2 Finding an office
7. The time taken before permanent offices were
made available to new Members was the single biggest problem identified
to us by those fellow Members who have contributed to our inquiry.
Older hands among us recognise that the process in 2010 was much
smoother than it had been in years gone by; the 2010 members of
this Committee are not alone, however, in finding office allocation
slow and far from ideal. One of our colleagues told us "In
30 years of working life, I have never found myself in such an
alien working environment. Not having an office for the first
several weeks left me totally disoriented, unable to focus on
getting to grips with the job, and very stressed."[6]
Another said: "I have never arrived in any job where I did
not have a permanent desk and a telephone on the first day."[7]
Another, albeit sympathetic to the problems posed by the large
intake of new Members, thought the time taken to allocate him
an office "inordinate".[8]
8. Before permanent accommodation was allocated
to Members, temporary office accommodation was provided along
the Upper Committee Corridor in the Palace of Westminster and
in 1 Parliament Street. Space was provided for 173 desk spaces
in open plan rooms, intended for 'hot-desking' rather than allocated
places, and more than 350 lockers for the storage of laptops,
papers and so on.[9] WiFi
was provided so that the laptops allocated on arrival could be
connected to parliamentary services.
9. The General Election Planning Group told us
in 2011 that Members' views on this were mixed. 53% of those who
responded to an internal survey were slightly dissatisfied or
worse. One Member told us of his fortune in being offered space
in another Members' office, which "I found to be a more useful
interim solution than the hot desk facilities offered."[10]
Members' staff also reported some difficulties with the hot-desk
system.
I was with a new Member and we were supposed to be
'hot-desking' in Committee Room 18 for over a month, clearing
everything into small lockers. Provision needs to be made for
people to have proper space where they can leave things overnight,
only locking away confidential papers.[11]
10. On the other hand, some Members found the
shared working space valuable in their early days in Parliament:
"the shared offices were very good. It helped to share knowledge";
"The hot desk system was great on arrival with fellow new
MPs working together getting to know each other and learning from
each other too."[12]
11. The delivery of permanent office accommodation
began on 18 May, and ended on 28 June. In other words, some Members
were in their offices about a week after being elected, but others
had to wait nearly two months before having a permanent office
on the Estate. In spite of the best efforts of the House's accommodation
officials, this was only slightly better than the seven to eight
weeks it took to move all Members after the 2005 general election.[13]
Although it is fair to note
that the 2010 new intake was far larger than that in 2005, and
that the added complication of a coalition Government being formed
also delayed decisions on what accommodation would be allocated
to which party, its Members and their staff (around 250 room moves
resulted from changes in Ministers), we feel that every attempt
should be made to reduce the time it takes to allocate offices.
Some Members felt that it was troublesome that the allocation
of rooms took so long.
12. In 2011, in a post-election memorandum to
the Administration Committee, the House Service made the point
that "it is hard to see how we can address" complaints
about slow allocation of offices "without a fundamental change
in the way in which accommodation is allocated". The responsibility
for allocation of offices lies essentially with the party Whips.
So long as accommodation is allocated in the current manner rather
than allocated by some other means, delays will inevitably occur.
Quite simply, the Whips do not know until after the election how
many MPs they will need to place, and who will require the offices
and areas set aside for Ministers.
13. Alternative methods of allocation are conceivable.
In a perfect world, there might be identical office space available
for all Members, and the Member for any constituency would simply
fill the space allocated to that seat. Alternatively, offices
might be allocated by simple lottery. We are not in that world:
the accommodation occupied by the House of Commons has developed
over 170 years and in many cases was not built with the needs
of 21st century Members of Parliament in mind. The accommodation
available to Members and their staff is variable. Added to that
is the fact that longer-serving Members or those who hold or have
held or are in hope of holding ministerial office may be allocated
prime or larger spaces than those who have recently entered the
House. In addition, it has been the custom to provide accommodation
in party blocks, so that Members of the same party are housed
relatively closely to one another.
14. We are not recommending
that the Whips should surrender the ability to allocate offices;
there are very good reasons for their continuing in this role
whilst working closely with the Members' Accommodation Manager.
Indeed James Robertson, Director of Accommodation and Logistics
Services, was very clear that if the responsibility for allocating
offices was handed from the Whips to the House Service it might
actually make the process more difficult. He told us:
We sometimes find it very difficult to get to the
bottom of some of the Member issues, which the Whips are possibly
better placed to do than us. As far as moving an entrenched Member
into or out of an office, we sometimes find it very difficult
to achieve levers that are going to make the result actually happen.[14]
15. It is important to manage the expectations
of new Members. In 2010 the House Service did communicate to Members
in the New Members' Guide that they should not expect permanent
office accommodation very quickly. This was issued to all new
Members with a letter from the Clerk of the House; however, George
Mudie MP, former Accommodation Whip, told us that communication
was not sufficient for Members to be aware of their choices on
arrival.
