Good morning. Welcome to the Administration Committee’s second session of our inquiry into general election planning. Our witnesses are staff members across the House, who have kindly offered to provide evidence. Welcome to those colleagues and thank you for attending today. I will invite you to introduce yourselves in a few moments. We are grateful to each staff member for coming to the Committee today to speak about their experiences of the training and guidance that they received when they were new, and about how they have helped Members set up their offices. Our witnesses have varied backgrounds; some were recruited after the last election, while others have worked for more than one Member and have also gone through the office winding-up process after an election. All this is of interest to our inquiry. We did invite staff members who have worked for Members of other political parties too, but, unfortunately, due to many and varied pressures, not all were able to accept. However, we will widen our party input through the course of this inquiry. I will kick the questions off, then colleagues will ask more from a list of questions that we have for you.

Just for transparency purposes, one of my members of staff is here today: Angus Walker Stewart.

The same for me, Chair: Suzanne is my office manager.

Thank you both. Welcome, everybody. Can you please introduce yourselves, name which MP you work for, and tell us how long you have been in post and whether you have previously worked for other Members? If employed after the 2024 election, how many weeks after the election were you employed?

My name is Angus Walker Stewart, and I work for Kirsteen Sullivan MP. I was employed in September 2024, which was about six to eight weeks after the election. I had not worked for an MP prior to that.

My name is Jansev Jemal, and I work for Sam Carling, MP for North West Cambridgeshire. I formally started on 1 September 2024. Previously, I did a short stint working for two Labour MPs—John Woodcock and Alison McGovern—from January to June 2015, so pre and post the general election. I also worked for David Lammy the summer that he was elected. I was a student, so it was a temporary role while his permanent office was being set up.

Good morning. My name is Max Nicol, and I work for Richard Quigley, the MP for Isle of Wight West. I was employed in August ’24, approximately eight weeks after the general election. I had not worked for a Member of Parliament or in Parliament prior to that.

My name is Damon McKenna, and I work for Seamus Logan and Graham Leadbitter. I previously worked as a caseworker in Richard Thomson’s office in the previous Parliament. I started working down here in September 2024, so a few weeks after the general election.

Hello. My name is Suzanne Brookfield, and I work for Navendu Mishra, the Member of Parliament for Stockport. I started working for him in January 2020. Previously, I worked for Laura Smith in Crewe and Nantwich from 2017, immediately following her election in June 2017—so a long time.

Good morning. My name is Natasa Pantelic. I have worked for Labour MPs in and around Parliament for 20 years. I currently have the joy of working for Dame Diana Johnson as her senior parliamentary assistant. We have a wonderful team. I started in the role in November 2025. I am also a founding member of the Labour Women’s Parliamentary Staff Network, and I volunteer with five fantastic women to deliver events, training and support to women who work for Labour MPs and peers.

Thanks, everybody. That is brilliant. It occurs to me that we have a bit of a “University Challenge” vibe going on today.

Welcome, everyone. This is to all of you, so I hope everyone gets a chance to answer. What support did you receive from the House administration after the last election when you came into post?

After the last general election, I was chief of staff to Lucy Rigby, and I was setting up her office. I remember receiving some really important training around the behaviour code and some refresher training that we are asked to do about tabling questions and various procedures in the House. Because I obviously have years of experience, I have developed networks, and I have people to talk to in the place, so I made sure I was up to date with where to go with any issues and things like that. That is all I can remember from that time.

What I remember is much the same as what Natasa just said, so I will not repeat it. The only point that I would make is that everything seemed to be Westminster-based, and there was a lack of attention on the constituency office. We were a returning constituency office in 2024, so that might explain that.

My experience was quite similar. Down here, the drop-in Hub at Portcullis House had all the different services, such as IPSA and the digital support service. Members and staff could just show up, so I thought that was quite useful.

As I said, I was new in 2024. I looked back through my inbox, and I found the initial email from the MMSST welcoming me to Parliament. There were various links in there to useful contacts across services: parliamentary digital; security; and the Members’ staff and support team. There were also links to regular forums—the weekly managers’ meeting, the caseworker forum and various other groups. However, as my colleagues have already said, much of it seemed directly focused on Parliament and not on the initial information that I might need as a new starter. I reviewed that email last night before coming to this Committee, with the thought process of asking: “Given the knowledge that I have now, was everything there and perhaps I overlooked it?” However, I do not think that it was in there. I think there is an awful lot more that could be given in that initial pack to say, “Here’s what you could focus on”, or, “Here’s a guide to X, Y, Z”. We will go through that later, hopefully.

