Memoranda submitted by former Members
JOE ASHTON (Association of Former MPs)
1. Not all Committee members will be aware
of the existence of the Association of Former MPs which has been
formally set up, with a written constitution, approved by the
House of Commons Commission, and which has been granted office
accommodation at 2 Abbey Gardens together with a modest grant.
2. There are presently 333 paid up members
of the Association, 58 of whom left Parliament at the 2005 election.
About half of our members are defeated ex-MPs, and the other half
retired. The Speaker is Patron of the Association, the aims of
which are as follows:
(a) To provide former Members of Parliament
with opportunities to meet socially and continue long-standing
friendships.
(b) To work for the acceptance of the Association
as a repository of political knowledge and parliamentary experience.
(c) To undertake educational, cultural, social
and consultative tasks, drawing on the skill and experience of
members to further the cause of parliamentary democracy.
(d) To represent the interests of former
MPs.
(e) To provide a forum within which former
MPs can offer advice to other former Members and to the widows,
spouses and partners of former Members.
(f) To foster good relations between former
MPs and the current Members of the Commons and the Lords and the
authorities of both Houses.
(g) To enhance the status of politicians
generally and demonstrate that British politics is an honourable
profession in which former MPs are proud to have served.
(h) To establish and maintain good relations
with similar associations worldwide, offering and receiving help,
advice and hospitality, and seeking to unite former politicians
in advancing the cause of parliamentary democracy.
3. The Association has an elected, fully
representative and balanced Executive Committee. There are seven
elected members and six co-opted members to ensure regional, political,
gender, etc, balance. Two serving MPs are also members of the
committee.
4. The Association appreciates the strict
remit of the present inquiry, and acknowledges that there is a
clear distinction between the problems of MPs who retire, and
prepare for it accordingly, and those who are defeated, who face
the trauma of a sudden exit, often highly publicised, and immediate
unemployment at what is often a very difficult age.
5. We are including a copy of our magazine
"Order Order" which contains an article on the problem,
which members of the Committee might like to read.
6. We would submit that the inquiry should
include consideration of the availability of clear advice to retired/defeated
members, as to their status within the House of Commons as ex-Members.
7. The Committee will know that former Members
who have served 10 years are eligible for a security pass. Following
representations from the Association during the last Parliament,
it was agreed that the qualifying years be reduced from 15 to
10. It seems to be the case that the existence of such a pass
is not effectively made known to retiring/defeated MPs. The possession
of a pass allows limited access to refreshment facilities on the
estate and again this is not made clear.
8. The Association hopes that the Committee
will consider, as a future study, looking into the whole question
of access to the estate for former MPs. Those without a security
pass have no rights at all, although we understand that the Refreshment
Department might welcome the use of catering facilities by former
MPs at off-peak times.
9. It is felt by many of our members that
there is an in-built objection, by officials, to the presence
of former MPs in the House. This is not the case in countries
such as the USA, Australia, New Zealand, where former parliamentarians
are all welcome visitors to their parliaments.
10. With regard to security passes, a further
cause for complaint is that they are entitled "Special Guest"
rather than "Former Member".
11. In conclusion, therefore, the Association
would ask members of the Administration Committee to consider
the following:
— Clear guidance on rights of access
to the parliamentary estate and its facilities for former MPs.
— The guidance to include reference
to the existence and activities of the Association of Former MPs.
— Consideration of a future committee
inquiry on access regulations.
MR HARRY BARNES
1. My staff and myself received full and
ready assistance from the Administration in the Commons when vacating
our offices and finalising our arrangements in the Commons in
the run-up to the dissolution of Parliament on 11 April. Subsequent
arrangements also worked well except in the following case.
2. PCD have not yet collected the Commons
computer, printer, attachments and lap-top from what was an office
in my home, although I gave them notice and reminders of this
problem some time ago. I have been back in touch with them today.
3. The ease with which all the other arrangements
worked was no doubt assisted by the fact that I announced my intention
not to stand again for Parliament way back in December 2002. It
was also clear well before the formal decision was made on the
dissolution of Parliament that the General Election would be held
on 5 May. Both the Administration and myself could, therefore,
undertake forward planning for my departure.
4. My own experiences might not, therefore
be reflected in circumstances where there is a snap General Election
or where a sitting MP is defeated at the polls.
ANDREW BENNETT
1. I hope your remit will cover, the period
before, as well as after an election. I very much appreciated
the help and support I received in winding up my office and in
planning my retirement from most of the Fees Office Staff. However
the procedures were very unsatisfactory. I will deal with four
issues.
2. First, I needed to know what help and
resources would be available when I was deciding whether to retire,
ie during the first half of the 2001-05 Parliament. When I asked
the Fees Office in February 2002, what would be available, I was
told they didn't know for certain, but it would be at least as
generous as in 2001, and we then discussed specifics about my
staff and redundancy payments. All this information turned out
to be inaccurate. If the Committee recommends nothing else it
ought to recommend that the rules for next time are known at least
by the middle of the Parliament, and don't emerge a couple of
months before an election.
