Summer Adjournment

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this summer Adjournment debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. As everyone else has, I wish colleagues and staff all the best for the recess. Of course, many of our colleagues—and their staff—who lost their seats might not have quite such a happy summer, as they face in some cases quite uncertain circumstances. I wish to say a little about the arrangements for non-returning MPs and their staff, and I hope it will command support from both sides of the House.

Before I do, though, I have always taken the view that an MP’s salary should be broadly in line with comparable professions and sufficient to meet the needs of living in two places—including in London, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world—but it should not be so high as to be the prime motivator for anyone seeking to become an MP. By and large, I believe, the current salary does that. The office allowance and travel arrangements are absolutely appropriate, and the allowance for staff should be sufficient to employ the correct number of caseworkers and other staff in our constituency offices. Again, since IPSA has given a rather generous increase to the staff allowance, that has most certainly been achieved.

Of course, the advent of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 has, or rather should have, provided more certainty for people seeking election or to work for an MP when they give up careers, professions and trades to do that. It is also worth noting that the recent salary increase for MPs was combined with changes to the MP pension scheme and the removal of the old resettlement allowance. At face value that is all fair and reasonable and, for the most part, it is. The reality of how easily the terms of the Act were overturned casts a bit of a shadow over what happens in practice, particularly for those who lose their seats, in the event of a short Parliament.

Irrespective of the expectation of a five-year term for Members and staff, the reality in the last Parliament was that many MPs’ staff members were entitled to precisely nothing—zero—by way of redundancy because they were employed for less than two years. That was inevitable, given that the Parliament itself was barely two years old. That simply cannot be right. As one non-returning MP put it:

"My own staff position seems to be typical; I have five in my team of whom four are to be paid no redundancy at all. This is because they worked less than two years (in some cases missing the cut by only a few weeks.)…Many staff members gave up jobs, others gave up homes and moved to London, and some took out mortgages”

on the basis of a five-year contract made in good faith. They are now made redundant on terms that he says

“would disgrace the most unscrupulous private corporation.”

Indeed, were there to be another election before 2019, which is certainly not inconceivable, any staff employed by a new MP of any party elected for the first time this June would likewise be entitled to absolutely nothing if the MP lost his or her seat. I would suggest, and I hope that this would command support, that at the very least in future redundancy should be paid to staff as per the contract, in the circumstances of a short Parliament, as if the members of staff had been employed for five years, particularly as the circumstances of a short Parliament are outwith the control of the staff, outwith the control of Members—and, given what we now know, were outwith even the knowledge of half the Cabinet when the Prime Minister called the election.

Likewise, the decision to call an election within the five-year timescale has left a number of non-returning MPs in a very difficult position, with many new ones being entitled to less than £3,000. Although IPSA is right to try to put things on a par with other workplaces, where we have ended up with the terms of redundancy for MPs appears to bear absolutely no relation to any professional contract I have ever seen.

To put into some kind of context the combination of circumstances in which ex-MPs and their staff find themselves, I can tell the House what two have told me. One said:

“we are now trying to support staff who are receiving no help from IPSA—while not being paid ourselves to do so”.

He hopes that consideration can be given to finding the means to provide additional support to staff. Another said that he would not

“abandon my staff and former constituents, nor walk away from my responsibilities. But, it seems, that I am expected to manage my staff as their boss full time until the 8th August entirely unpaid. That cannot be right or fair.”

I am not arguing for a return to the old resettlement allowance regime, but the current situation must be changed. I believe it needs to be changed not just to help those who lost their seats in practical terms but to address a more difficult issue. If this situation continues and there is a series of short Parliaments leaving people in this position, massive limits will be placed on those choosing to stand for election or to work here. The huge strides all the parties have made to ensure that Parliament more accurately reflects society could be reversed, and that goes for staff as well as Members. If it is clear to those who might wish to come here that MPs who lose their seats after a short Parliament will come away with less than one month’s salary and their staff, in some cases, will come away with literally nothing at all, the only people who might seek election will be the independently wealthy or the kind of zealots who would do it for nothing. Nothing, but nothing, could be more different to society than a Parliament of MPs and staff drawn from such narrow groups.

Urgent action needs to be taken to ensure that staff redundancy is paid on the basis of a five-year contract, irrespective of how long a Parliament lasts, and MPs need to have a comparable professional termination package based on length of service but with a minimum safety net, not merely a few weeks’ salary. Let me repeat that I am not calling for the re-introduction of the old resettlement allowance, but the prospect of surrendering one’s career or trade to enter Parliament, losing one’s seat when it is not one’s fault and then being presented with less than one month’s salary will be a massive disincentive to others who would seek to do this public service. IPSA needs to be flexible.

Finally, a winding-up allowance of around £50,000 or so is available to each MP, but it appears from non-returned colleagues that there are huge restrictions on how that can be used. My judgment is that, with little imagination, IPSA could easily pay staff redundancy for those who serve less than two years in the event of a short Parliament. I am talking about a modest termination package to allow ex-MPs to fulfil their obligations to those staff and to adjust to life outside Parliament without any significant increase to the funds that IPSA already sets aside. This is not special pleading; it is a matter that can and will affect all parties. It is something that we must review and repair quickly, given that the fixed nature of our parliamentary terms is rather less robust than many of us had expected.