Are there any specific gaps that you want to talk about now?

Yes. I think there is a real gap in terms of how to set up and best prepare an office and a team, and how to support a Member of Parliament. Realistically, I was tasked with setting up a new Member of Parliament’s constituency office and recruiting a whole team with next to no guidance. Even now, two years in, I still regularly come across colleagues who say, “Where can I find this?”, or “Where’s that?” That shouldn’t be the case. Actually, reviewing the initial email that was sent back then, there was a guide; I think it was titled, “Welcome to Parliament”, or “Welcome to Parliament post-election.” The only reference to setting up your office was on page 24. It was a two page-booklet. On the left-hand side, there was reference to: “Your member will be allocated an office in Westminster through the Whips Office.” There was no reference to the constituency office. The right-hand side was split into two: the top half was about the heritage collection and how you might wish to get a painting for your office; the bottom half was about House of Commons stationery. Again, reviewing that now, let alone back then, I can see that that was next to no use to me. There was an awful lot in that initial email. I have worked closely with House staff, and they are brilliant and continually improving, but I think that there is so much more that was missing from that email that could have been there on day one to show: “Here’s what you need to focus on.” That is not to say that the information in the email wasn’t useful, but it certainly wasn’t the most useful information at that point.

It is really helpful that I am following on from Max, because I would like to echo everything he said and also give a couple of practical examples and consequences. I saw a potential constituency office with Sam in August, but we did not actually agree one and move into it until the following year; I think it was in January or February. Most of our team are either first job or second job out of university and we were essentially having to ask the constituency staff to work from home. With one of them, because he lives relatively close to me, I gave him an option. I said: “Day one, do you want to come and work from my house? We can do some stuff together in person. Or would you prefer to do it online?” He chose to come round, with another member of the team who lived a bit further away. I essentially had a whole day’s induction online, because we had no constituency office that we could be in together. It takes a lot of time, and it feels as if we were given no real advice or guidance on all those practicalities of sourcing and setting up a constituency office. I do not know if this Committee is the right place to raise this, but one of the biggest frustrations from my point of view was getting access to a laptop and a network; I think it took a few weeks to get those. I appreciate the challenge of the post-general election period regarding how many people are starting all at the same time. However, it made what was a challenging time even more difficult.

I started in September and I do not have any responsibilities as an office manager; I am only a parliamentary assistant. However, what I found very useful was things around the digital aspect, which is slightly contrary. It took me a while to get my laptop, but I was working from my own for maybe a month or so. However, there were fairly regular digital security seminars and webinars that I could attend, which I found particularly helpful, especially because there is a lot of pressure on modern political offices online. I think we saw that when we were warned, yet again, very recently. With digital security, those seminars were well up to date and I found them to be perhaps the most informative official seminars I went to. The House administration help that I thought was the best was the experience of the staff themselves, which you got informally. There are a few people in various offices around the Palace, for example, in the Vote Office and the Table Office, who were invaluable in helping not only with the geography, but with the different procedures as a parliamentary assistant.

My question is about the support that is provided by IPSA—the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Who would like to start?

It has just occurred to me that, if we go up and down, the person at the end has to answer two questions in a row, which might be tough on them. Do people want to do it that way, or do they want to give an answer on IPSA as it occurs to them? Who has something to say about IPSA that they want to get off their chest?

I just want to say how fantastic the support from IPSA was as I was setting up Lucy’s office. From what I recall, I was recruited in the August, and we had set up everything by Christmas, for sure. The support from the account manager was fantastic. I remember doing some introduction modules, and the online support pages were really useful. I also particularly liked the online contracts you can sign when recruiting staff, which make it much more efficient compared with 15 or 20 years ago. I also want to echo what a great resource the Members Hub in Portcullis House is. Members and staff can pop in at any point to ask any questions, and they are always very friendly. The office managers’ call on a Wednesday morning is also really valuable. The only tricky thing I found was getting my head around setting up the constituency office and all the administration that goes with it. Again, I was able to pick up the phone and talk to someone at IPSA, if I needed some support and guidance. For me, it was a very positive experience.

You do not all have to answer the question about IPSA, but does anybody want to get something burning off their chest? Suzanne, you are positively jumping.