3. Second, I was keen to be able to offer
my staff redundancy payments and or bonuses which would make it
very attractive for them to remain in my employment until the
election and look for new jobs thereafter. This is an issue for
MPs who choose to retire; in that staff naturally are tempted
to look for new jobs rather than wait to the end, particularly
in a five-year parliament. It can also be a problem for MPs in
marginal seats, particularly if opinion polls suggest over a two
or three-year period they are likely to lose their seats. (I was
very aware of this in 1977-79). It would seem fair for the rules
to allow very significant redundancy payments to reward staff
who remain with an MP up to the election.
4. Third, my computer equipment in the House
of Commons, provided by the House was easily dealt with. I just
abandoned it, but the equipment in my constituency was much more
of a problem. Logically I should have been able to buy it at a
price reflecting it was over four years old. This I was told I
couldn't do because of the licences for the software on the computer.
It was claimed all computers had to be returned and have the programs
removed. Obviously this is much more expensive to the House. Two
things would be sensible, to get the licences altered so ex-MPs
still had the right to use the programs on old machines; or merely
to allow ex-MPs to buy the machines with a program licence, or
providing a note assuring the House of Commons that all programs
had been wiped. The actual position in this area is very unsatisfactory.
5. Finally the management of the Members
Pension Fund. It is very annoying when one has done one's sums
for retiring, to be told managers have made errors in your contributions,
and require you to make up the shortfall. If the Members Pension
Fund is to be continued to be "out sourced" those providing
the service ought to be responsible for making good any mistakes
they made.
PETER BRADLEY
1. I am very glad that the Committee is
enquiring into the provision of services to Members and former
Members and grateful for the opportunity to submit evidence to
it.
2. I note that the Committee is not reviewing
the level of pay and allowances made to former Members. I do however
wish to record that, in my view, the financial arrangements made
for ex-Members are generous. My concern about the House Administration's
services is not so much what they provide as how.
3. As an MP, I gained the distinct impression
that those at senior level who run the House regard the majority
of its members as a necessary nuisance and an impediment to its
efficient administration.
4. My experience as an ex-Member confirms
that view.
5. Even for hard-bitten politicians, losing
office is not a happy experience. MPs who lose their seats lose
much more than their job. They also, virtually overnight and very
publicly, lose the status to which they have become accustomed
in their local community, access to a significant part of their
social circle at Westminster and, perhaps not surprisingly given
the nature of an MP's lifestyle, their own sense of identity.
It is a testing time. I have heard a number of former colleagues
liken the experience to a bereavement.
6. Those who administer the House ought
to have a special insight into the circumstances in which ex-MPs
find themselves. After all, they see MPs coming and going at very
regular intervals.
7. Yet the Administration's approach to
former Members is, or certainly feels, highly insensitive. I fully
understand that it has a pressing duty to new Members and that
the task of inducting, accommodating and making all the other
necessary arrangements for them is extremely difficult.
8. But that does not justify the way in
which ex-Members are made to feel like non-persons almost from
the moment their result is declared. It seems as though a task
force which has been limbering up for weeks swings into action
with a single mission—to dispose of the bodies as discreetly
but as quickly as possible.
9. I set out below a few of the post-election
arrangements which, in my view, were both inconsiderate and unnecessary:
— The period of time given to ex-MPs
to clear their offices is inadequate; those who lose their seats
are as exhausted as newly elected Members after often gruelling
election campaigns but without the adrenalin of victory to keep
them going; they should not be required to clear their desks (often
of many years' accumulated paperwork) as if they had been dismissed
from their posts for gross misconduct.
— There is no reason why the House
should move quite so quickly to cut off former Members' means
of communication with the outside world; although they are allowed
four days in which to vacate their offices, they will find that
even during that limited period, their telephone line cannot take
incoming calls and their Parliamentary email address has been
disabled.
Indeed, while technically it would have been
easy to arrange, those who tried to contact former Members by
email, perhaps with condolences or even offers of employment,
were not even informed that their messages were not reaching their
destination. I managed to agree an arrangement through which those
trying to reach me were provided by automatic response with an
alternative address, but not without a great deal of effort and
negotiation.
— For reasons which no-one in the Finance
Department was able to explain to me, ex-Members are not allowed
to forward invoices for allowable expenditures for settlement
by the Fees Office. In practical terms that means that ex-Members,
unlike sitting Members, are obliged to lay out considerable sums
from their own resources. In my case I had to advance several
thousand pounds for the rent and uniform business rate due on
my constituency office and then await reimbursement.
Fortunately, that did not present immediate
financial difficulties to me, though it may well have to others.
But it did make me feel that, having lost my seat, I had somehow
become untrustworthy.
10. I should also like to identify two other
deficiencies which I hope the Committee will consider. I have
mentioned how challenging the experience of losing a seat can
be for an ex-Member. Yet, as a former employer, the House of Commons
offers no practical support. I would strongly recommend that at
future elections it provides for those who want it access to:
— counselling to help ex-Members through
the difficulties associated with defeat which could typically
include a sense of failure, loss of self esteem, fear about the
future;
— advice, guidance and support for
ex-Members seeking to re-enter the job market perhaps for the
first time in many years.
11. I hope that the above is helpful. Although
I have been forthright about my views about the House Administration,
I would wish to place on record my appreciation of all the help
and frequent kindnesses I received both as a Member and since
from a large number of those who work in the House.
12. The problems to which I have referred
are cultural and perhaps institutional but, in my view, can be
resolved by a greater understanding of and sensitivity to the
needs of ex-Members and by relatively modest changes to current
arrangements.
