Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Another Error by IPSA?

If the Evening Standard is right and IPSA is refusing to pay redundancy money to Phil Woolas's staff, some serious questions need to be asked. It's hardly their fault if they have been made redundant because of the actions of their boss. I don't know their personal details but I doubt very much if they are all new. Even if they are, surely IPSA should show some human compassion for the situation they find themselves. I'd have thought a three month payoff was the least they deserve.

UPDATE 2.30pm: IPSA have been in touch to say the Standard have got it wrong.

For those who have been asking what happened when I visited IPSA last week, I've decided to write it up for the January issue of Total Politics, which will be out in mid December. I conducted an hour long member with IPSA board member Ken Olisa, and it was very revealing. I've still not got over the plushness of their Victoria offices. I thought I had entered the offices of an American investment bank by mistake. Olisa was very open about the organisation's initial failings but was very keen to convince me that they had learned from their errors. Did he succeed? Well you'll find out in four weeks.

12 comments:

londonmuslim said...

if Woolas loses his appeal I hope he returns the salary he has been claiming

Just Wonderful said...

When Parliament is dissolved then, I believe, the MP's are no longer actually MP's. So effectively the people working for any MP has actually only been employed by them since the 7th June, at the earliest. If I'm wrong I'm sure that there is someone ready to correct me. I don't know what kind of payoff you'd get after 5 months of employment but I'm guessing it wouldn't be much.

IanVisits said...

Off on a slight tangent, based on reports that the ex-MP was seen in Parliament, does he retain his Parliamentary Pass, has be been given a visitors pass (and by whom), or is he queueing up on the metal ramp and going through security as the rest of us have to do when going inside?

Stephen Gillespie said...

You're such a tease Iain

David said...

The think that such a waste of space employs staff (on the taxpayer of course).

Gareth said...

On dissolution an MPs staff remain employed by that MP (even though they are no longer an MP), this has been the rule for many years.

Lauren said...

Iain, thanks for raising this. Unfortunately staff of MPs are now only entitled to statutory redundancy pay. Under their new regime, IPSA removed the ability of MPs to reward the loyalty of long-term staff by giving them above statutory payments.

Thorpe said...

Presumably, as and when his final appeal fails (which seems inevitable, but it wouldn't hurt to wait), Phil Woolas will depart with the resettlement grants applicable to every other MP who either stepped down or lost their seats in May. If that is the case, then there's an element within that for "winding up costs" or something similar, which he's meant to use to pay off his staff.

Thus any staff member who also worked for him pre-May 2010 would be covered (and any who did but are now not working for him would already have received their due). Anyone who has only worked for him since May would only be entitled to their notice period, which given that a GE could in theory be called at any time, shouldn't be more than 6 weeks. A three month payout would seem generous in the extreme.

Lord Blagger said...

If he doesn't win his appeal, it strikes me he has profit from a crime and should return is salary and expenses.

As for his staff, its a question of who employs them. If its Wollas, then Wollas owes them. IPSA doesn't and the tax payer doesn't either.

He shouldn't get his pension for the last few months either. That should go. Ditto for any Ministerial pay off, and pay off as an MP.

If you're a criminal, that's it.

Terry said...

I was interested to read that you "conducted an hour long member with IPSA board member Ken Olisa" (sic)

All this talk of members could go to one's head.

Berciw has ballsed up again. Woolas has been told effectively he has no appeal. His staff should not suffer however. Hope he's got plenty of money what with his appeal costs - Labour funded his original legal expenses - and having to pay his opponent's costs as well (unless Labour's footing that as well).

Why is there rarely a code word displayed for the verification process?

Pugh said...

I'm trying to work out what an "hour long member" is...

Unsworth said...

Did Olisa succeed? Clearly not - in absolutely every sense except one - the furtherance of his 'career'.