I am not sure whether it is a burning desire, but I just want to note that IPSA has evolved over the 10 years that I have been working in Parliament. IPSA is evolving, and it is really trying to become a more standardised service across the offices, which I welcome. From the point of view of returning to Parliament in July 2024, as an existing office that was basically just reopening our doors, I recall IPSA sending a special bulletin out to returning Members that provided some important information. It clearly stated that its resources would obviously be spent in supporting new Members, particularly after the boundary changes and things like that. That was a welcome bulletin, and it was useful in so far as it told us about the changes to equipment and things like that. I just want to say thank you; it was very useful for me as an office manager at that time.

The only thing I would add is that I am a regular caller of IPSA’s contact phone number, and there is a pre-recorded message that says, “You will find most of the answers you are looking for on our website.” However, nine times out of 10 that is not the case, and almost every time I have got through and asked my question, they have said, “Actually, you’re right.” Either there is not guidance or it needs updating, or it is there and I will say, “I’ve put in X term,” but they will say, “No, you’ll find it under Y.” My experience as a new starter is that, if all the information were there, I would happily use it to free up IPSA’s time and my own, but I have certainly not found that. I have found IPSA very receptive, and I cannot fault IPSA staff; when you get through, they are always supportive and friendly. However, there is this idea that everything is there, and I do not find the website and guidance particularly user-friendly. I will certainly not go into IPSA online today, but I am sure that you and your teams are all well aware of the difficulties that many staff have with using IPSA online to actually manage an MP’s office and staff.

May I briefly say that we have a great account manager? She has always been really helpful when we have got to know her. One of the challenges that we have all found—from speaking to our peers—is that sometimes one person will be told one thing, but another MP’s office will be told something else. I think that inconsistency can be a challenge.

Do you have any examples of that?

Not off the top of my head.

That is okay. You can ponder stuff and send it to us afterwards.

Sure.

Good morning, all. When you first started the role, did you really understand what it was going to be? Did you have any guidance on how you should do it? Do you know where to go to get support and guidance?

When I started the role, I had a vague idea from recollecting conversations I had had with friends who had done the role previously. I learned through the grapevine what a parliamentary assistant was and what the role would involve, hence I applied and was quite excited about the opportunity. One of the biggest things coming in was how much you have to learn at a fast pace. It was helpful for some of my colleagues that they started during the summer recess after the election, but I started at the start of September—during the September term right into Christmas—so it was a really fast learning curve. More experienced members of the House staff helped me—I do not know if I am allowed to name names, but there are some very good people in the Vote Office who have been here for 20-odd years; the Table Office is much the same. Going to see them in person and having that 30-minute conversation helped me not only with the geography of the building and not getting lost as much, but with triaging who I am meant to speak to. I was able to find their phone numbers on Parlinet and through the contacts book and having those proper conversations with them rather than emailing a random email address, getting a ping back saying they have received it and then not hearing back because you have emailed the wrong person, which I think is a big risk. Being able to see them in person was important to me and how I was learning; I think that is part of the time pressure of being a parliamentary assistant as well. There are a few things with the House inductions. They are quite long form—they often last for maybe two hours, which can be quite tight to fit in during term time. I appreciate that I started during term time, so I realise that that is—not a “me” problem, but one that was unique to my situation. However, they also are quite good, because it means avoiding getting half the story, as is very often the case—you pick up bits and pieces from your colleagues, and you get only half the competencies of an office or half of what you can ask them to do. For example, I thought that the Library was just a place where you could look up things, but it turns out you can request information as well and they are very helpful. It is that kind of learning that I think the long-form webinars are good for, but if they were more focused on and packed into recess time so that parliamentary assistants can access them better, that would be ideal.

May I say what a privilege it is to work for a Member of Parliament? There is never a dull moment. There are challenges, but it is an incredibly rewarding job, and if you are someone like me who cares deeply about public service, it is a great job to get into. Anyone who is watching and is interested in politics, do consider doing it. I want to praise the House of Commons Library staff and all the staff who support MPs and their staff. My first role working for an MP was back in 2007, for the wonderful Andrew Smith in Oxford East. At that time, I recall that I was heavily reliant on the staff in his office for a lot of the information that I received. Fast forward many years later, I think year on year from about 2019, the support and networks in existence have got better. One of the things that the House services—and MPs—could do better is signpost staff to the staff networks that are out there in Parliament. They include the Labour Women’s Parliamentary Staff Network, the Wellness Working Group, the Members’ and Peers’ Staff Association and the GMB and Unite unions—there are lots of things already there. I do not think we need to reinvent the wheel to provide support to staff; that is the point I would make.