BRIAN COTTER
1. I know this is not part of your remit
but as an ex-MP I was treated reasonably with "severance
payment" and help to give staff a reasonable deal.
2. However I was not happy with the following—
3. I was expected to clear out my office
in the House of Commons within seven days, indeed less: I went
to HoC on Tuesday after election day with notice to be out two
days later on Thursday.
4. There seemed to be no concession for
my pass to last a bit longer to enable me to deal with other matters,
say for 21-28 days!
5. Then having been in Parliament eight
years there seems to be no form of pass to make it easier to revisit
for meetings or to have any form of continuation. I am a member
of the Association of Former Members. To attend meetings as far
as I know I have to enter Parliament as an ordinary member of
the public. Some appreciation of past services would be helpful,
and make it easier to attend meetings of All Party Parliamentary
Groups with which I would like to carry on my interests, to attend
their meetings from time to time.
6. Could not a pass be available for four
years' service or one Parliament or two Parliaments based upon
the actual length of the Parliaments nowadays, usually four years
or thereabouts?
ROSS CRANSTON
1. I can say little, primarily because I
have nothing but praise for the House of Commons officials.
2. Since I had decided to stand down before
the election, I did have time to make enquiries and on that basis
adequate arrangements for my staff and myself. Therefore I was
in a different position to those defeated in the election.
3. Perhaps the only point I would make is
that the written information was detailed, as it should be, and
therefore took time to digest. But, as I say, the officials were
always at the other end of the telephone to advise. My only point
may be whether the written information could be presented in a
slightly different way, eg with accompanying flowcharts.
MR TAM DALYELL
1. Were you given enough time to vacate
your office?: Yes.
2. Did you and your staff receive appropriate
help and advice from the staff of the House?: Yes.
3. Please let us know which aspects
of the services you particularly appreciated. If you are unhappy
in any way with the services you received, please tell us how
they could have been improved: Every kindness, particularly
Library.
4. My one quibble is that I think it is
ridiculous that the Royal Mail do not send on letters—of
which there are very few—to former Members after three months.
VALERIE DAVEY
1. I welcome the opportunity to place on
record both my thanks to the staff of the General Election Team
and my concern about the apparent lack of a thought through strategy
to support my staff facing redundancy.
2. Losing an election will always be traumatic,
but at each stage the phone calls and correspondence relating
to my personal position were dealt with promptly and supportively
by finance/administration staff. I offered them my thanks at the
time and do so again now.
3. Individual members of staff also sought
to help my staff but did not have, it seemed, a clear remit and/or
detailed knowledge to be able to offer this level of support needed.
4. In retrospect it is easy to say that
more advice was needed before the election, whilst acknowledging
even now how difficult it was to concentrate on anything but the
election! Just one practical example was the necessity for the
outgoing MP's signature to secure the payment of staff at the
end of May. If that remains a necessity, then all MP's facing
future elections must know.
5. When it came to the detailed process
of working out the redundancy entitlements, one member of my staff
in Bristol went through the fine print and, after what she described
as an uphill struggle, agreed a settlement for herself, two other
full-time and one part-time colleagues.
6. There were other less important, but
none the less irritating inconsistencies in information received
relating to data protection and the collection of IT equipment.
JULIA DROWN
1. I have found the fees office general
election team to be very helpful in dealing with all my queries
on settling up all outstanding bills and thank them for that.
I think in cases like mine where I knew I was stepping down as
an MP we could have sorted more out before eg, I could have filled
out most of the forms for my staff beforehand and just left the
leaving dates to fill in when the election was confirmed which
would have been helpful.
2. I have had problems with my computer
which I bought via the PDVN but on my own office budget so that
I was entitled to keep it. I had problems with viruses so needed
to know what software was on the machine so that I could re-build
it with legal licences etc. Unlike their normal service which
I generally thought was very good, the helpline was not able to
help, didn't get back to me etc etc even though they said they
would. After many attempts to get an answer, I then went to the
customer services manager who then was helpful and did find out
that I could still get some help under the warranty and I was
very grateful for that help. This did reveal though many unresolved
policy issues which the PDVN hadn't thought of and which they
are still deciding on. There should be ways for managers to make
decisions in the interim before the slow policy procedure resolves
issues.
3. I look forward to the policies all being
resolved as I understand we will all be written to to say what
we can do on equipment we have been left with—entitlement
to use software on the machines etc.
MR ADRIAN FLOOK
1. First and foremost, I must praise the
staff, and especially Hannah Lamb, for their courteousness and
efforts on my and my former office's behalf. It cannot be easy
dealing with the winding down of offices especially where members
of staff are to be made redundant and I know that my two employees
much appreciated the way this whole process was handled.
2. If there was one criticism it is that
access to my e-mail address as well as access to the server was
removed too swiftly for us to be able to alert all those who needed
to know. We are sure that some "former" constituents
who had always preferred to use e-mail did not get their message
through to me once my parliamentary e-mail address (flooka@parliament.uk)
had been switched off. Compare this with the situation that had
existed since the Dissolution whereby anyone who had e-mailed
me could still use my parliamentary e-mail address which was then
automatically forwarded to another e-mail address. There was no
reason why this could not have been continued for the same length
of time that I kept my office going and had access to the winding
up allowance.
