MPs should not be employing their own staff

Over the weekend, Eric Joyce made a very sensible suggestion. He may have a penchant for violence that is unbecoming of a Member of Parliament, and he may be some way down the list of people you’d go to for comment on Parliamentary standards – but on this one issue he was completely right.

Joyce went on Sky News yesterday and said that MPs should not be employing staff directly, they should be employed by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). It’s a very good idea.

Questions over the employment practices are in the news again over revelations that Westminster (or “Sexminster”, as some of the press are determined to rebrand it) isn’t an ideal work environment. Specifically, there have been allegations that a number of MPs have been treating their staff inappropriately.

That’s something that’s been bubbling up in the Westminster village for a few months now. John Mann wrote on LabourList back in January that “I have seen young women in a terrible state because of the attentions of older male politicians”, and Alex Wickham noted that it wasn’t just the young women of Westminster who faced such indecency.

It’s not unusual to see MPs and staff members in the bars of Westminster, on the Terrace or even getting into a cab late at night. The Westminster lifestyle all too often tends towards stress, long hours and alcohol. Mostly that’s entirely innocent – and I’d hate MPs to become afraid of socialising with their staff – but sometimes it evidently isn’t. And in those situations where the behaviour is improper, MPs directly employing their staff is a problem. If an MP has mistreated their staffer, then quite often the wronged researcher has only three options – complain to the MP, complain to the police or quit.

None offer a particularly good way to mediate workplace issues.

That is where IPSA should come in. An external body employing parliamentary staff would allow basic HR procedures to come into play for the staff of MPs – and not just with regard to sexual misdemeanours. The way in which MPs hire and fire their staff is often secretive and more about who you know than what you know. The working conditions for MPs staff are often poor – long hours, evenings, weekends, random work patterns and rarely any better than satisfactory pay.

And whenever MPs allowances/expenses are discussed – which is often – the more duplicitous members of the press have been known to include the cost of staffing an MPs office(s) as part of their salary. In no other profession would having people work for you count as some sort of personal allowance. It’s a farce.

Now I don’t expect to see IPSA become the formal employer for MPs staff – not least because most MPs hate IPSA with a passion. Their petty accounting procedures, their not inconsiderable staffing costs and their perceived holier and though attitude tend to rub MPs up the wrong way. Few would want to hand more power to IPSA. And yet perhaps by doing so they can remove some of the rods from their backs. They could have happier, better paid staff. Those staff could work in an environment that can never leave them feeling unable to share their concerns.

Surely, if MPs care about the people who work so hard for them (and they should do), then that’s worth working with IPSA – isn’t it?