Back to the original question, I thought I understood the job wrong. Looking back now, I think I was probably quite naive. I also do not think that the formal job descriptions encompass what our roles really are. There is a significant gap around the understanding of the realities of what MPs’ staff do, what they are expected to do and their remit. IPSA’s latest report—I cannot remember the title—recommended that there is a potential need for a leadership post within MPs’ offices; I think most of my colleagues in the same position as I am recognise that that already exists and that we already provide the leadership, management, one-to-ones and so on. That is not recognised in the job descriptions or the pay bands, and the fact that IPSA has only just recognised that—as far as I am aware, there has not been any progress on it—demonstrates how slow the House and IPSA can be to respond to the needs of MPs and their teams.

What knowledge do you have of the induction programmes and training provided by the House administration? If you attended any of them, which ones did you find most useful to your role?

ACT is a great portal. It provides lots of options and variety. I have attended a variety of courses myself, including some of the parliamentary courses and the compulsory behaviour code. Because of my background, I have also attended some of the data courses and modules provided on grant funding and so on. As head of office, I am familiar with all the different pathways that they suggest for different role types. I have one eye on that when thinking about members of the team and what training they might go on.

Kirsteen sits on this Committee and on the Scottish Affairs Committee. When it was confirmed that she would be on the Scottish Affairs Committee, I got one of the staff inductions on Select Committee work, which was—not to reiterate the point too much—in the middle of a very busy week. It was therefore quite difficult to take in and understand the information, have time to learn it and do my regular duties. I understand that Select Committees start during term time after the election, but the induction was very inconveniently placed. I think it was on a Tuesday at midday. It was not ideal. I felt like I had one eye on the webinar and one eye on the rest of my job, which I had to keep doing.

What would be a better time?

Monday mornings, which are usually quieter because it is when the MPs travel down; towards the end of the week, on Thursday afternoons or Fridays, once MPs begin to go back to the constituency; or recess. I do not know what others think.

When I was Richard’s caseworker, I did the new starter induction, which was all online. When I moved down here, I was not aware of any in-person inductions at all. I checked my emails from around the time I started. There might have been stuff down here, but I was unaware if any new starters were being shown where stuff was. On my first day, it was the MP who did all that. They showed me where all the most important stuff was. I was mostly unaware of anything specifically for newer starters down here.

Do you think that was taken for granted?

For me, it was all right, because Graham has worked in MPs offices previously, but Seamus has not. If I was only working for Seamus, he would still be learning a lot about this, so more might have been missed purely because when he was shown around, he probably would have been shown things that are of more importance to Members than specifically to staff. More stuff for staff specifically might be better.

So more in-person stuff for new starters?

Yes. I would personally benefit a lot from that. There are a lot of places that I did not know existed. I did not know there was a third floor in the Palace because the lift I used only goes to the second. I did not know that there was a Journal Office on the third floor. More in-person stuff would have been good.

I have been here 16 years and I am still discovering all the nooks and crannies.

What more could the House administration and the political parties do to prepare Members and their staff in the first days and weeks after they get elected?

After the ’24 election, I was part of a pool of experienced staff that the parliamentary Labour party office brought in to help to onboard new Labour MPs. Can I say how fantastic the team are there? The whole agenda worked very, very well in the initial days as Members came into Parliament. There are three things for me here. The first is supporting Members to set up their teams and manage their staff. A lot of Members have come in without that experience. More support around that would be good so that they have inclusive, effective and dynamic teams to do a good job. That is the foundation of serving your constituents well. Secondly, there is etiquette in the Chamber. There was initial training on that, but it needs to be repeated some months down the line, depending on the Member’s needs. Observing the Chamber, we sometimes have one of the Deputy Speakers or the Speaker pulling people up on using “you”, for example. When you are making a good speech, you do not want to be pulled up on little things like that. Staffers feed back, but particularly if you are new, you need that core knowledge to help your Member to do the best that they can when making speeches and dealing with other commitments. Thirdly, and this may seem like a nice-to-have, but I think it is essential, is having a few more sessions for Members and staff to think about self-care. The job is relentless for Members and it can also be for staff. It is important to take a step back and build in time to regularly reflect on what you are doing while you are doing it, but also to give yourself a little bit of a break. All of us are passionate and want to do our best, and sometimes we forget to take leave or a break during the day. It could be simple things like that. Self-care is really important. I think the answer is support with setting up and managing a team, etiquette, and the basics of how to do the job well. There are also things such as knowing what happens in a Bill Committee. The majority of your job as a Member is to scrutinise legislation and you are often working on a cross-party basis and that is okay. It is important to show that you can disagree agreeably and get things done together—Carolyn is an exemplar of that. Get those three things right, and you are flying—as a Member or a staffer.