3. Someone at PDVN told me that as a former
Member, I was not allowed access to the server and inferred that
I might abuse such a privilege. Notwithstanding that I was not
asking for that, nor that this was an insult to me and my staff,
all that was requested was that my mail was automatically forwarded
on to an address which would then reach my (still publicly funded)
office. To switch off access to my main address within a week
of the election caused serious disruption to members of the public
in the Taunton constituency; it was more than annoying and somewhat
ironic when you consider there is considerable public money that
can be used to carry out a managed winding down.
4. It was as if PDVN was not working to
the same ends as the Department of Finance and Administration;
yet when we tried to rectify this obvious wrong we immediately
recognised that "resistance was futile". They did not
seem to have any real idea why as a former MP I might still need
to deal with "former" constituents or even want to manage
an organised download of stored e-mail addresses. They were impervious
to the arguments of common sense and even the protestations of
the Office of the Opposition Chief Whip could not get them to
understand the inconsistency of their inaction.
5. It was all very frustrating!
6. I hope my submission is useful and that
positive action can be taken to rectify this oversight in the
course of the next Parliament so that the same problem does not
impact on former honourable Members who might find themselves
in the same situation.
MRS HELEN LIDDELL
1. In reply to your enquiry, I found the
staff helpful and their advice timely. As I knew well in advance
I was leaving I had plenty of time to vacate my office, but more
physical help moving stuff would have been useful. Some of the
rules about allowances were overly prescriptive—and the
staff helped as far as they could to fit circumstances to the
rules, especially as I was leaving the country shortly after the
election, I also received a lot of bills after the cut off date.
The travel allowance between constituency and London was also
overly restrictive given that not everything could be fitted into
a tight timescale.
2. Other than that, I was very appreciative
of the help.
MR TONY McWALTER
1. The basic issue facing a defeated Member,
particularly if the election has been close or the defeat has
been a surprise, is that one is left suddenly without any period
of preparation to deal with a situation which is as dreadful as
success was a delight. The treatment meted out is very similar
to that facing employees of private companies who have been sacked
for dishonesty. The latter are required to remove all personal
effects, and to be accompanied while they clear their desks until
they leave the premises never to return. Being a defeated MP is
very similar, except that all vestige of courtesy or gratitude
is entirely absent. While my constituency party was kind enough
to organise a farewell party for me, the situation in Parliament
was very different. Having said that, many erstwhile colleagues
were very kind; but Parliament itself is not.
2. Probably the worst aspect of defeat is
that if you have been a conscientious MP you are suddenly faced
with knowing that a lot of vulnerable people will be left in the
lurch. While the theory is that one's successor will take over
one's caseload, in practice many of these cases have been built
up into a personal relationship; and psychologically it is very
difficult for people who have had some reliance on a particular
person to transfer their attentions immediately to another, different
person. This is particularly true of mental health cases, and
I cannot believe it is sound policy to remove what might have
been a bastion of support for people in this kind of way. I have
to say as well: I miss the people I once could help, and to move
from being someone who could make a difference to people's lives
to being a full-time job seeker is a transition few would wish
to make.
3. A thoroughly objectionable aspect of
the way you are treated by Parliament is the IT system. A friend
who wrote to me expressing her regret was greeted by an automatic
response which just said "DEFEATED". The computers which
one operated through the Parliamentary system cannot cope once
they are bereft of the network, and in any case access to vital
files and address books is withdrawn summarily. The effect is
that one not only loses one's job, and one's sense that one is
a helping person who is able to do something to make the difficulties
of life a little easier for some of our most vulnerable citizens,
but one loses also one's network of contacts and friends. You
have mentioned that you want no evidence on winding up, but there
needs to be an IT policy which allows a defeated MP scope to rebuild
his network of contacts. And a decent IT policy might help a former
MP to keep abreast of opportunities to continue in some way some
of the work he or she has been doing in Parliament. When a conscientious
and knowledgeable MP is defeated, there seems to be no mechanism
(other than the House of Lords) by which any expertise he or she
might have can continue to be made available in any form to the
public. That does seem a waste.
4. The third element of the way one is treated
is the new security system which requires one on visiting Parliament
to wear a large sticker saying "VISITOR". A doorman
who recognised me said how sorry he was to be inspecting my mobile
phone, just before he stuck the large sticker on my coat. While
at dinner in Dining Room B one of my erstwhile colleagues ask
me if I could remove it, as he felt troubled by the huge gulf
that it established between him and me. After an evening like
that, one does not have a strong wish to return, however kindly
one's friends have been.
5. I do understand that successful MPs do
not want to be troubled by the presence of ghosts from previous
Parliaments; but there ought to be a way to treat defeated MPs
with some element of respect. One MP had organised a post-election
dinner for her staff on the Monday after the election, and following
her unexpected defeat she was ejected, having been told by the
kitchen staff that she could not take up her booking. In other
countries, once someone has been an MP one is treated with a certain
respect thereafter. I think Parliament should be willing sometimes
to withdraw that assumption, but as it stands at the moment the
fate of the defeated MP is for him or her to be treated as if
they have disgraced themselves in some way. This attitude also
makes it extremely difficult to continue doing any of the work
one was engaged in prior to failing in an election, however far
removed from the constituency it was and however worthwhile it
is in itself.
6. I note that there are now moves to secure
some rights for those who have served 10 years in Parliament.
