by Chris McLaughlin
LABOUR MPs have been in a fractious mood, to say the least, over the expenses plans put forward by Gordon Brown and voted on only after he was forced into a humiliating climbdown on the introduction of a daily allowance. Part of their concern was the Prime Minister’s bizarre appearance on YouTube to announce his plans for reforming the system of bath plug and porn allowances.
Only the day before, the committee which represents backbenchers’ concerns to Number 10 met the PM. He chose to tell them nothing of the impending announcement. As if lack of consultation were not enough, the YouTube appearance itself left more than a few MPs wondering whether Brown has actually lost his marbles.
A cringe-worthy, rictus smile at totally inappropriate moments made him look as though he were attached to some electrical torturing device operated by somebody in Tory HQ. Everyone agrees that Labour has to learn from Barack Obama’s campaigning use of the internet. But this effort merely served to show just how much it has to learn.
While MPs were getting themselves into a tizzy about their perks and the disclosures that are to come when details of their expenses are published before the summer recess, one of their “perks” was raising its own concerns about the changes. MPs’ hard-working staff, continually cast in media reports as merely part of the allowances, read perks, of their bosses want a say in how things are re-arranged. They, after all, are at the front end of an MP’s workface. And they, typically, were not consulted before the PM crashed out his plans or before the vote on Thursday.
The history of the relationship between MPs and their staff includes legendary abuses. Staff are employed directly by an MP. While the majority are caring, responsible employers, the system leaves other staffers open to a system that is little short of serfdom. Many staff do not have contracts and some MPs have become notorious for the high turnover of staff who have fled for their sanity or health.
Over the past 25 years the T&G – now Unite – branch which organises MPs’ staff has achieved some important improvements in conditions, fighting against endemic low pay. But even now the hours endured by too many staff mean that they effectively work for rates below the minimum wage. Researchers know of staff regularly working 12-hour days for little more than £10,000 a year.
Now the plan is to centralise employment through the offices of the House of Commons itself. The question the staff union is now asking itself is: could centralisation be the change they’ve been campaigning for, for so long? That’s difficult to answer when the detail is unknown and no one has asked their view on it.
What is certain is that reforms of terms and conditions will not be sufficient if they continue to be made as they are now: on advice from MPs sitting in private interpreted behind closed doors by departmental officials.