Jansev, you had the youngest MP in working for Sam. Sam got a lot of media attention because he was the youngest MP. I think he was 23 when he got elected. Did that throw up some challenges that the party or the House administration could have done more to support you with?

He had actually just turned 22. His birthday is in April, so he was not long into being 22 and he had a lot of media attention on him. Some of what he got was unpleasant and some was dismissive, essentially asking, “What can this 22-year-old really bring to the job?” That was very unfair. I do not want to single him out regarding age; instead I would say that all MPs need to have good media training from the get-go. Once I was settled and we got the team settled, we did sort out some media training. As somebody who came into this with more experience and having had media training myself in other jobs, I was quite proud of how he was handling it. However, he should not have had to handle it with as little support as he did. I would broaden this issue to include the impact of press attention on Members’ family members—spouses, children and so on. We all need to be mindful of that and think about what support should be in place for them.

Do the members of staff from political parties other than Labour have any input regarding the support they got from their political parties for their staff? The Labour party had a big influx of MPs, and it would have been different for some of the parties with fewer MPs.

With a smaller party, it was quite difficult to know where to go. It felt like, with every query I had, I had to go to somebody in the party first rather than somebody in the House administration. That is fine, but where would somebody who works for an Independent MP go? I felt a lot more could have been done by the House, especially in awareness of all the different departments within the House. I wasn’t aware there was a photographer who does the PMQs photos. I didn’t know where the Education Centre was; I had correspondence from them and I had to check, “Can I get there from the estate, or do I have to leave? How do I actually get there?” It was stuff like that. Greater awareness of those things would help.

I can add a couple of things to that. MPs and their proxies have access to best practice guides. I really think the majority of MPs and those setting up offices would benefit from a practical guide, including practical information with realistic timelines in those initial days and weeks—things like recruitment vetting, security, getting staff inducted and all those things—because if we are serious about professionalising the role of MPs’ staff, we need to ensure that all Members and their teams have access to a well-structured induction programme, and that really is not the case when you are trying to do everything from scratch. From day one, you are trying to find an office, find staff, create a new culture, deal with media inquiries and deal with a million events all at once and the ever-growing inbox. I think it would be a real quick win—to create a best practice, cross-party, guide that says, “These are the types of things you should probably consider in your first six months,” but really prioritise, and so on. Along with that, a mini project plan would be helpful; if that can’t be done, a bare bones to-do list. They exist in different formats, in terms of what you need from HR, what you might need from IPSA, but I am not aware of there being a fundamental list anywhere—“This is what you have got to achieve in your first four weeks”; almost a priority list. Again, I don’t think the training has necessarily kept pace with the role of MPs and their offices, in terms of what staff need. I have been advocating project management training, because I think, as a bare essential, MPs and their staff need to understand the fundamentals of project management. I welcome the change from IPSA to having a dedicated training budget. I am really grateful to the MP I work for, Richard Quigley, because he does prioritise and value staff development, but I can’t say that is the same for all my colleagues. The fact that we do now have that dedicated budget for training will be invaluable to develop staff and hopefully ensure that they stay at work for longer and contribute to the community.

All my comments are based on the 20 years looking back, and right now. I am thinking of the next election and what happens after. I wonder if a little bit more should be done during the selection process, before a Member actually gets elected, so that they come in fully aware of what is expected. That might be quite difficult because it is so fast paced during an election, but I do wonder if anything more could be done. As an example, in the Labour party, the Labour Women’s Network does fantastic work to prepare women for selection and election. I wonder whether there is something to add on to that. I just put that out there. Let’s see what happens for each of the political parties. I just wonder if there is something more that could be done.

For staff members?

I mean for Members. But also, in terms of when staff start working for Members, I agree with all the comments that have been made. I am just thinking about how to best prepare from a Member point of view—I watched the last session you had with MPs and am reflecting on that—so that it is not so overwhelming for new Members, particularly if you have never been in politics before and so on. It is about something to make it a little bit easier. Members really value the peer-to-peer support, and I would also advocate for that to happen with staffers, which, again, could be using the existing networks that are around. Certainly, the Labour Women’s Parliamentary Staff Network continues to get questions all the time in our group forums, and we are able to answer those questions quite quickly. Again, it is about using what is already here to reinforce what the House is providing, what the political party offices are providing and so on. I think that could all be brought together a little bit better.

