Parliamentary Staff should not be forgotten in the expenses row

May 18, 2009 8:49 am

Parliament LionBy Kathryn White

The Telegraph’s slow dripping of information over MPs’ expenses continues to unsettle Westminster, stirring up daily indignation. Yet before the dust is allowed to settle, I call on Labour’s MPs to use the opportunity to take practical steps for change and at least partially right the hidden wrongs that have perpetuated under the expenses system.

For example, it has long been hushed over that Parliamentary staff are classed as “expenses”. This artifice, operated by the House of Commons authorities, denies those staff the employment rights they would enjoy were the House of Commons to recognise that it is their employer. These staff are paid directly by the House of Commons authorities and are subject to standardised contracts of employment which are issued centrally. Most importantly, the House of Commons sets the pay scales which individual MPs are required to apply to staff. Yet the House of Commons has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that Parliamentary staff are its employees. Instead, they have long been classed as “expenses” for which MPs must claim as an “allowance”.

The result is that Parliamentary staff have no legal status as a collective group of employees and so their trade union, Unite, has no right to negotiate terms of employment collectively on their behalf. They have no right to be consulted collectively on changes to their working hours, for instance. So when the House of Commons stated its intention to increase the maximum hours in the standard contract unilaterally from 37 ½ hours to 42 hours per week in February 2009, the employees had no voice to oppose it. They have no right to be consulted as to their pay, or their pension arrangements, or their terms of redundancy. Unsurprisingly, when surveyed about these arrangements in 2008 a whopping 83.9% of those staff who responded wanted Unite to be given the right to negotiate collectively on their behalf.

Together with Dan Whittle, Chair of Unite’s parliamentary branch, I am making a legal application to the Central Arbitration Committee (an independent body) on behalf of Unite’s Parliamentary staff members. We want to compel the House of Commons to acknowledge that it is the employer of Parliamentary staff and that those staff are entitled to have their full employment rights protected accordingly. If we are successful, Parliamentary staff will have a formal collective voice for the first time regarding changes to their terms and conditions of employment. That should mean fairer pay, transparent redundancy arrangements and the ability to oppose any further increases to their working hours.

I urge Labour MPs to express their full support for this application. The expenses mess is obviously damaging to the credibility of our PLP, but I firmly believe that the vast majority of Labour MPs came to Parliament to make positive social change. Let’s do what we can to bring positive success out of this systemic failure. And let us start by giving staff the status they deserve.

Related posts:

  1. The upcoming inquiry into MPs allowances and expenses is very welcome if it restores the public’s confidence in politicians
  2. MPs’ expenses – the other side of the story
  3. Expenses need to be reformed now
  4. MPs’ expenses and the great national sneer
  5. In defence of MPs’ expenses (well, some of them)

Comments are closed

Latest

  • Comment Why I went from Blue to Red

    Why I went from Blue to Red

    Saturday May 15th 2010 is a day which will stay in my mind for some time. It is the day I joined the Labour Party. You might not think there is anything special in that, but for the previous 6 years I had been a member of the Conservatives. I should have joined Labour much sooner, growing up in a working class household and benefiting as I did from so many of their policies: EMA enabled me to go to [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour needs a prawn cocktail offensive for all businesses, not just small firms

    Labour needs a prawn cocktail offensive for all businesses, not just small firms

    Both Jacqui Smith and Dermot Finch have written in recent days about the need for Labour to embark on a new “prawn cocktail offensive” to charm the business community. I agree with Jacqui and Dermot and I’m optimistic about the reception Labour is likely to receive from the business community, provided we have the courage to engage with all businesses – small firms, mid-caps and large corporates. This doesn’t mean deviating from the responsible capitalism agenda. If business wants more [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Local Government Why we’re raising council tax

    Why we’re raising council tax

    Nobody wants to pay more tax and I am not a high tax and spend politician, so my administration’s proposed rejection of the government’s council tax funding has not been based on ideological dogma, but a reasoned decision based on financial prudence. I led my group to win control of City of York Council in May 2011. We inherited from the previous Liberal Democrat administration a budget with £21m of in year cuts to make, a number of previously unexposed [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News Boris and the 2 billion pound “clerical error”

    Boris and the 2 billion pound “clerical error”

    Earlier today on BBC’s London Politics Show, it was revealed that billions of pounds were inaccurately added to Boris Johnson’s official budget document – a mistake that a spokesperson for the Tory Mayor attempted to dismiss as a “clerical error”. At over £2 billion – that’s some clerical error… A spokesperson for Ken Livingstone said: “Boris Johnson claims anyone arguing for lower fares for Londoners doesn’t understand the transport finances, but now it turns out it’s Boris Johnson’s transport figures [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The sad truth behind Andrew Lansley’s eyes

    The sad truth behind Andrew Lansley’s eyes

    “Michael,” said the Prime Minister, without looking up from his desk, “I thought you said this would be easy?” “Easy? That what would be easy?” replied the Education Secretary, whose face had occupied a near-permanent state of mild bafflement, which was slowly becoming the kind of ever-present British institution that decades from now will be ruined by ill-thought out reforms, or having a roof built over it in case it rains. “This NHS business. You said it would be easy.” [...]

    Read more →