Tag Archives: constituency office

Priorities for new MPs’ induction in the next parliament 

Posted on by

Next month, a large number of new MPs will be elected. On 5 June, the Unit hosted an event with four experts to discuss what support these new MPs might need, and how this might best be delivered. Lisa James summarises the key contributions. 

Whatever the result of the 2024 general election, it is certain there will be a large turnover of MPs. Over 130 MPs have announced they are standing down, and current polling suggests that many more seats could change hands. MPs are key constitutional actors in the UK’s democratic system, with the ultimate responsibility to uphold constitutional principles; it is essential that they are properly supported to carry out this vital role. So with a large influx of new MPs heading for Westminster next month, the Constitution Unit hosted an event asking what the priorities should be for their induction. The panel consisted of Hansard Society Director Ruth Fox, Institute for Government Director Hannah White, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Daniel Greenberg, and former long-serving Conservative MP Alistair Burt. This post summarises the discussion at the event – which can also be found in video and podcast form on our website. 

The history of induction 

Ruth Fox kicked off the event by laying out the history of MPs’ induction. Prior to 2010, newly arriving MPs were largely left to their own devices – Alistair Burt, first elected in 1983, recalled an induction that consisted largely of being shown to his office by a more experienced MP, and instructed to stay there until told otherwise. The expenses scandal, and work by the House of Commons Administration Committee, prompted the creation of a comprehensive induction package for the 2010 intake, combining internal and external provision. But low take-up resulted in a more pared-back, but better attended, offering in 2015. In 2017 and 2019, the early elections provided little opportunity for thorough induction planning. In general, MPs are now offered orientation in their first few weeks, but longer-term professional development that supports them to build their skills as legislators, parliamentary campaigners, and scrutineers has been harder to establish. 

Continue reading →

MPs’ staff, the unsung heroes: an examination of who they are and what they do

Posted on by

MPs’ staff have been termed the ‘unsung heroes’ of Westminster, but for a long time, their work – in Westminster and constituencies across the UK – has gone largely unrecognised outside parliament and is often misunderstood by outsiders. A new report by Rebecca McKee has sought to address this knowledge gap by combining original analysis of existing data with entirely new evidence from an original survey of MPs’ staff. Here Rebecca summarises some of the report’s findings.

The staff who work in MPs’ Westminster offices, and in constituency offices across the UK, are a core part of the functioning of our representative democracy. They are called on to assume a wide variety of roles; serving as gatekeepers, controlling access by constituents and interest groups; as resources, providing MPs with policy advice, research, and legislative support; as channels of communication, engaging with constituents and linking the constituency to Westminster; and as providers of essential administrative support. Yet a lack of information, inconsistent data, and limited understanding of who they are, what they do, and how they support MPs, means that they have long been missing from much of the analysis of how parliament works.

There are good reasons for the gaps in our knowledge: these staff are employed directly by the MP, so the only complete centralised data is kept by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), which as a regulator holds minimal information on these staff. Until now it has been difficult for those outside and even inside parliament to get a full picture of who works for MPs and what they do.

To provide this missing piece of the puzzle my new report, MPs’ staff, the unsung heroes: an examination who they are and what they do, combines original analysis of existing available data, held in different places, with entirely new evidence from an original survey of MPs’ staff. The report is in two parts. The first part sets the context of MPs’ staffing in the House of Commons; it charts the history of staffing support, the role of IPSA, staffing in other legislatures and sets out what limited information is publicly available – either published routinely by IPSA or from Freedom of Information requests. The second part of the report analyses data from the survey of MPs’ staff. The analysis includes a wealth of detail, covering who these staff are (demographics, education, qualifications and past experience), what they do, how they were recruited and their future plans. This reveals some important things, including significant differences between Westminster and constituency office staff in terms of gender, age and other characteristics; and a lack of staff with backgrounds in STEM subjects. The analysis also provides evidence for things that have been reported anecdotally, such as the varied nature of the work these staff do and the blurred lines between job roles.

Is there a ’typical’ MP’s office?

There is no set job description for MPs. They can choose any combination of the many different roles available to them. To support them in their role, MPs can employ their own office staff from a staffing allowance, set and administered by IPSA. The arrangements under which MPs employ their staff were not developed as part of a carefully thought-out exercise but evolved incrementally in response to MPs’ demands for increased support. MPs are relatively free to hire who they want and into which roles. There is no one function that an MP’s office has to perform and there are few commonalities between them.

Continue reading →

How much control should there be over how MPs do their job?

Posted on by

In the second of a two-part series, former senior House of Commons official David Natzler discusses whether MPs should be subject to a minimum attendance requirement, and their role as constituency caseworkers. He concludes that an objective measure of individual MPs’ constituency activity and work, and some agreed minimum standards, would be useful, but that the right of MPs to determine for themselves how to do their job should be preserved.

In the first blog in this series, I set out the background to the recent resignation of Nadine Dorries and suggested that it raised some general issues of importance. In that post, I discussed the process of appointing MPs to the House of Lords, and on the process of resignation, suggesting that sitting members of the Commons should not be eligible for peerages, and that the process of resignation should be brought in line with prevailing norms, involving a simple letter of resignation to the Speaker or Clerk of the Commons. In this post I look at the issue of MPs’ attendance and at the performance of their constituency role.