These are welcome, but they are still much more geared to those
who have been ensconced in Parliament in safe seats than for those
whose time in Parliament was always going to be a white-knuckle
ride. They also serve who represent marginal seats.
7. I served eight years as an MP. Having
never had any declarable interest outside Parliament, because
I regarded being an MP as something more than a full time job,
I have been unemployed since my defeat. There are not many people
who would claim that I lack qualifications, but being an ex-MP
is not seen as a qualification by most employers or head-hunters.
It has in fact served to cancel out my previous qualifications,
to leave me with the prospects of a salary far beneath that which
I would have had if I had never been an MP. That has made this
period of the life of my family and myself very hard. But the
disregard and the operational contempt visited on those who have
served it by Parliament has certainly exacerbated the difficulties
of adjusting to a life where one has to think afresh about one's
raison d'etre. Parliament could and should change the way
it treats those who have served as Members for however short or
long a time. Reforming the way ex-MPs access the Palace, thinking
again about whether there is some way of showing respect for those
who have played a role, and reforming the IT system, would all
be places to begin.
MR BILL O'BRIEN
1. My personal experience involving those
members of the staff who offered help and advice before the election
was to full satisfaction.
2. I had plenty of time to vacate my office
and the help in clearing away the surplus material was most adequate
and supportive.
3. The advice given on my staff conditions
of redundancies, the winding up allowances and pensions was clear
and my questions were answered to my full satisfaction.
4. I have no reason to be critical of the
advice and service I received.
LINDA PERHAM
ACCESS TO
THE PARLIAMENTARY
ESTATE
1. On Friday 6 May, ie the day after the
General Election, I telephoned the Serjeant at Arms Office to
enquire about access to clear my office starting on the following
Monday. I was told to go to St Stephens's Entrance and "They
would know what to do". When I said that I needed access
to Portcullis House because that was where my office was, I was
told to go to that entrance, and again: "They would know
what to do".
2. My staff arrived before me, and when
they presented themselves at Portcullis House, they were sent
round to Derby Gate to get their passes re-enabled. It would have
been helpful if that information had been conveyed to them beforehand
so that they could have gone directly to Derby Gate.
3. However, when I arrived at Portcullis
House, while my possessions were for the first time in eight years
being put through the security check, I started to explain who
I was.
4. The person at the desk did not know what
to do, and began telephoning someone. Meanwhile, my pass was taken
from me, and, despite my vainly telling the security person that
it was disabled, he tried to use it to operate the swing-door
entrance gate. It of course did not work.
5. Then three doorkeepers who were standing
inside the entrance doors noticed me, and I was allowed through.
A discussion then ensued about whether I would be permitted to
go up to my office unaccompanied. I told them that my staff were
already in the office, which could be reached by ascending the
lift only yards from where we were standing. I also pointed out
that the sooner I got into my office, the sooner I could clear
it, Finally, I was allowed to walk to the lift and go up on my
own.
6. When I entered the office, the telephone
was ringing, and one of the doorkeepers I had just spoken to told
me they had thought about it, and perhaps the best thing for me
to do so that I could get around the building in the next few
days would be to get my pass re-enabled at Derby Gate. This was
the information my staff were given as soon as they arrived!
7. I found this experience upsetting and
humiliating, and it was made even worse when I went to the Derby
Gate Pass Office on the Wednesday of that week (11 May), having
cleared my office, to return my pass and that of my husband. I
approached the desk, holding out the passes; the young woman behind
the desk looked up, said: "Oh hello, Ms Perham, Congratulations!"
I said, with some bitterness, as you might imagine: "It's
not congratulations, I lost", handed over the passes and
left.
8. Furthermore, during the three very unhappy
days I spent clearing out my office, I encountered a number of
House staff who made assumptions about my status. Even when I
was handing over keys and other items, it seemed to puzzle some
staff about why I was doing this. I did not expect that staff
would instantly be furnished with lists of who had and had not
been re-elected, but a few basic questions to establish whether
I was a former Member, and some sensitivity would have helped
at what was a very difficult and traumatic time.
9. My recommendations following my experiences
of gaining access to the Parliamentary Estate after a General
Election would be:
1. Include in the Dissolution arrangements
information an instruction for former (not ex-Members, please!)
Members and their staff wishing to gain access to the Parliamentary
Estate following a General Election to report in the first instance
to a Pass Office to get their passes re-enabled for the period
allowed, at present, I believe four days.
2. On the wider point of access for former
Members, I know the Administration Committee has reduced the length
of time for entitlement to a "Special Guest" pass from
15 years to 10. I would argue that if the principle for access
for former Members has been accepted, then ALL former Members
should qualify and the pass be designated "Former Member".
In this event, the re-enablement of a former Member's pass would
be automatic, and there would be no chance of the sorts of experiences
I had during the days following my General Election defeat recurring.
3. Train House staff to deal sensitively
with former Members and not make assumptions.
10. And now the good news . . .
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE
WITH CLEARING
THE OFFICE
11. My staff, and Mrs Miller, in particular,
who was in the office for three days, found anything they asked
for—boxes, bags, any assistance at all for expediting removal
of items was immediately provided. Mrs Miller says she couldn't
have asked for better help and that staff were "brilliant".
FORWARDING OF
POST/MESSAGES
12. This seemed to work well. My post has
been forwarded to the local Party office and thence to my home
address.
