Memoranda submitted by re-elected Members
MR PETER BOTTOMLEY
1. My comment is that as a re-elected MP,
I was delighted at the smooth planned move of my office from one
building to another. Minor details were dealt with quickly and
quietly. I am grateful to everyone involved.
2. I did offer to have a new MP as an office
sharer while they were sorted out—and I would be happy to
do that in future.
MRS CLAIRE CURTIS-THOMAS
1. Are staff aware that they are there to
help MPs, not humiliate them?
2. The service for MPs is scandalous and
centuries out of date.
PAUL FLYNN
1. As your Committee is examining accommodation
perhaps they would consider criteria for ensuring the most efficient
use of office space. While the committee may not find it practical
to allocate offices, they could perhaps establish guidelines that
would encourage a more transparent system. One splendid corner
office remained empty for 10 months from July 2004. It has now
been allocated to an ex-Government Minister following a ministerial
re-shuffle. There is strong impression that the allocation of
offices is used as an instrument of a patronage in a sometimes
capricious manner. Decisions often fail to achieve an equitable
and efficient use of space.
2. I have asked the Whips responsible what
the criteria are for allocating offices. Are seniority, workload,
disability, age, staff numbers factors taken into account? I have
had no substantive reply and a brief discussion revealed no criteria
on which Members can measure whether or not they are being treated
fairly.
PETER LUFF
1. I am writing in response to the recent
survey asking the views of Members on the services provided after
the General Election.
2. I am extremely unhappy with the provision
of new computer equipment by PCD.
3. First, MPs should be able to buy whatever
make or model of computers and printers we want, and not be restricted
to an authorised shopping list. Why should we be forced to choose
only from the tiny range approved by PCD? The range is already
out-of-date, having been specified many months ago—memory
and processing speeds will have moved on considerably by the time
I am allocated my machines.
4. Second, we should also be able to buy
our equipment from where we want. I would have much preferred
to support a local business in my constituency, which sells a
fine range of IT equipment. The current arrangements meant that
I had no choice in the matter.
5. Third, the time scale of the roll-out
of new equipment is appalling. I have a new member of staff who
started working for me at the end of June. He has a mild disability
(Repetitive Strain Injury) which requires him to use voice-activated
software. However, the only spare computer in my office wasn't
capable of supporting the software. I wanted to get a more powerful
computer from my entitlement, but was told by PCD that he would
have to wait because the new MPs were being provided with their
equipment first. I have not even been allowed to buy a machine
from the catalogue, leaving me in non-compliance with the Disability
Discrimination Act.
6. In a recent letter PCD stated that the
roll-out will take place from November 2005 to June 2006. This
is quite incredible. Luckily, PCD arranged for my researcher's
computer to be fitted with a memory upgrade, which will probably
do in the meantime—but this is far from ideal.
7. The problem is that PCD tries to squeeze
MPs into a corporate model. This doesn't work. We are 646 small
businesses, all with different needs and working habits. We need
the flexibility to accommodate those differences.
8. Each of us should be given the freedom
to buy our equipment from a set budget to suit our own needs.
If this system was in place, I could have bought all of my new
computers and printers in a single day— not a year. The
solution is to free MPs from the restrictions of the network,
which is wholly unconnected to the communications needs of MPs,
and so give everyone the freedom to define and meet their own
requirements.
DR NICK PALMER
Many thanks for the interesting enquiry. As
a third-term Member I didn't experience any problems, and basically
just resumed where I left off with no particular difficulty, but
this may well be untypical of new Members' experiences.
MR NICK RAYNSFORD
1. My office was relocated from two separate
offices to adjoining offices in Portcullis House immediately after
the May 2005 election. To date, despite repeated requests to the
PCD, I have not received my full allowance of computers. Indeed
for many weeks the office managed on only two PCs shared between
four people.
2. I appreciate that priority has to be
given to new members after the General Election, however it took
many phone calls before we were able to secure a reconditioned
PC, three months after it was requested. One member of my staff
was forced to work from home during this time, which was not ideal.
MRS CAROLINE SPELMAN
Very unhappy with IT support.
| 
