My statement on standards in public life

By Dan Whittle

This afternoon, I am giving evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life inquiry into MPs expenses. This is my opening statement:

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 renumerated 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 16th 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.

Forthly 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 labelling 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.