgets were cut. Following consultation, IPSA has today backtracked and ruled that MPs will now be able to submit claims for incidental expenses of interns out of their reduced staffing budget if they have a signed agreement.

The union branch believes this is a backwards step for Parliament given that in practice many parliamentary interns are expected to work certain hours and perform certain tasks. This means they are defined as ‘workers’ and should be paid at least the NMW. Websites such as W4MP provide ample evidence of MPs from all political parties advertising for long term internships with set tasks and responsibilities. The union branch has also referred IPSA to the Reading Judgement in December 2009 against London Dreams Motion Pictures, which found that workers engaged on an expenses-only basis are entitled to payment at least in line with the NMW.

“House of Commons guidance provided to MPs in the past made it clear that interns who are obliged to perform certain activities in accordance with the employer’s instructions are likely to be considered ‘workers’ under the law and should be paid at least the National Minimum Wage.

“IPSA needs to get tough on unpaid parliamentary internships by adhering to this guidance and giving the new IPSA Compliance Officer the power to audit internship advertisements and placements for compliance with the law. But MPs also need the funds to pay interns and the current staffing limit is not adequate – it has already suffered a significant cut under IPSA. A dedicated Interns Fund that allowed MPs to pay interns a living wage would go a long way towards making Parliament a model place of employment.”

“We know that parliamentary interns have been laxly monitored by the House authorities in past years and that many have been exploited. IPSA needs to recognise that there is a standard three-month unpaid internship model adopted by MPs that is considered a prerequisite to getting a paid job in Parliament and for which National Minimum Wage law should apply.

“An Interns Fund is necessary because at the moment only those who can afford to work for free for months on end have the opportunity to work in Parliament. IPSA says one of their principles is ‘not unduly deterring representation from all groups of society’. This should apply as much to Parliamentary interns as it does to MPs.”

A copy of the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch’s response to IPSA’s ‘Consultation on Amendments to the MPs’ Expenses Scheme Rules’ can viewed here. (PDF 123 KB)

The Unite, Parliamentary Staff Branch has announced its strong opposition to measures contained in IPSA’s expenses scheme, published today.

Changes to the staffing expenditure amount to a significant decrease in the amount of money available to MPs to run their offices, both in Parliament and their constituencies. The total staffing budget has risen by just over £5,000; however, IPSA has ruled that Pensions Contributions will be deducted from this figure. The Pension Plan currently available to MPs’ staff is administered by the House of Commons at a central level and contributes 10% of staff salary; by removing its administration to individual MPs, staffing budgets will be cut by 10%.

Branch Secretary, Louise Haigh said:

Many MPs rely heavily on the full amount of their staffing budget to ensure they provide the highest quality service to their constituents. MPs who represent, for example, constituencies with very high levels of immigration and housing issues need experienced caseworkers with specialist knowledge so that they can provide advice and work on constituents behalf. For those MPs who currently utilise their entire staffing budgets, which will be a significant number, they will be faced with the difficult choice of either firing their staff or slashing their pensions. As a Union, we will be pursuing the legal issues surrounding this, which I doubt IPSA will have given full consideration.

Chair, Max Freedman commented:

"I am very disappointed that despite assurances that budget levels would reflect the additional pension requirements, this has not been met. I am not aware of public concern about the salaries of caseworkers and assistants, however this means that low-paid front-line staff will be penalised for the actions of MPs. In the end the public will suffer if it means that the service they receive from their MPs' offices is reduced."

Note from W4MP Editor: As a result of an FoI request by a Westminster staffer we now have the report of the IPSA meeting with Members' Staff on 8 February 2010. You can view it here: www.w4mp.org/html/ipsa/20100330_reportmtg.asp

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.