13. However, as far as emails were concerned,
it would have been helpful, if a former Member wished it, for
correspondents to be directed to a new email address. A number
of people have complained they were unable to contact me and have
only managed to do so via the national, regional or local Party
offices. Of course, one could assume that former Members would
NOT wish to be contacted by former constituents, lobbyists etc,
but this problem could be overcome by setting up a read-only forwarding
message or re-directing emails to a neutral email address, eg
that of a local Party office.
SERVICES FROM
THE FEES
OFFICE
14. I made an appointment with the Fees
Office to discuss Winding Up/IEP/Staffing allowances etc for Monday
9 May. I met Andy Martin and Russell Finer, who covered the details
very efficiently and sensitively.
15. I subsequently dealt with Russell Finer
and Andy Gibson over the next few months concerning a number of
transactions and queries. They were both unfailingly helpful—nothing
was too much trouble. I should like to commend both these officers
for the way they handled my financial affairs and those of my
staff.
IN CONCLUSION
16. As the above demonstrates, I found the
services available to me after the General Election generally
good, except for the access issues I have described. Having subsequently
visited the Palace on a number of occasions since May, I would
reiterate my strong feeling that all former Members regardless
of length of service deserve the dignity of being able to enter
the Parliamentary Estate with a pass.
MR PETER PIKE
CLEARING LONDON
OFFICE
1. I would say at the outset that the personal
help and support given by the attendant/manager could not have
been better. It would have helped if boxes—or their availability—had
been made earlier. The time in itself proved to be sufficient
but original advice that we would need to be accompanied at all
times was neither practicable or acceptable. This was amended
on the phone on the final sitting day. Whilst it was said we could
not use the refreshment facilities it was not enforced. My mail
was at the stage I was clearing my office being forwarded to Burnley
but it seemed somewhat petty to say if we collected it we should
not open it on the Parliamentary Estate.
STATIONERY
2. I personally found I had far larger stock
than I knew when I pulled it all together from my two offices
with the postage value probably in excess of £1,000. I asked
if this could be returned and as our expenses are now published
if the bulk/box items credited to me. This was not possible so
those inheriting my offices gained at my expense.
STAFF
3. Not all staff seem to have been advised
of help, courses or assistance available to them to help get new
employment. It would have helped if all staff had been given details
of an individual in Finance and Administration who would give
them assistance. After dissolution you cannot sign on House of
Commons paper and in the end Benefit Offices would only accept
some details from the Finance and Administration Department. It
is a difficult time for Members who are retiring and also a difficult
time for their staff. It is also a bit much to expect them to
type out their redundancy notice and ultimately notifying them
in writing what exactly they were going to receive. In addition
ex-Members in most cases would initially be involved in the election
campaign and many staff were also probably working in their spare
time as volunteers.
4. This is at a time when staff are having
to deal with files to be closed and papers to be shredded. Files
of cases ongoing to be transferred where agreed and appropriate
to the new Member. Some files—All Party Groups for example—to
be pulled together and transferred to other Members after the
election.
POST
5. The staff at all the Post Office Counters
always have been and still are very helpful. That said the arrangements
for forwarding the mail after the election was very poor. It was
not dealt with daily as the first priority was understandably
to deal with Members including the new ones. That said, some of
the mail was urgent items including many items that needed to
be passed on to new Members as and when cases were transferred.
Clearly cases that would be ongoing for some time if the constituent
was agreeable needed transferring. After 5 August mail has no
longer been forwarded. What has happened to it—has it been
returned, destroyed or returned to the sender? At that stage most
of the mail may well have been unwanted items but this was not
the case with all items. I know that some items sent to me at
that address and which were of importance, after the date above,
have not been received. It is surprising how difficult it is to
get people to amend their mail record systems and delete you where
applicable or send to your home address. Even some government
departments are writing to me as the MP even when in some cases
I have returned mailings/briefings etc. British Waterways even
congratulated me on my election and told me I have a canal in
my constituency.
PENSIONS
6. This may well not be in your remit but
it is time Members all had a rule book. I asked for some figures
earlier in the year. There were errors and when I queried them
the reply was still not correct. Since retiring several queries
have been answered in great detail but I have not really had a
simple understandable explanation of how the figures have been
arrived at.
ALLOWANCES
7. The guidance on claiming the resettlement
payment was unclear. It gave the impression that it could not
be claimed until all other items had been resolved. Some members
of the staff at Finance and Administration were very helpful.
That said, some items I raised by letter—some more than
once—have never been answered. I have now given up bothering.
The final ACA was not paid out for example as indicated at pre-retirement
meetings. Also asked some questions relating to 2004-05 tax year
have not been clarified so I did not meet the 30 September deadline—I
will now have to do as I normally do and go for the 31 January
deadline but this year I had wanted to get rid of it.
HANSARD
8. Members who have been having the bound
editions do not get the outstanding ones—obviously they
are always a few months late. This may affect only a handful of
ex-Members and may seem petty but I felt I would mention it.
SUMMARY
9. Overall, things have been adequate and
people in the main have been helpful but I make a few suggestions
which I hope may be of some help.
SYD RAPSON
1. I retired voluntarily in May 2005 and
was able to plan well ahead of time for leaving not only my employment
but Parliament. My financial situation was very simple and straightforward
so I did not create any surprises or difficulties for the staff
when I left office.
