Campaigns

Union Reps Slam IPSA

Following the Leader of the House of Commons' comments today calling for IPSA reform, Unite representatives have written to the Board of IPSA asking that they review the way they deal with MPs' staff or hand them back to the House authorities.

IPSA has faced criticism of MPs from all parties and particularly from the Trade Union representing MPs' staff in the House of Commons. The way in which MPs' staff are employed is an archaic system, having developed over decades without any serious reform. When IPSA was established, it was hoped that they would improve and professionalise this system but they have singularly failed to do so.

As a group, MPs' staff are incredibly vulnerable.

MPs' offices are treated in law and by administrations past and present as 650 small businesses: a wholly inaccurate comparison as they are paid from the public purse, do essential work as part of the democratic Parliamentary process and yet have our structures for pay and working conditions determined centrally by IPSA. This set up means staff have woefully inadequate employment protection, next to useless disciplinary and grievance procedures and no rights to protect them from the whims of their sometimes appalling employers.

The close relationship MPs often have with their staff and lack of management structure means that staff are in many cases unwilling to bring grievances against their boss, even in situations where the law has clearly been broken.

There is no support of any kind from either IPSA or the House authorities for staff yet the authorities provide extensive assistance to MPs in cases against staff and still there is no recognised trade union.

Secretary of the UNITE Parliamentary Staff Branch, Louise Haigh said:

"We have been extremely disappointed with the way in which IPSA have handled MPs' staff. As a shop steward, I have represented some appalling cases of abuse and poor treatment at the hands of MPs and we really hoped that IPSA would come in to make this accountable and make the system fairer.

Not only have IPSA refused to take responsibility for the protection of the 3,000 vulnerable workers that work across Parliament, they have actually limited the discretion of MPs to run their offices so that the few good employers have had their hands tied."

The UNITE branch believe that IPSA have already taken an interventionist role in the way that MPs manage their office. We have therefore asked that they either take this role to its logical conclusion and accept they are our employer or hand us back to the House authorities."

Branch Chair, Max Freedman said:

"Under IPSA, staff have been paying the price for the MPs' expenses scandal. They have cut staff budgets, abolished bonuses (whilst paying bonuses for their own staff), reduced redundancy payments and allowed a two-tier workforce to develop with mandatory pay scales only applying to staff employed post May 2010.

The IPSA has impacted on staff terms and conditions and caused redundancies for many of our members."

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 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.

MPs back Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch's EDM urging IPSA to improve employment conditions for staff

Nearly 50 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 Parliamnetary 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 milion 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.

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.

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 69 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 and tax advisor.

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.

Recognition Campaign

Over 50 per cent of staff – 1,000+ have now signed up for recognition

"The best thing the House authorities could do is recognise the independent trade unions, which they will not do at the moment." – Dave Anderson MP supports our recognition campaign, Hansard, 23rd June 09.

EDM 1057 – now has 130 signatories
UNITE (TGWU) PARLIAMENTARY STAFF BRANCH
26.02.2008

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

Centralisation of staff

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

1. 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)
2. Protection of jobs, terms and conditions of current staff
3. 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.

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.

Committee for Standards in Public Life

The Branch has made a Submission to Sir Christopher Kelly, Chairman of the Committee for Standards in Public Life

1. Background and introduction

The union branch that represents 400 staff of MPs made their submission to 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 benefited 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 per cent 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 per cent had personal experience of a mental health problem compared to 19 per cent 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 per cent of staff responding to a survey in 2008 said they received below the minimum wage) and over 20 per cent 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

20th 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 2000, 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:
1. A summary of a survey of MPs' staff conducted in 2008
2. Freedom of information requests, Parliamentary questions.
3. Recently articles by Mohammad Sarwar MP and Bill Etherington MP
4. Expressions of Parliamentary opinion in EDMs 1057 and 599.
5. Article on union recognition

The recommendations (agreed at our branch meeting on the 19th 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". 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 per cent 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 contracts, that some staff are paid below the agreed pay scales (9.6 percent 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 per cent 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: A 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 suitably 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 MPs 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 it 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: A 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, Branch Chair

Kevin Flack, Branch Secretary

More on the centralisation of staff of MPs (see below)

Click here for information about the meeting with Chris Bryant MP, Deputy Leader of the House, which took place on Wednesday 29 April 2009.

PPCs agreement

We are currently campaigning to get Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) to sign up to our 'PPCs agreement'.

The agreement is below and can be printed off here.

If elected as a Member of Parliament I will:

1. Pay my staff within agreed pay scales and give them a pay rise equal to at least the annual increase in staffing allowance.

2. Support a transparently advertised, funded and structured internship scheme for the House of Commons.

3. Encourage my staff to join the staff union (Unite) and allow them reasonable time off to take part in union meetings and training.

4. Support the campaign for recognition of the Unite Parliamentary Staff Branch so that staff can collectively bargain on the aspects of employment that are determined centrally by the House of Commons.

5. Apply for investors in people standard.

Once signed by a PPC please forward the agreement to Louise Haigh at House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA, or haighl@parliament.uk, we will then publicise those PPCs who have signed up to our agreement on this website.