How soon after the last election were your offices and staff teams up and running? What kind of support did you get from other MPs’ offices or political parties? I say that as someone who has been a staffer and as someone who has helped other MPs when they did not have offices, allowing them to camp in mine and giving them ideas for how they should set up their offices. What kind of support did you get?

Sam had a parliamentary researcher in place by the middle of August. I started at the beginning of September and then we recruited the other roles together: a constituency support officer, a comms officer and a caseworker. They were all in place by the beginning of November. In terms of support from other offices, that is where some informal networks really helped. Somebody I knew put me in touch with my equivalent, who was absolutely amazing. He sat down with me and did two two-hour one-to-one sessions taking me through everything. He took me through example budget sheets, HR templates, interview questions and so on, and then sent me templates for everything, such as standard types of emails that you might send out. I think he did that for a couple of offices, and that was invaluable.

I will preface this by saying that I think the public probably assume that you have the office and staff ready to go from day one. That is really not the case. If we can make that clearer to the public, we will start to restore trust. In terms of our timeline, I started at the end of August. I think we had an email on the 29th to say that Richard’s Westminster office would be ready for 4 September, bearing in mind that the election was on 4 July. We got here on 4 September to find the previous occupants still in the office moving crates and personal possessions still in the drawers. In terms of the constituency office, I might as well have taken a second job as an estate agent, given the number of places I viewed. That was a far harder task—trying to find somewhere suitable for staff, central to the constituency and accessible for the public. We actually signed the lease or licence for that in December ’24. By the time we had the equipment, phone lines and everything else, and staff had moved in, it was January ’25. There were still operational things, which I have mentioned to the Committee, that did not complete until Easter. That had knock-on effects on the things that we expected to have in place in the office before the public came in, which did not take place until July ’25. It was essentially a year after the election that we were fully up and running.

We were an existing office in 2024. We were able to support a couple of new MPs in terms of signposting where they go and what the procedures are. Most importantly, we helped MPs interview for their staff members. That was our contribution. We came into office in 2020, and covid hit almost immediately after that general election. We had probably eight months before we had the office in Stockport. The buddy system for MPs could be formalised for staffers, in terms of providing an existing office as a buddy to a new office. That may work—I am not sure.

I have just realised that we have 10 minutes for three questions. We are all going to have to tweak it a bit to go faster.

The volume of emails and casework received after the election has been consistently raised as being overwhelming to Members and staff. What was your experience, and what further support could be given in this area?

This Session was not helped by it beginning with some very big-ticket items. For example, the assisted dying Bill naturally made the influx of emails much higher than it would have been otherwise. Everyone was trying to find a way to manage. I don’t think I spoke to a single staffer in that six-month period when I first started who was not overwhelmed with policy casework. The most time-consuming part is verifying constituents. I know some software allows you to cross-check against the electoral register, but very often constituents don’t know to include their postcode and you have to go back and get it from them, and then that email gets lost in a chain. Lots of websites now have forums where you can submit and you must include your name, your postcode and then your query. There could be a system that automatically marshals the information and ensures that the constituent cannot send the query without their postcode and that it goes to the correct MP as well.

Casework is increasing year on year for Members of Parliament. Policy is mainly campaign focused, on things like the assisted dying Bill or a particular issue raised in the media. Then you have the everyday casework around housing support and so on. In my current office, we have seen a big increase in that, which I think is true for all Members. Again, drawing on the existing network and experienced staff—if you have that support network around you—and having sessions with experienced staff to go through what to prioritise and what not to prioritise, which comes with experience, makes things much quicker. This is not for the Committee, but staffing budgets probably need to increase, because you need to get a few more people in to help with responding to all the casework. New Members next time could get on with that recruitment process so that you have the staff in place to respond as quickly as possible, and also have the understanding that you cannot respond to everything straightaway. Everything has to be done in chunks in that initial period, until your office is set up and stabilised, and then you can work out a process for your team.

