Westminster ostriches

SIR – The furore regarding allegations of harassment of their staff by

MPS prompted me to reach for a report published in 1992 by the Top Salary Review Body entitled Review of the House of Commons Office Cost Allowance. I chaired the sub-committee appointed to conduct the review, assisted by two colleagues.

The focus of that report (which

I am pleased to say ran to only 45 paragraphs) was on office expenses, but it is interesting that the issue of staff terms formed an important part. We were so struck by the haphazard means by which MPS’ staff were employed that we said it would make sense for them to become employees of the House of Commons.

We concluded, however, that we could not specifically recommend that idea for pragmatic reasons – that it would be automatically opposed by MPS and also that it would not protect constituency employees.

Our recommendation that all staff salaries should be paid directly to employees by the Fees Office and that a personnel office should be established in the Place of Westminster to provide advice and guidance to both MPS and also their staff (which might have provided the means by which they could report malpractices) were both ignored.

Jeremy Pope

Dorchester, Dorset

SIR – If someone has trouble defining what is deemed acceptable behaviour in the workplace, then I suggest they think to themselves, “What would an MP do?” – and then do exactly the opposite.

Heather M Tanner

Earl Soham, Suffolk

SIR – It was encouraging to read that the main party leaders of our elected representatives have agreed to form a working group to address the topical issue of sexual harassment in Parliament and that they are meeting in a positive manner (report, November 7).

Is this not precisely the approach they all need to adopt to deliver a successful Brexit?

Neil Wellum

Alnwick, Northumberland