Attendance

There was criticism of Nadine Dorries for not having spoken in the Commons chamber for around a year, since 7 July 2022 when she answered questions in the Commons as Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. She was also criticised for not tabling a written question since 20 December 2017 (although between July 2019 and September 2022, she was a minister, and therefore not able to table questions) and for not having voted since 26 April 2023.

MPs are not formally obliged to attend the House of Commons. Those such as Sinn Féin MPs who decline to take the oath or affirmation of allegiance after their election may indeed never do so during their time as MPs. As Erskine May puts it: ‘On ordinary occasions, the attendance of Members in Parliament is not enforced by either House’.

Continue reading →

What should happen when MPs resign? Why the Commons should have control of the departure of its members and MPs should not be offered post-dated peerages

Posted on by

The resignation of Nadine Dorries prompted questions about how, and in what circumstances, an MP should leave office. In this post (the first of two), former senior House of Commons official David Natzler argues that it is wrong for the executive to have the final say over MPs’ departures, and that MPs should not be offered peerages until after they have left the Commons.

On 25 August the backbencher and former Cabinet minister Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, announced that she had formally applied for the position of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds. The appointment was duly made on 29 August and she ceased thereby to be a member of the House of Commons. The writ for a by-election was ordered when the Commons returned from its summer recess on 4 September, with delayed effect until 12 September: unlike the writ for Rutherglen and Hamilton West caused by the successful recall petition against Margaret Ferrier, which was ordered at the same sitting but with immediate effect. As a result, the by-election to replace Dorries will not be held until 19 October. This was in the news primarily because more than 10 weeks earlier, on 9 June, Dorries stated that she had informed the Conservative Chief Whip that she was ‘standing down as the MP for Mid Bedfordshire with immediate effect’. That day saw the publication of the resignation honours list of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and both she and fellow Johnson loyalist Nigel Adams had been widely tipped to receive peerages. Neither did, apparently following doubts expressed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC). Johnson announced his resignation as an MP later on 9 June and was appointed to the Chiltern Hundreds on 12 June. Adams announced his resignation on 10 June – using identical words to Dorries about ‘standing down with immediate effect’ –  and was duly appointed as Steward of the Manor of Northstead on 13 June.

It soon became clear that Dorries had not actually resigned and that she had no immediate intention of doing so. On 14 June she said that it was still ‘absolutely my intention to resign’ but that she was awaiting information she had sought from the Cabinet Office and HOLAC on her non-appointment to the House of Lords. On 29 June she stated on her weekly TalkTV show that ‘I’ve resigned… I’ll be gone long before the next general election.’ Criticism mounted from Conservative MPs, and within her constituency, most conspicuously from first Flitwick and then Shefford town councils, both of whom published letters they had sent to her. These focused primarily on allegations that she was failing in her duties to her constituents, both in terms of her failure over a period of many months to speak or vote or attend the House of Commons, and of her refusal to hold constituency surgeries or play an active role in the constituency. Rishi Sunak suggested during an LBC radio interview on 2 August that her constituents were not being properly represented, and thereafter several ministers and backbench Conservatives were similarly critical. She continued however to receive the Conservative whip. And of course, she continued to receive her salary. 

Political drama aside, does this story hold any lessons for the way parliament and the constitution should function? I believe that it illustrates several issues, although they are not all capable of resolution: specifically, the grant of peerages to MPs; the practice and process used by MPs to resign their seats; the expectations of attendance of MPs at Westminster; and MPs’ work for and in their constituencies. The first two of these matters will be covered in this post. The latter two will be discussed in a post that will appear on this blog tomorrow.

Continue reading →

Parliamentary standards: priorities for the new Commissioner 

Posted on by

In this blog post, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Daniel Greenberg CB, discusses the key themes of his first months in post, providing a snapshot of the top issues he and his team are working on. The Commissioner’s Annual Report 2022-23 was published on 12 July.

Engagement and outreach are priorities for my five-year term, as I hope to explore and address the causes of low public engagement with the political system and parliament.

In my first annual report, which was published this week, I describe the work my team and I are undertaking to support this work, including a series of Principles in Practice seminars, in and outside Westminster, that explore how the Seven Principles of Public Life (that underpin the Code of Conduct for MPs, and which are also known as the Nolan Principles) already inspire the day-to-day workings of MPs’ offices. Appendix 5 of the report includes anonymised case studies drawn from MPs’ offices, to share and inspire examples of principles-driven best practice.

My report also contains my reflections, informed by my engagement with the hundreds of emails, letters and calls my office receives from members of the public each month, on two of the most prevalent topics of complaint that I receive: MPs’ responsiveness to constituency correspondence; and the language and tone of some MPs’ expression of views and opinions.

MPs’ responsiveness to constituency correspondence

I am concerned about the very large number of complaints that I receive about lack of responsiveness to constituency correspondence, which suggest that there is a general perception on the part of some members of the public that some MPs are not attaching sufficient importance to responding to enquiries and other correspondence from constituents.

Continue reading →