I would stress that it is not just the volume that is overwhelming; it is the content. I cannot stress that enough. People often contact their MP at their most vulnerable time in life. They do so because the MP is often seen as a trusted figure. But as a result, staff are left dealing with incredibly vulnerable people who are upset and sometimes aggressive. We deal with victims of domestic abuse and violence. In the last fortnight we had a gentleman phone the constituency office who was suicidal. As a result of that, our office phoned the emergency services and they responded. I stress that, because it is not just the emails; it is the consequences that we are dealing with. I know this was mentioned in the last session. There is a duty of care on MPs and the staff to respond to that, and I do not think MPs’ staff get enough initial support. There is an awful lot more that can be done to ensure we are supported in our own office. We make sure that the caseworker has additional breaks and she downs tools to focus on other things because of the content. It is not just the volume; it is what we are actually dealing with.

Thank you, everyone, for being here today. It is really helpful and interesting to listen to what you have to say. It has been suggested—I am a bit nervous about saying this in front of you—that it might be beneficial to have an initial pool of staff to help Members with administrative support when they are first elected and before recruitment of their own staff—I should say that that does not put your jobs at risk. What are your thoughts on that, and how do you think it might work? How could a pool of staff be used, and where could they be sought from?

Looking at this panel, I think I am the oldest person on it by far. I am probably reaching the point where I might be thinking of reducing my hours or semi-retiring. Maybe people who have left Parliament could be recruited. Maybe there could be a bank of staff, like there is for teachers or nursing staff. There could be a bank of staff that MPs could call on. If I were to leave my role or Parliament, I could agree to go on to a list of staffers. I could maintain my security vetting and renew it yearly or every 18 months. Possibly a system like that would help. If all the staffers that have left Parliament choose to go on to the list, offices could call on them as and when they are needed, particularly at the start of a new parliamentary term.

If I had a choice, I would suggest that a pool of caseworkers is actually more critical. We were just talking about the volume of emails and casework that come in immediately after and how long—we have talked about it across this panel—it takes to get an office and a team in place. People just do not realise that. Their expectations have never been higher, and trust in politics and politicians has never been lower. So while all these emails are coming in and building up, you are getting constituents on social media saying, “Where’s my MP? I’ve been writing in and I’m not hearing anything.” What I would like to see is what the Institute for Government, in its written evidence, suggested, which is a firebreak of two weeks where emails are turned off. If we are going to do that, let us do it properly and let us say four weeks. If people are writing in with casework—obviously, MPs have a responsibility to their constituents—we could possibly redirect casework queries to be dealt with by that central pool of caseworkers, so that constituent issues are still being dealt with. On where they come from, there are various sources. The staff of MPs who are standing down or who have lost their seats will be looking for other opportunities, whether short term or longer term. Similarly, returning MPs may be able to help provide support. IPSA recently introduced a staff support scheme across offices. It could be that that kind of scheme will also help to ease pressures while new MPs are settling in.

I agree on the casework point. In terms of priorities, casework is really important. I disagree on switching off emails, because when you are elected, your job starts on day one and it is perfectly proper for constituents to start contacting their Members of Parliament. If there were a pool of staff, it should be done through the political party offices if they are not caseworkers, mainly because Members are elected to represent a political party and the whipping system for votes and so on starts straightaway. The work starts straightaway and you need someone with a bit of political nous. As staff, we act as advisers to the Member of Parliament. They will often want to bounce ideas around and so on, so it is helpful if you have someone with that experience and background to help the Member out. It is an interesting idea. If anything were to happen, I would agree that the casework is the most important in the initial days. From an HR recruitment point of view, it is about being really clear with that member of staff, and in the contracts, privacy agreements and so on, that it is a temporary contract, and that the Member will be recruiting permanent members of staff, although they could potentially apply. It is about all those things, just to highlight the admin-y things to be aware of.

My two points are that you could potentially break the winding-up period into two parts and make it a bit longer for staff of Members who are not returned. They could keep on as caseworkers for the new MP just on an ad hoc basis, because casework is separate from party political stuff—it is housing, immigration and stuff that all MPs should be doing and helping with. Secondly, in devolved Administrations you have MSPs and so on who could, and often do, help during election periods where MPs cannot do anything. That is something else that could help.

An awful lot could be minimised, with far less pressure on staff when those initial teams are put in place, if MPs and whoever are setting up are clear on what they have to do and when. I spent an awful lot of my first few weeks and months quite literally looking for forms to do administrative tasks, and so much of that could simplified with, “Here’s best practice. This is literally the hyperlink. This is what you need to do this week, on to week two and on to week three, and up and running by week four.”

We like your project management style.

