2 The employing body
22. We consider first what sort of body could be
formally the employer, since this potentially resolves some of
the difficulties. The matter was examined in detail by the MEC
in 2008 and we draw on its work here.[40]
The House as such cannot be formally the employer because in legal
terms it is an unincorporated association rather than a corporate
body with enduring legal personality. There are broadly five options:
the House of Commons Commission, the House's Corporate Officer,
the IPSA, a company limited by guarantee and a new statutory body.
23. We start by noting that being the employer of
2,700 staff divided into 646 teams would be a major responsibility,
and cannot be treated as an add-on to other responsibilities.
It is likely to be either the major task or the only task of whichever
body is determined upon.
24. The House of Commons Commission is a statutory
body which employs the staff of the House. Unlike the House itself,
it has the capacity to enter into a contract of employment which
endures notwithstanding changes in the composition of the House.
In principle it could create a new House department in which Members'
staff could be employed. There would, however, be some significant
disadvantages:
- The Commission is required
to keep complementing, grading and pay of staff "broadly
in line" with those of the Home Civil Service. Other conditions
of service, which would probably include political impartiality,
must be kept broadly in line "so far as consistent with the
requirements of the House of Commons".[41]
Imposing a requirement of political impartiality on Members' staff
would be inappropriate and unrealistic.
- The Commission recruits on merit through fair
and open competition, on the basis of specified criteria (including
political impartiality). We discuss below whether recruitment
of Members' staff should be similar, but if two different recruitment
practices were used, one of them not requiring political impartiality,
movement between the two parts of the enlarged House Service would
be difficult, and this would conflict with the Commission's policy
of emphasising the unity of the House Service.
- Members' staff would have the same employer as
current House staff, and any variation in the terms and conditions
of staff between the two categories carrying out similar work
or work of equal job weight or value for the same employer would
need to be justified. Undoubtedly the different arrangements could
be made consistent, but it would certainly be complex, difficult
and expensive. Pensions would also need to be "in line"
with those in the Home Civil Service, which would benefit Members'
staff but would be expensive (as discussed below).[42]
- The Commission's attention would be diverted
from its existing tasks.
25. If the House's Corporate Officer (the Clerk of
the House) became the employer of Members' staff, he or she would
not be bound by the "broadly in line" provision, but
there would be similar considerations as regards recruitment,
political impartiality and terms and conditions. We doubt the
wisdom of making the head of a non-party-political service responsible
for staff recruited at least partly on the basis of political
sympathies, as well as the wisdom of turning the Corporate Officer
into a major employer when he or she has other important work
to do.
26. Another option would be to make the IPSA the
employer of Members' staff, but there are two strong objections
to this:
- The IPSA, just when it is struggling
to establish itself, would be overwhelmed by the burden of employing
2,700 staff, and this aspect of its work would become its main
task. Managing a large of body of staff is not what the IPSA is
for.
- Employing Members' staff would require flexibility
and a light touch, and there would preferably be some involvement
of Members' in the employing body, whereas the IPSA is designed
to be independent of Members and to impose and enforce rules.
27. The two other options would, like the IPSA, be
established by the House but separate from it. A company limited
by guarantee could be established fairly quickly and Members could
participate in it as directors, perhaps forming the majority of
directors. A new statutory body would take longer to set up because
it would require legislation. It too could have Member involvement,
and could report to the House of Commons Commission to ensure
that it remained within the House's control. The extent to which
the company or statutory body left Members to appoint and manage
their staff could be determined at the time of its establishment,
but the duties of the new body would need very careful definition
(eg any requirement to achieve value for money) if Members' independence
in organising their staff was to be retained.
28. We rule out the options of the House of Commons
Commission, Corporate Officer or the IPSA as the employer of Members'
staff. Our preference if the House is to be the employer of
Members' staff is for the employing organisation to be a new statutory
body.
29. This arrangement would remove any requirement
for Members' staff to be politically impartial, or for there to
be fair and open competition. Also, by making the employer of
Members' staff separate from the employer of House staff it removes
the requirement for the pay, pensions and other terms and conditions
of the two groups of staff to be assimilated, which for some (especially
among Members' staff) is the main advantage of the proposal. This
is of course separate from the issue of whether it would be desirable
to reduce any disparity between the pay and pensions of the two
groups.
30. Where in the following paragraphs we refer to
the House as the employer, we mean the statutory body or other
organisation which would be formally the employer.
40 HC 578-II (2007-08), Ev 15-20. Back
41
Section 2, House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. Back
42
Paras 77, 92 below. Back
|