I think we were insufficiently specific on accommodation
the last time. They [newly-elected Members] did not see any of
the difficulty or were aware of the choices. I think it would
be good to give new people when they are elected some choice of
locations and ask them to list them in order, but also explain
that certain places on the estate are more popular than others.[15]
16. We recommend that a note
on accommodation should be developed by the House Service and
the Whips to be included in the information pack which is handed
to the newly elected Member on election night by the returning
officer. In order to manage expectations, this should reiterate
information in the New Members' Guide: how long Members can expect
to wait for accommodation; the locations available on the Estate;
the roles and responsibilities of the Whips and the House Accommodation
and Logistics Service; and the fact that space is planned on the
basis of a Member and two members of staff.
17. The House Service performed well once it
was made clear to them what offices Members were to have. A challenging
target had been set of getting Members into their permanent offices
within five days of these being allocated by the Whips. This was
achieved: the General Election Planning Group told the Committee
in May 2011 that by the end of June 2010, the Service had managed
some 1,300 office moves for Members and their staff. The
House's accommodation managers and staff are to be commended for
their efficiency in moving Members into their new offices once
the party Whips had allocated them.
18. James Robertson said that "the current
plan is to repeat what we did last time, which was, from our point
of view, reasonably successful";[16]
however, he also suggested an alternative approach. He told us
that serviced offices could provide the opportunity for all new
Members and their staff to have an office straight away on arrival
at Westminster. (This would not replace the provision of local
decant accommodation which is standard practice in estates management
and is already built in to the strategy for the Estate).
19. The House could rent an amount of serviced
accommodation off the Estate for new Members and their staff who
would move in but would then have to be prepared to move out after
two or three months when the accommodation on the Estate was ready.
Any such accommodation would need to be rented for at least three
months in order to get the space set up, move people in, and then
clear it out again once it was no longer needed. James Robertson
estimated that the cost during this period could be as much as
£2,000 per Member. If 200 Members were given offices in this
way it would be in the order of £400,000. [17]
20. In addition to the cost there are other factors
that the House would need to consider:
- There is a low likelihood of
finding suitable accommodation adjacent to the Palace of Westminster
that is available for a short letting period and for a potentially
large number of people.
- It could be difficult to remove Members from
the serviced offices if there were protracted negotiations with
the Whips and Members were hanging on for the best deal possible
on the Estate—defeating the purpose of short-term accommodation.
- If new Members and their staff were physically
removed from the Estate there would be less opportunity to bond
with colleagues and familiarise themselves with parliamentary
processes.
21. We think that the provision
of serviced offices as temporary accommodation for new Members
and their staff is not a viable proposal: the cost would not represent
value for money; accommodation is unlikely to be available very
near to the Palace; and it would be difficult to guarantee a rental
contract for only short period of time.
22. Despite serviced offices
for every new Member and their staff being prohibitively expensive
we support the current policy of the Department of Facilities
that a small amount of decant accommodation should exist near
the Estate. This provides
an additional supply of offices as a buffer, or contingency, to
house some Members and staff during temporary accommodation moves.
We look forward to the forthcoming review of accommodation by
Accommodation and Logistics Services— the first in ten years.
This review will establish a better understanding of the current
occupancy of Members' offices; form a baseline on which future
accommodation and workplace support requirements could be based;
and assist the development of comprehensive decant space requirements
and plans for both Members and their Westminster-based staff in
line with the 25 year Estates Programme.
23. Another way of reducing the time new Members
would have to wait before being allocated an office would be to
encourage certain categories of existing Members to get their
offices packed up as soon as possible after dissolution. This
would prepare the ground in advance for at least one strand of
the complex series of accommodation moves that needs to take place
after an election. In 2010, Members not standing were given a
limit of 10 days before they had to leave the Estate. Those losing
their seats were given a limit of 10 days from the date of the
election. George Mudie MP said "There is good reason for
saying to people who are leaving, who have been defeated, or whose
offices you want to spruce up, 'Pack up or we will do it for you,
and you will have to unpack etc.'."[18]
Current Accommodation Whips supported the idea that colleagues
who know they are not returning should be contacted early on in
the process of preparing for office allocation.[19]
24. George Mudie MP said that it was not realistic
to make all existing Members pack up their offices as a fair proportion
of Members will be re-elected and come back to their offices.
Some members of the Committee did not agree with this. Others
recognised that small steps could be more productive than a wholesale
change in approach at this stage.
25. We recommend that MPs
who have announced that they are standing down and Members who
occupy an office which is scheduled to be refurbished during the
dissolution should be told by the Whips to pack up their offices
at the point of dissolution. We also recommend that Members who
are defeated at the election should be told by the Whips to pack
up their offices within five days of polling day.
6 Ev 46 [Kate Green MP] Back
7
Ev 46 [Nicky Morgan MP] Back
8
Ev 48 [Paul Blomfield MP] Back
9
Ev 43 Back
10
Ev 48 [Paul Blomfield MP] Back
11
Ev 33 [Members and Peers Staff Association] Back
12
Ev 47 [Dr Therese Coffey MP; Alex Cunningham MP] Back
13
Administration Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06: Post-Election
Services, , HC 777, para 12 Back
14
Q 106 Back
15
Q 112 Back
16
Q 114 Back
17
Q 114 Back
18
Q 121 Back
19
Q 116 Back
| 
