6.37 As in the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament, at present MPs are able to recruit
their own staff. A central HR department provides advice to MPs on HR issues and is responsible for paying staff.
6.38 The House of Commons authorities have recently considered the possibility of directly employing all
MPs’ staff centrally.17 There is a precedent for this in the arrangements made to support members of
the London Assembly – though in that case the staff involved are all based in London and much fewer in number. The proposal appears to have been put forward partly to counter the way in which some sections of the press have presented staffing budgets as if they were part of an MP’s own remuneration.
6.39 MPs need to work very closely with their staff. They have reasonably stressed that it is important and
appropriate that they should be able to employ people they trust and who share their values.
6.40 But the present arrangements mean that, as one MP put it, at present there are “600-odd different
approaches” to staff management within the House of Commons.18
6.41 The Committee has heard evidence from a number of MPs and staff representatives to the effect that
there is considerable scope to improve employment practice. The Committee has been told, for example, that a significant number of staff do not have employment contracts lodged with the House of Commons authorities, that some staff are paid below the approved pay ranges and that recruitment of staff by individual MPs is not always conducted according to the appropriate standards of transparency, fairness and appointment on merit:
CHaPTeR 6: STaffiNg
6.43 This is also the view expressed to the Committee by a number of MPs:
“All posts should be openly advertised with detail of the location of the workplace and the salary scale which should be in line with published guidance rates for the job described in the advertisement.” 21
“MPs should be urged to be equal opportunities employers, advertising all permanent posts and following best recruitment practice.” 22
6.44 The approach to fair and open competition should be proportionate to the role. Open competition should
not rule out selection of staff taking account of political affinity.
6.45 Present concerns about treatment of staff more widely are not necessarily the fault of individual MPs. Staff
representatives told the Committee:
“A good employer allows them to have proper training, advancement in their career, a contract, a way for them to be represented through the process of deciding how they are employed, and all the things that we have mentioned. The MPs are often extremely good to us, as they can be within the rules, but unfortunately they do not have the resources or the training to be good managers. They are not backed up by a proper HR department that we can represent our views to either.” 23
6.46 In the Committee’s view, it is important that MPs should be, and should be seen to be, following high
standards of employment practice. Increasing use of professional employment practices may also help create a more positive image of Parliament as a professional organisation, and increase confidence in the way in which MPs work. The Committee believes that as a matter of principle and good practice there should be broad parity of treatment for MPs’ staff across the House of Commons, especially in recruitment, disciplinary, and grievance procedures.
6.47 One way of achieving that parity would be to move to central employment of staff. But it would not be
necessary to do that. It ought to be possible to institute better and more consistent employment policy and practices and to introduce a code of practice, backed up by appropriate training and HR support from the House of Commons authorities, while still leaving individual MPs as the employer.
Recommendation 18 x
Subject to the outcome of the House of Commons Commission Report on central
employment, MPs should continue to be able to select and directly appoint their own staff. Appointments should be made on the basis of merit and open recruitment. The House of Commons authorities should issue binding guidance, accompanied by a code of practice, setting out the processes to be followed by MPs when recruiting staff (including those working in constituencies) and on other matters of good employment practice, including disciplinary and grievance procedures. MPs should receive appropriate training and HR support.
Staff redundancy
6.48 When an MP leaves Parliament, their staff may be made redundant. MPs’ staff are currently entitled to
statutory redundancy. Any additional payments are made at the discretion of MPs from the winding-up allowance (see Chapter 10). This practice has the potential to lead to unequal treatment. Redundancy payments should be made centrally by Parliament and winding-up expenditure should be reduced accordingly.
Recommendation 19 x
MPs’ staff should no longer receive redundancy pay from the winding-up allowance.
Redundancy pay should be paid centrally by the House of Commons authorities, and the size of the winding-up allowance reduced accordingly.
Financial implications
6.49 It is possible that some of the recommendations proposed in this chapter could result in small increases
in cost over the current arrangements. Greater use of open recruitment might cost a little more. But some MPs already openly advertise for staff and there are free resources available such as the website: www. w4mp.org. Nor is it particularly costly to advertise in local newspapers. Following the election after next, there could eventually be a small increase in redundancy costs in respect of family members employed by MPs who still retain their seats and so would otherwise have continued to employ them. There would also be a small cost from providing additional HR support. In the Committee’s view these costs are both fully justified and substantially outweighed by the savings which would be achieved by other proposals made in this report.
References
1 A unit providing central support to Labour Party MPs is paid for out of party funds.
2 This is the lowest figure for an MP who was in Parliament for the whole of the allowance year. One MP did not make a claim against his
staffing budget.
3 Ev 586 (Martin Horwood MP) 4 Ev 262 (Nicholas Winterton MP)
5 Polly Toynbee, ‘A new politics: Squeeze the size of the Commons’, The Guardian, 20 May 2009 6 Ev 680 (Senior Salaries Review Body)
7 Figures provided by House of Commons Department of Resources, September 2009. As at 31 March 2009, the number of permanent
staff employed by MPs was 2,685, according to the House of Commons Annual Report, Resource Accounts & Audit Committee Annual Report 2008-09 (HC 955), p. 9
8 Matthew Elliott, Public Hearing, 23 June 2009, paragraph 152 9 John Drysdale, Public Hearing, 8 July 2009, paragraph 67 10 Ev 656 (Malcolm Bruce MP)
CHaPTeR 7: adMiNiSTRaTive aNd offiCe exPeNdiTuRe
Chapter 7
Administrative and
office expenditure
Introduction
7.1 Most MPs maintain offices in their constituency as well as in Westminster. They can claim up to £22,293
in 2009 -10 to meet the costs of running them.
7.2 Eligible expenditure, known as administrative and office expenditure (AOE), includes office rent and
maintenance, the purchase of equipment, telephone bills, postage costs beyond those already covered by a separate stationery allowance, and some travel expenditure, including additional travel for staff. Claims can also be made for services provided under contract, like maintenance of equipment and staff training and recruitment, or funding work such as research which might otherwise be undertaken by a member of staff.1
7.3 In Westminster, offices and equipment, such as furniture and telephones, are provided to MPs free of
charge. Some IT equipment is also provided free of charge in both Westminster and constituency offices by the Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology Department (PICT). Additional or alternative IT equipment has to be purchased out of AOE budgets.
Amounts claimed
7.4 In 2008-09, MPs spent a total of £11.3 million on office running costs, an average of £17,500 each.
Spending by individual MPs ranged from £1,500 to £33,800. One MP claimed nothing.
Issues
7.5 The main issues which have been raised about office expenses during the course of this inquiry are:
The potential for the AOE budget to be used deliberately or inadvertently to subsidise party political
activity because of the common practice of MPs paying to use offices and facilities owned by local constituency associations.
The arrangements for MPs who own their own offices or do not rent offices.
The fact that equipment purchased out of public funds through office budgets remains the property of
MPs after they leave office rather than being returned for use by others.