I cannot comment, because I cannot remember when I was last involved in the Dissolution process. However, speaking to members of staff and actually being here on the day when the general election was last called, one member of staff whose Member was retiring said they started the process many weeks in advance. They had their questions answered and had their boxes ready to go for when the date was called. Speaking to them before today’s meeting, they said they found the process very helpful, but that is all I can offer the Committee.

I remember the flurry of emails about Dissolution, and I thought it was helpful. You have to bear in mind that staff are often also advisers to their MPs. As soon as a general election is called, the campaigning quite rightly takes precedence. But yes, I found it useful and I do not have anything bad to say about it. The guidance that we got from the House was thorough.

No, I would say the exact same: the guidance was really clear.

No, I do not think it was.

I do remember Members were allowed a period of time to pack up their things after the last election. It was not so—

Clear instructions and the efficiency element of that are, of course, key to making sure that new Members coming in can hit the ground running. Politics is pretty brutal, but that is the reality of elections.

I have one small point about the auto-response that was put on after Dissolution. That was very useful, but could there be an opportunity to slightly personalise that for MPs? MPs are individual employers, and every single one of you is an individual. Maybe that could be personalised slightly, obviously within the proper guidelines and constitution.

The last question is from me: is there anything the House administration could do to improve the services provided to Members’ staff after a general election? Have you got one or two ideas, Suzanne?

Very simply, widen the support and help to the constituency offices. They are a large part of a MP’s work, and I do not think I have ever met an MP who does not believe that the constituency office is the beating heart of why they are in Parliament. I would widen that support, and it is disappointing to note that some of the outreach support that was available is being curtailed. More support for the constituency offices, please.

While I highlighted many of the good things about working for a Member of Parliament, there is one big downside: the amount of abuse Members of Parliament now get online and through emails. Twenty years ago, it was a letter through the post; now people can get to Members much more easily. I would suggest continuing to signpost members of staff to the support programme and the wellbeing services that are available. We need to make sure that caseworkers, in particular, and those in the constituency office, who are on the frontline, know that that support is available and know what to do when distressing cases are brought to the Member of Parliament. It is important to keep flagging that to members of staff.

To follow on from that, I want to give a shout-out to the comms officers, who are often the ones responding not only to online comments but to all the policy letters that come in. They see some of the written things that are perhaps a little more distressing. Overall, to sum up, I back a lot of the practical suggestions that Max has made. However, the single most helpful thing would be to try to help constituents to understand that MPs are not in a position to start to deal with all the hundreds of emails that come in from day one. That would help to build the relationship between MPs and their constituents.

I can only really speak on the parliamentary side, as all my experience is in that. Damon touched on this very early on, but we have not really come back to it: in-person training would be so much better than Teams training or things like that. The most helpful training sessions I went to were those put on by the party, which were in-person, and the Vote Office tours, because not only did you learn from the presentations, but if you were not quite sure about something coming out of it, people were there so you could have a back-and-forth about it. It is almost like having access to Google for Parliament, as you can just ask any of your staffer friends. At the start, following an election, when there are so many new staffers and MPs, we learn in that way as much as we do from the webinar. It would be better to have something in person, rather than everything being just on Teams—faceless and with cameras off.

This is more of a Westminster suggestion: the “MPs’ Guide to Procedure” that MPs get when they start is a really valuable resource, but it is just under 300 pages. Maybe it would be useful to have a staff version. For me specifically, the book tells you how to do pretty much everything, but there are no examples—for instance, there is no example of what a good urgent question application looks like. It is quite intuitive, but doing your first one is very nerve-racking, and if you are from a smaller party, you cannot really ask somebody for a previous example of a successful one that they did.

May I say thank you to all Committee members for the work that you are doing on this? I have been a critical friend to some of the House staff on what could be done, but they are receptive to change, so my personal thanks go to the MMSST, HR, PDS and security, as well as colleagues in IPSA. Within the last year of working with them, they have enabled Richard to be the first MP to offer and host T-level placements in an MP’s office. That is absolutely fantastic and could not have been done had it not had support from IPSA and colleagues across the House. On next steps, use the expertise and enthusiasm that is there: talk to more House staff, set up working groups and use the experience and time to reflect now, before the next general election. Also, look at new ways of working and at practical tips, advice and tools that can be implemented before the next election is called.

Thank you for a really helpful evidence session this morning; it is really kind of you to appear before us. Thank you for talking to us and answering our questions.