2. All my dealings with staff of the House
were very good.
3. One problem I had was the length of time
it took for the "loaned" equipment ie computers, laptop,
printer etc that I had in the constituency office to be collected.
Had I not constantly reminded the department responsible about
this situation I am sure it would still be in my possession and
"lost" to the system. Perhaps someone could carry out
an audit and check how much loaned equipment was recovered. I
would suggest that as this equipment is usually of no practical
use to the House due to its age that it would be more economic
to allow these ex-Members to purchase the equipment at a reduced
price and therefore alleviate the need for the expense of collection
and cleaning of these items.
4. My real reason for writing is to express
my intense sadness that my eight years in Parliament are not recognised
and I am excluded from any privilege of a Parliamentary Pass.
I know that previously the term of service was 15 years and this
has been reduced to 10 years but that does not help. I believe
that it should be reduced to two terms. Ordinary MPs have no control
as to when the Prime Minister chooses to curtail the Parliamentary
Term. Had Tony Blair decided to have two full terms of five years
I would qualify for a pass, he chose to call both terms early
and that affected many of us having the right to return to Parliament
as former Members. When the election was called I had no real
time to say goodbye to many friends both staff and Members and
my eight years of intense closeness with them all was immediately
terminated. Why base the qualification on a set number of years?
why not on two terms? that would enable many of us that were elected
and re-elected to have some benefit for the terms of office we
served.
5. Finally the intensity of my sadness is
felt even though I chose to retire. I had 29 years of public service
as a Councillor prior to my two terms in Parliament and I was
also 63 years old. How much worse it must be for Members of younger
years who lose their seats unexpectedly.
6. Please consider a change of qualification
for a pass to two terms instead of a stated amount of years, and
instead of calling it a "special guest pass" to call
it a "former Member of Parliament pass".
MR CHRIS SMITH
1. Thank you for your invitation to former
MPs to make submissions about the handling of affairs by the House
Administration, following a General Election. My general comment
is that I received excellent service. This was partly because
I knew well in advance that I was standing down, and we also knew
well ahead the likely date of the Election, so it was possible
to make good plans beforehand. If the same would be true if a
"snap" election were called unexpectedly, I'm not sure.
And for those Members who lost their seats rather than voluntarily
vacating them, I suspect the experience will have been rather
more difficult.
2. I particularly found the staff who dealt
with the Winding-up Allowances helpful and able to give good advice.
The various headings of funding you have to try and juggle with
when you step down are complex, and it was extremely helpful to
be dealt with by staff who clearly knew what they were doing,
and were anxious to provide us all with a highly professional
service. I have nothing but praise for the patience, courtesy
and expertise they demonstrated.
REV MARTIN SMYTH
In response to your request, I found the support
very good. There was a slight blip over link with my AVCs but
no problem with the amount. Since I knew I was leaving I had time
to clear the office but did not reckon with the amount I had accumulated.
I had appropriate help and advice from all staff who were very
courteous. The prompt delivery of sacks and boxes made life easy
and their help in transporting boxes for removal from the Palace
was appreciated.
SIR TEDDY TAYLOR
1. Obviously there is a difference between
those who decide to retire and are therefore able to make a great
deal of provision and those who are unexpectedly defeated at elections.
As one of the former, I have to say that the staff and arrangements
were ideal, particularly the individuals who approached us to
assist with moving items out of the office.
2. I have to say that most of the problems
that former MPs face are not to do with administration but more
with coping with a new lifestyle. I genuinely cannot think of
any other arrangements, which it would be reasonable to ask Parliament
to make, for retiring MPs.
3. The only real problem I have had since
retirement is putting on weight but I am not sure if this is something
on which you could offer advice!
GARETH THOMAS
1. I was defeated in the election (ie I
was not a retiring Member). I found the "Fees Office"
staff to be very helpful and Mr Andy Martin from the Fees Office
came to see me in the House a couple of days after the election.
He gave me a comprehensive and helpful account of the procedures
for claiming the winding up allowance. My experience of the help
and advice provided by the staff was very good. I can confirm
I was given sufficient time to vacate my office.
2. One criticism I have was that the resettlement
grant was not paid sufficiently speedily. After an election I
suppose many Members find themselves "stretched" financially.
As I recall, although I was informed that I could get the resettlement
allowance by the end of May—this did not happen. I had to
phone the Fees Office up for an advance payment which they agreed
to—of I think half the sum. I received the balance at the
end of the following month.
3. It seems to me that receiving the resettlement
allowance promptly is crucial to ensuring that defeated Members
don't have too bad a time of it.
4. I can say my former members of staff
received redundancy payments, bonuses etc in a very efficient
and speedy manner—in that sense I suppose the service was
more effective for them than Members. My understanding is that
the Fees Office had to ensure that all Members had settled their
affairs (signed the requisite forms, paid the Refreshment Dept
etc) before a cheque "run" could be authorised.
5. I can confirm that the resettlement allowance
is very important for people like myself. I recommenced practice
at the Bar in early July—and I was lucky to be able to do
this at the age of 50/51. Cash flow has been critical and the
resettlement grant was crucial for me. Long may it continue!
MR SIMON THOMAS
1. I was the Plaid Cymru the Party of Wales
MP for Ceredigion between February 2000 and the General Election
in 2005.
