Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1054999

	registered interest
	date	05/02/2019
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	House of Commons: Security
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, for what reasons the terms, conditions and rates of overtime pay of House of Commons security staff have been altered.
	tabling member constituency	Stroud
	tabling member printed	Dr David Drew
	uin	216913
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/02/2019 answer text <p>The terms and conditions and rates of overtime pay for House of Commons security staff have not been altered.</p><p>Approximately 55% of security staff in the Parliamentary Security Department, are former employees of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and transferred to the House Service on 1 April 2016. Their MPS terms and conditions are honoured under the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE). New recruits are employed on House of Commons terms and conditions which differ in a number of ways including the rates of overtime paid. The overall value of these terms is broadly equivalent to the MPS TUPE terms.</p><p>In late 2016, an error was identified in the contracts for a small number of staff employed on House of Commons terms which resulted in overtime being paid at an incorrect rate. Affected staff were informed of the error and given a notice period for a variation to their contracts during which they were paid at the higher rate. Any overtime paid during the relevant period (between date of appointment and date of variation to contract) was paid at the higher rate and not recovered. This issue was also heard at an Employment Tribunal which ruled in favour of the House.</p><p>The unions have asked us to consider changes to overtime rates for those staff on House of Commons contracts which we will consider as part of pay negotiations for 2019/20.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 12/02/2019 12:19:10 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake previous answer version 101144 answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	tabling member	252 label Biography information for Dr David Drew

1055214

	registered interest
	date	05/02/2019
	answering body	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept id	18
	answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
	answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
	hansard heading	Recall of Parliament
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the additional cost to the House of Commons of sitting through what was originally intended to be the February recess.
	tabling member constituency	Scunthorpe
	tabling member printed	Nic Dakin
	uin	217078
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/02/2019 answer text <p>It is estimated that the following additional costs may be incurred as a result of the House sitting during the period which was originally intended to be the February recess.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Loss of income expected from tours that have been cancelled</p></td><td><p>£90,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Estimated additional payments to staff required to work if the House sits beyond 6pm or night duty (beyond 8pm), payments for childcare, late night transport and printing costs</p></td><td><p>£10,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Costs of postponing planned building/maintenance works</p></td><td><p>£200,000–£300,000</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total Range</p></td><td><p>£300,000 – £400,000</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>There may be additional costs that cannot yet be quantified and there may be additional income from catering as the estate will be busier than expected.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 22/02/2019 13:16:37 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	tabling member	4056 label Biography information for Nic Dakin