A collaboration of academics and parliamentary practitioners has resulted in a new book, the second edition of Exploring Parliament, which seeks to make what can sometimes seem like an arcane and impenetrable institution more comprehensible to students and the general public alike. In this post the book’s editors, Cristina Leston Bandeira, Alexandra Meakin and Louise Thompson, explain why the book is necessary, and what readers can expect from its second incarnation.
Continue readingTag Archives: MPs casework
MPs’ staff, the unsung heroes: an examination of who they are and what they do
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 readingHow much control should there be over how MPs do their job?
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 readingParliamentary standards: priorities for the new Commissioner
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 readingCoronavirus and constituents: working for an MP during a pandemic
After it was announced that IPSA had made an additional £10,000 available to MPs to support their office costs to help adapt to the ‘new normal’ of working from home with an increasing workload, there was much confusion and some misinformation about what this money was for. Emma Salisbury explains what MPs’ offices do, where that money might go, and what it has been like working for an MP as the UK has experienced a change in the way we live and work of a type that few (if any) people have experienced before.
The headlines were stark – MPs given £10,000 bonus to work from home! The news prompted criticism from political commentators and on social media, resulting in a petition (signed by 250,000 people) to reverse the decision. This wave of headlines prompted Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons, to make a statement on the matter. Misinformation such as that put out about this issue has been one of the many democratic challenges of the coronavirus crisis, as the Unit’s Deputy Director, Alan Renwick, and Michela Palese have discussed elsewhere on this blog.
The truth is less exciting, and results in fewer sales and clicks. MPs pay for their offices and staff via the expenses system administered by IPSA, a body set up after the 2009 expenses scandal (for a summary of the 2009 scandal, see this recent blogpost by former Commons clerk Sir David Natzler). Each MP has budgets for their necessities: accommodation, travel, staffing, and office costs. The latter of these is how we pay for the boring things we need to run an office, everything from paperclips to envelopes to printer ink. In order to help support us during the pandemic, IPSA raised the cap on this budget by £10,000 to make sure that every MP’s office had the capacity, if needed, to buy whatever was necessary to make the transition to home working; if the MP or one of their staff does not have access to a computer or printer at home, for example, the budget can cover acquiring this equipment.
All purchases reimbursed through IPSA need to be claimed for with a receipt and an explanation of why it was necessary, and the conditions of these new funds are no different. If IPSA decides that a claim for an item is not reasonable, then it can refuse to reimburse the MP for that expense, meaning it would have to come out of the MP’s own pocket. The extra amount is a cap, not a target: many MPs will not need to claim for the maximum additional amount. No matter how much of the budget MPs end up spending, this £10,000 is certainly not a lump sum gift to them or their staff. Continue reading