	It's 02 September 2010
home personnel representation tgwu	Search the site
UNITE: T&G Section Current campaigns and newsletters To go to the main page click here. Update 17 August 2010 Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch demands IPSA change their treatment of maternity and paternity leave as a ‘contingency’ The Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch, a trade union representing over 400 staff of MPs, has called on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to change provision for maternity and paternity leave for staff in the MPs’ expenses scheme. The branch has written to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to share their concerns about the legality of the scheme whereby maternity and paternity leave and cover must come from a ‘contingency budget’. After months of campaigning by the union branch, IPSA updated their guidance to the scheme to give maternity, paternity and adoptive leave as examples of allowable claims from the contingency budget. However the scheme itself, which was revised in July, still appears to place conditions on claims from this budget. IPSA is able to accept or reject a contingency claim at its “sole discretion” and in doing so takes into account whether the MP “could reasonably have been expected to take any action to avoid the circumstances which gave rise to the expenditure.” The union branch says this is not acceptable because it gives those reading the scheme the impression that claims for these costs may not be allowed and that MPs will be asked what steps they have taken to prevent the need to claim. The union branch wants IPSA to create a separate and unconditional budget for maternity and paternity leave in order to comply with employment law and reassure MPs and their staff. Union Branch Secretary Louise Haigh said: “The revised expenses scheme does not make it clear to MPs and their staff where money for maternity and paternity leave is to come from. The scheme itself does not contain a written guarantee that these claims will always be paid by IPSA. “Instead the scheme makes it look like conditions still apply to maternity and paternity leave payments. Maternity and paternity leave are entitlements and are not subject to IPSA’s discretion. There is also a great deal of ambiguity around what action an MP could reasonably have been expected to take to avoid the need for these payments. We are concerned that IPSA’s approach could deter some MPs from hiring female staff. “IPSA is reviewing the MPs’ expenses scheme this autumn. One of the first things they must do is to change the scheme so that it is absolutely clear that maternity, paternity and adoptive pay claims will be accepted unconditionally. The most sensible way of doing this would be to create a separate maternity and paternity leave budget to move away from the term ‘contingency’ and give MPs and their staff peace of mind.” Update 3 August 2010 Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch welcomes IPSA review of policy on trade union subscriptions The Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch has welcomed news that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) will review their decision not to allow trade union subscriptions for MPs’ staff to be deducted at payroll. In response to a parliamentary question from Jim Sheridan MP, IPSA said they were currently reviewing the situation in relation to trade union subscriptions and hoped to offer this facility in the near future. The union branch’s Chair Max Freedman welcomed the news: “We welcome IPSA’s decision to review their policy regarding trade union subscriptions as the union branch has been campaigning for this change for months. The decision to prevent MPs’ staff from having their trade union subscriptions deducted at payroll came from nowhere and has impacted a fifth of our membership. “It is crucial that IPSA’s operating team makes the necessary changes so that trade union subscriptions can continue to be deducted at payroll. Anything less than this is an attack on the trade union rights of MPs’ staff.” IPSA’s response to the parliamentary question can be found online at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100727/text/100727w0004.htm#10072751003525 Update 31 July 2010 Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch seeking legal advice on IPSA’s plan to publish MPs’ staff salaries The Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch is seeking further advice on the legality of IPSA’s plans to publish the salary details of all MPs’ staff in £5,000 bands. Based on previous legal advice from Thompsons, the union branch believes the publication of job titles and salaries of MPs’ staff could breach data protection law. Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch Chair Max Freedman said: “Previously we have received legal advice that if the salary of individuals could be identified from the information IPSA planned to publish then this would be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. We will now be going back to the lawyers to check the legality of IPSA’s plans and how we can fight this on behalf of MPs’ staff. “Most MPs employ three or four staff at most, therefore they will usually only employ one Parliamentary Researcher, one Senior or Junior Caseworker, one Secretary or one Office Manager. This means staff will be instantly identifiable to anyone who knows which MP they work for and in which role. “It is not standard practice in the public sector to publish details of staff salaries and MPs’ staff should not be treated any differently. Especially as most of the staff involved will be on such small salaries - the average pay for staff of MPs is around £20-25,000. They should not be unfairly punished for the MPs’ expenses scandal by having their privacy breached. “IPSA requires staff salaries to fall within IPSA-approved pay scales before they are paid. As IPSA is an independent body we believe this is enough to reassure the public that MPs’ staff salaries are not above market rate and that they represent value for money to the taxpayer. There is already transparency for the public as the total amount each MP spends staffing their offices is published online.” Update 30 July 2010 Small IPSA victory for the Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch and other MPs’ staff groups The Unite (T&G) Parliamentary Staff Branch, working with the Members and Peers Staff Association (MAPSA) and the Liberal Democrat Staff Group, have secured a small victory from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) regarding MPs’ staffing budgets. In May a cross-party letter signed by over 100 MPs was sent to IPSA. The letter expressed concern at IPSA’s decision to take MPs’ employer contributions towards the pensions of their staff members from individual MPs’ staffing budgets instead of a central budget. This action resulted in a significant cut to MPs’ staffing budgets, with some staff on pre-IPSA contracts facing pay cuts or redundancy. IPSA said they would help MPs in November if they thought they would exceed the new staffing limit because of existing contractual arrangements. However the union and staff groups made clear this wasn’t good enough and sought a stronger assurance from IPSA that staff would not face pay cuts or redundancy before November. Thankfully IPSA listened to our concerns and took action on this issue, as detailed in earlier MP Bulletins and this letter we received from IPSA in July. Now, instead of waiting until November, MPs who think they will exceed the staffing limit this year owing to existing contractual obligations have been encouraged by IPSA to get in touch immediately to apply for contingency funding. We hope affected MPs have contacted IPSA and have received assurances that their staff costs will be met. If your MP’s situation fits these circumstances and they have not had their contingency claim accepted by IPSA, please let us know. The union branch would like to thank the MPs who put their name to the letter to IPSA, as it made a real difference. However, we still face many challenges in dealing with IPSA and the impact their scheme has had on MPs’ staff. IPSA recently ruled that expenses for interns will now also come out of MPs’ staffing budgets, cutting the budget for paid staff even further. We will be strongly urging IPSA to raise the staffing budget limit in their review of the expenses scheme this autumn and will keep members updated. Update 29 July 2010 Updates to the Campaign page - 29 July 2010 1. MPs back Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch’s EDM urging IPSA to improve employment conditions for staff 2. Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch urges IPSA to scrap plans to publish MPs’ staff salaries 3. Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch calls on IPSA to create fund to pay interns fairly 1. MPs back Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch’s EDM urging IPSA to improve employment conditions for staff 69 MPs have signed a cross-party EDM recognising that MPs’ staff are significantly worse off under the new IPSA expenses scheme and calling on IPSA to improve the employment terms and conditions for staff in a forthcoming review. The motion is sponsored by Jack Dromey MP and backed by the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch. It highlights a general downgrading in conditions under the new IPSA expenses scheme; including attacks on trade union subscriptions, a cut to staffing budgets, a reduction in redundancy rights to a statutory only basis, a ban on performance-related bonuses and treatment of maternity leave pay and cover as contingencies. The motion also calls on IPSA to take positive steps towards making Parliament a blue-ribbon place of employment. This includes the creation of a central Human Resources department for MPs’ staff and an Interns Fund to allow MPs to pay interns a fair wage, in recognition that in practice many Parliamentary internships qualify for at least the National Minimum Wage. IPSA have said they will be reviewing the scheme in the autumn and MPs are urging the authority to work with the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch and other groups representing MPs’ staff to resolve these issues through regular meetings. Jack Dromey MP said: “Front-line staff should not be unfairly punished for the mistakes of some MPs in the last Parliament through pays cuts, reduced redundancy terms and attacks on trade union rights. IPSA needs to take more positive steps to improve the way Parliament works as a place of employment. Representatives from IPSA should commit to meeting regularly with the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch and other groups representing MPs’ staff to work through these issues.” Max Freedman, Chair of the Unite Parliamentary Staff branch, said: “We are grateful for MPs from all political parties who have signed this motion and who are raising staff issues with IPSA. Despite the fact that pay and conditions for MPs’ staff were not a public concern