2. Though the post of MP is unique, in this
submission I seek to compare my experience post-election with
similar experiences in the real job market and knowledge of redundancy
situations faced by others, such as my constituents.
LONDON OFFICE
3. The time allocated to vacate Westminster
is completely inadequate, particularly for Members living at considerable
distances from London. Many of my own files remain in colleagues'
offices.
4. Help should be given to ex-Members to:
— Destroy correspondence in London.
5. Consideration should be given to allowing
ex-Members limited security access to their old offices post-election
so that they can be cleared out. Members of smaller parties may
not have colleagues who can sign them in to the building and accompany
them all day in order that this work can be carried out. Alternatively,
the House should simply arrange for offices to be packed up and
shipped back to the constituency.
DATA PROTECTION
6. The advice received was confusing. I
took the decision that the safest course of action was to destroy
all correspondence. This created some dismay among constituents.
7. The advice relating to material stored
on computers was that the PCD would remove computers and clean
them. To date, I have received no contact whatsoever from PCD
and parliamentary computers remain in the constituency. They are
stored only on the sufferance of colleagues and I have no control
over them.
LEGAL CONTRACTS
8. Members enter into binding legal agreements
to serve their constituents, for example in renting offices or
leasing office equipment such as photocopiers. I was able to use
the winding-up allowance to buy my exit from such contracts. However,
consideration should be given to providing legal advice to ex-Members
and ensuring they and their staff face no penalties for having
contracted liabilities to serve constituents.
STAFF
9. The advice received on making staff redundant
and payments was reasonably clear. There should, however, be advice
available to staff regarding preparation of CVs, job searching,
etc. Any other employer would provide such information for staff
being made redundant.
10. Indeed, it appears archaic that now
staff are employed directly by the House and not by Members, that
ex-Members are required to decide upon redundancy payments and
other employment matters.
MEMBERS
11. I can think of no decent employer who
would abandon ex-employees in the way the House turns it back
on ex-Members.
12. Ex-Members should be given:
— Advice on any entitlement to benefits.
— Help with job seeking, CVs, interview
techniques etc.
13. Even a Member serving just one term
will have been out of the job market for several years and in
any comparable profession facing redundancy would receive support
and advice in changing careers.
14. Another small, but appropriate, consideration
would be for retiring and defeated Members to receive a letter
from the Speaker on behalf of the House thanking them for their
work.
OTHER MATTERS
15. Though payments to ex-Members are outside
the scope of this inquiry, I would like to bring to the Committee's
attention the lack of clarity regarding the interaction of payments
with other entitlements. From my own experience, it appears that
there is no-one in DWP who knows how the resettlement grant should
be treated with regard to entitlement to JSA and payments of NI.
This would be simple to sort out and agree so that in the future
ex-Members could approach the DWP with confidence.
16. It is particularly galling that the
weeks—it could be up to three months—that an ex-Member
must spend prioritising the redundancy of his or her staff are
not taken into account by the DWP and in effect, according to
the current interpretation of regulations, ex-Members are considered
to have been in employment during that time even though they are
neither paid nor entitled to the resettlement grant.
BRIAN WHITE
I made provision for removing most of my personal
stuff from my House of Commons office prior to the election so
there was no problem in just telling the staff to bin everything
in the office which I would have used had I been re-elected but
was of no use when I wasn't. That side of it went very smoothly
and I returned keys, passes, season tickets etc with no problems.
The main problem area was the lack of communication
about how to shut down the computer system and leaving PDVN. We
were told that we would have a month and then they would tell
us what to do. Given that I needed to switch the broadband at
home from the Parliamentary network into a business one I found
the lack of information frustrating and then when the service
was withdrawn it was done with no notice which caused a problem
with my Internet Service Provider which took several weeks to
resolve. Also the computers in my office were shutdown in June
as per the instructions that PDVN would cease after one month.
We asked what would happen to the machines and were told they
would be collected. They never were and we waited and waited and
this was despite several phone calls asking what was happening.
Eventually when the office was cleared they were disposed of but
clearer guidelines on what to do and when to do it would have
been appreciated. I do not blame the help desk for this as it
was evident that they had not been told what was happening.
Also the switch off of the telcoms side of the
office was not smooth and despite calls to the help desk they
were not clear what was happening. Eventually we gave up and just
arranged the changes to suit ourselves. I have no idea whether
this was the correct thing to do or not but was the only option
when you could not get full information from the House authorities.
A number of people have tried to get hold of
me since the election who only had my Commons email. They eventually
found me through the Labour party webpages but providing a directory
on the Parliamentary web pages giving details for contacting ex-members
(where they want it and provide the information) would be helpful.
We had a couple of leases for equipment where
the time frame stretched beyond the close down period with the
result that I ended up paying for these out of my own pocket.
The amounts were not vast but it does highlight an area where
the current arrangements are deficient. Obviously there is the
danger of abuse but where this situation occurs it would be better
to be able to agree payments with the House authorities rather
than simply having a rigid time cut off.
Whilst the issue of security of the Palace is
important I think that the question of the 10 year rule for ex-members
to qualify for a pass to visit the House should be looked at again.
It should be replaced either by a separate category for ex-MPs
which a previous Member automatically qualifies for by virtue
having served a term or if it is thought that some time period
is still required then at least by replacing the 10 years with
two Parliaments.
| 