during the expenses scandal, we have seen a dramatic downgrading in employment rights for staff under the new expenses scheme. “All aspects of the expenses scheme which have unfairly penalised MPs’ staff must be reconsidered by the IPSA in their autumn review, including the cut of at least £2.4 million that has been made to the overall staffing budget. The Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch wants to see the staffing budget limit for MPs raised to a level where staff don’t lose out. Ultimately it is the public who will suffer if the service they receive from MPs’ offices is reduced because MPs cannot recruit and retain high-quality staff.” The full text of Early Day Motion 569 is below. If your MP has not yet signed it, please ask them to do so. EDM 569 EMPLOYMENT TERMS FOR HON. MEMBERS' STAFF UNDER THE INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS AUTHORITY 20.07.2010 Dromey, Jack Cryer, John Russell, Bob Morris, Grahame M. Bone, Peter Pearce, Teresa That this House notes with grave concern the reduced employment terms and conditions for staff of hon. Members under the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) expenses scheme; recognises the real terms reduction in hon. Members' staffing budgets and urges IPSA to raise the staffing limit for hon. Members in the forthcoming review; further notes that redundancy rights have been reduced to a statutory basis, removing discretion to reward loyalty; further notes that hon. Members are also prevented from rewarding good performance through bonus payments to staff; urges IPSA to work towards the creation of a human resources department; further urges IPSA to reconsider the decision no longer to deduct trade union subscriptions at payroll; calls on IPSA to amend the expenses scheme so that payments related to maternity leave and cover can be made from a separate budget and not treated as contingencies; further recognises that in practice many Parliamentary internships qualify for the national minimum wage and further urges IPSA to create an interns fund to fairly pay them; further recognises that public anger at the previous expenses scheme was not due to staff costs and therefore opposes any arbitrary publication of staff salary details; and further urges IPSA to work alongside the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch and other staff associations to resolve these issues. 2. Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch urges IPSA to scrap plans to publish MPs’ staff salaries The Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch has urged the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to scrap proposals to publish the salary details of all MPs’ staff, arguing that to do so would breach data protection law. IPSA has consulted on plans to publish salaries for all staff of MPs in £5,000 salary bands and the precise salaries for staff deemed ‘connected parties’. IPSA itself admits it is not standard practice in the public sector to publish details of staff salaries, and the union does not accept that MPs’ staff should be treated any differently. Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch Secretary Louise Haigh said: “During the expenses scandal the pay of staff members was not a cause for widespread concern - there was only one case of abuse where an MP employed a family member for financial gain. Publishing the salary details of around 2,800 members of staff is not a proportionate response to this isolated case. “The publication of staff salaries is a major breach of privacy and we are concerned that the safety of front-line staff working in MPs’ offices could be threatened. We have also had legal advice that if the salary of individuals are identifiable from the information IPSA plans to publish then this would be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. Their proposal would also potentially breach the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. “IPSA argues that the public should be able to satisfy themselves that the staff of MPs are not being paid above the market rate. But the average salary of our members is around £20,000, so any imagined fear that MPs’ staff are being paid above market rate is not supported by the evidence. “IPSA is also an independent body which has cost over £6 million to set up and already requires the salaries of MPs’ staff to fall within approved IPSA payscales before they are paid. In our view IPSA itself is best placed to confirm to the public that MPs’ staff salaries are not above market rate and that the public is getting value for money. “We also question the value for money of this proposal when the administrative cost of publishing these details is taken into account, especially as there has been no evidence of widespread abuse in this area. A better and more cost-effective alternative would be for the IPSA Compliance Officer to investigate any individual complaint – after all, he is being paid up to £90,000 a year. “Staff of MPs have found themselves considerably worse off under the new expenses scheme and this breach of their privacy will add to the feeling that they are being punished for the mistakes of some MPs in the last Parliament.” A copy of the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch’s response to the Consultation on IPSA’s Publication Proposals can be viewed here (PDF 39 KB). 3. Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch calls on IPSA to create fund to pay interns fairly The Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch is urging the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to create an Interns Fund to help MPs comply with National Minimum Wage (NMW) law and pay interns a Living Wage or London Living Wage. The campaign is backed by 65 MPs who have signed Early Day Motion 569 which calls for the establishment of the fund, including new MP for Erith and Thamesmead Teresa Pearce - a former Inland Revenue staffer. IPSA’s original rules required all those engaged in Parliamentary work to have a contract of employment in order to comply with NMW law. Unfortunately this approach was not backed up by a dedicated fund and instead MPs’ staffing budgets were cut. Following consultation, IPSA has today backtracked and ruled that MPs will now be able to submit claims for incidental expenses of interns out of their reduced staffing budget if they have a signed agreement. The union branch believes this is a backwards step for Parliament given that in practice many parliamentary interns are expected to work certain hours and perform certain tasks. This means they are defined as ‘workers’ and should be paid at least the NMW. Websites such as W4MP provide ample evidence of MPs from all political parties advertising for long term internships with set tasks and responsibilities. The union branch has also referred IPSA to the Reading Judgement in December 2009 against London Dreams Motion Pictures, which found that workers engaged on an expenses-only basis are entitled to payment at least in line with the NMW. Erith and Thamesmead MP Teresa Pearce said: “House of Commons guidance provided to MPs in the past made it clear that interns who are obliged to perform certain activities in accordance with the employer’s instructions are likely to be considered ‘workers’ under the law and should be paid at least the National Minimum Wage. “IPSA needs to get tough on unpaid parliamentary internships by adhering to this guidance and giving the new IPSA Compliance Officer the power to audit internship advertisements and placements for compliance with the law. But MPs also need the funds to pay interns and the current staffing limit is not adequate – it has already suffered a significant cut under IPSA. A dedicated Interns Fund that allowed MPs to pay interns a living wage would go a long way towards making Parliament a model place of employment.” Louise Haigh, Secretary of the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch, said: “We know that parliamentary interns have been laxly monitored by the House authorities in past years and that many have been exploited. IPSA needs to recognise that there is a standard three-month unpaid internship model adopted by MPs that is considered a prerequisite to getting a paid job in Parliament and for which National Minimum Wage law should apply. “An Interns Fund is necessary because at the moment only those who can afford to work for free for months on end have the opportunity to work in Parliament. IPSA says one of their principles is ‘not unduly deterring representation from all groups of society’. This should apply as much to Parliamentary interns as it does to MPs.” A copy of the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch’s response to IPSA’s ‘Consultation on Amendments to the MPs’ Expenses Scheme Rules’ can viewed here. (PDF 123 KB) Update 30 March 2010 The Unite, Parliamentary Staff Branch has announced its strong opposition to measures contained in IPSA’s expenses scheme, published today. Changes to the staffing expenditure amount to a significant decrease in the amount of money available to MPs to run their offices, both in Parliament and their constituencies. The total staffing budget has risen by just over £5,000; however, IPSA has ruled that Pensions Contributions will be deducted from this figure. The Pension Plan currently available to MPs’ staff is administered by the House of Commons at a central level and contributes 10% of staff salary; by removing its administration to individual MPs, staffing budgets will be cut by 10%. Branch Secretary, Louise Haigh said: Many MPs rely heavily on the full amount of their staffing budget to ensure they provide the highest quality service to their constituents. MPs who represent, for example, constituencies with very high levels of immigration and housing issues need experienced caseworkers with specialist knowledge so that they can provide advice and work on constituents behalf. For those MPs who currently utilise their entire staffing budgets, which will be a significant number, they will be faced with the difficult choice of either firing their staff or slashing their pensions. As a Union, we will be pursuing the legal issues surrounding this, which I doubt IPSA will have given full consideration. Chair, Max Freedman commented: "I am very disappointed that despite assurances that budget levels would reflect the additional pension requirements, this has not been met. I am not aware of public concern about the salaries of caseworkers and assistants, however this means that low-paid front-line staff will be penalised for the actions of MPs. In the end the public will suffer if it means that the service they receive from their MPs' offices is reduced." Note from W4MP Editor: As a result of an FoI request by a Westminster staffer we now have the report of the IPSA meeting with Members' Staff on 8 February 2010. You can view it here: www.w4mp.org/html/ipsa/20100330_reportmtg.asp Update 3 March 2010 Report back on Health and Safety questionnaire for constituency office staff 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. Vivienne Windle Unite - MP’s staff branch Health and Safety officer Update 17 December 2009 Health and Safety questionnaire for constituency office staff 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. Deadline for responses is 10^th February 2010. Vivienne Windle Unite T& G - Members Staff Section Health and Safety rep Update 27 October 2009 1) Update on recognition On the 19^th October the House of Commons Commission discussed union recognition, see below the minute of that discussion: 5. UNION RECOGNITION 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. 2) Centralisation of staff of MPs. The Commission’s report on this is now available: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcomm/1059/105902.htm. I would welcome your views. 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. Dan Whittle Chair Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch Click here for more information on this issue and links to html and pdf versions of the Commission's Report Update 19 October 2009 Public Support MPs' Staff 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. This is the link to the full report: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Citizens_Convention_18_June_09.pdf?1245320089 Update 27 July 2009 A tale of two interns - Channel 4 News item on internships at Westminster 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. Click here to view the item - broadcast on Sunday 26 July 2009 Update: 8 July 2009 Unite has made its submission to the Commission consultation on centralisation of staff, which can be summarised as a request for: Pay bargaining - immediate trade union recognition as part of the Whitley System (see note below ), and a new system under which union recognition is protected. (see EDMs 1057 and 1677) Protection* of jobs, terms and conditions of current staff Parity with House of Commons staff pensions, redundancy arrangements etc. (including grievance and disciplinary procedures, occupational health, health & safety arrangements). The Commission is due to come back to the House of Commons with its recommendations after the recess. For the full details of the Unite submission click here (PDF file). Dan Whittle Branch Chair * Note: The Whitley System consists of representatives from Management and representatives from the different Trade Unions that represent staff of the House of Commons Service. Regular joint meetings occur throughout the year, both formally - the Whitley, the General Purposes Sub-Committee and the Joint Consultative Committees - and informally. Informal meetings are far more frequent, when either side can air their concerns. The formal meetings all have minutes, which are circulated to members of staff. Update: 30 June 2009 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”. Update: 25 June 2009 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. Update: 16 June 2009 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. I don't want to raise people's concerns too much as this is the only case that's been reported to us but we do advise caution. Added: 2 June 2009 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. The Information Commissioner’s Office Case Reception Unit Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF 1^st June 09 Dear Sir or Madam Member of Parliament’s Staff – Breach of Data Protection and Daily Telegraph I represent members of staff who work for MPs. You will be aware of the breach of data protection that has resulted in the current stories in the Daily Telegraph. We are aware that the Telegraph is in possession of personal details, including bank accounts, of MPs’ staff. In our view, it is clear that there has been a breach of the data protection Act, and I would be grateful for details of what action you are planning to take, of what protection is available should any staff bank details be used fraudulently, and of any advice as to further action we can take. Yours faithfully, Kevin Flack Branch Secretary, Unite (TGWU) Parliamentary Staff Branch Added: 21 May 2009 Submission from the T&G (Unite) Parliamentary Staff Branch to Sir Christopher Kelly, Chairman of the Committee for Standards in Public Life Background and Introduction Copy of letter to Sir Christopher Kelly 1. Background and Introduction 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. 2. Copy of letter to Sir Christopher Kelly 20^th May 2009 Dear Sir Christopher, Submission from the T&G (Unite) Parliamentary Staff Branch 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. 9. We will also make reference to the enclosed documents: A summary of a survey of MPs staff conducted in 2008 Freedom of Information Requests, Parliamentary Questions. Recently articles by Mohammad Sarwar MP and Bill Etherington MP Expressions of Parliamentary Opinion in EDMs 1057 and 599. Article on union recognition 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. 12. MPs have also criticised the system: 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. Additional issues: 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. Conclusion, recommendations: 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. 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. 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. 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. Dan Whittle Kevin Flack Branch Chair Branch Secretary Older material has been moved to the Old Campaigns page - click here	Last updated: 17 August 2010

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