MPs shouldn’t face abuse. Neither should their staff – but here’s what we deal with every day

Before most people have finished their morning coffee, an MP’s staffer might have already dealt with a suicidal caller, a victim of domestic abuse or a threat of violence. We’ve been yelled at, cried at and sometimes even physically attacked, all in the course of managing a heavy caseload of constituents’ most intractable problems. So, when I read the results of the latest survey by the wellness working group (WWG) I was not surprised to learn that half of us are experiencing clinical levels of psychological distress.

Psychological distress is a range of emotional or cognitive suffering, such as anxiety or depression, that impairs a person’s ability to cope with ordinary daily life and functioning. It makes you wonder why urgent action is not in place to support these staff members, who are holding together the day-to-day functioning of democracy as well as supporting constituents throughout the UK.

As the office manager for the Labour MP for Preston, and an executive committee member for the WWG, I encounter this distress every day. In an MP’s email inbox are images that no one should see. These include murdered children, flayed animals, nude images and graphic pictures of war zones, all sent by constituents to try to strengthen their points or illustrate the reality of the situations they face. While photos are often triggering, so is some written communication from constituents who urgently need their MP’s help. Vivid descriptions of child abuse, domestic violence, physical ill health or the thoughts of people who are severely mentally ill or suicidal take a huge toll. The reality is that usually it is not the MP who opens these communications but a member of staff in their constituency or parliamentary office – often an office manager, sometimes a junior colleague who has just left university and hasn’t received any training at all. These teams also receive the racist or sexist language and the rape and death threats that are levelled at some members of parliament.

Sometimes these communications are sent directly to the staff themselves, or staff are abused personally on social media. In my role at the WWG I speak weekly to colleagues who have been physically attacked, doxed (sharing someone’s person data online) and stalked. One told me how she lived in a small village, where a constituent found her address and knocked on her door to shout abuse at her. We all remember our colleague Andrew Pennington, who was killed in 2000 while protecting the MP he worked for from a constituent with a sword. This kind of abuse seems to be increasing, yet support and protection for staff has not kept pace. It’s little wonder that we are overwhelmed and at breaking point. A third of staff are considering leaving their jobs.

Staff members are now at their lowest psychological point since the WWG began the survey in 2000, including the year of the pandemic – and I think that’s because the nature of the work is changing. The pressure for MPs and their staff to be always on is increasing with the expectation by some constituents that we should respond immediately to their emails and posts on social media. What many people do not understand is that an MP is supported by a very small number of staff and that each year our casework is increasing, both in volume and complexity. This has resulted in some offices having hundreds of emails backlogged. Staff are fighting to reassure people for whom we are struggling to find solutions. Obviously to each constituent, theirs is the most important case, but offices have to triage. Is there an immediate threat of death, destitution or disaster? These cases must be brought to the fore, pushing others further back in the never-ending list of work to be done.

The survey too points to how many staff are working until late at night, logging on early in the morning and not taking lunch breaks, or their annual leave, to try to get on top of the workload. I know of staff who go into their offices at weekends to check the answerphone to see if their vulnerable constituent is still alive, and those who buy weekly shopping and deliver it to constituents who don’t receive any other support. Inappropriate? Most of us do this work because we care, we want to help people and we find it hard to see others in extreme distress.

Contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of members of parliament are honest, decent people who come into public service because they also care and want to make the country a better place. They care about their constituents and hire people who want to help them. However, like any large group of people, there are always a few who don’t have the right intentions. Some of those few expect their staff to work all hours and a small percentage expect their staff to work in unsanitary conditions, without running water or even toilet roll.

In response to the annual survey the WWG provides a series of recommendations, and this year they are more urgent than ever. The House of Commons should mandate specific training for staff, taking the decision for this out of the hands of the individual MPs who employ us. This would equip them with the skills to help constituents, and to protect themselves mentally and physically. Similarly, the House should make its recommended safety measures mandatory in all MPs’ offices – these include providing alarms and security counters, and ensuring that all surgeries are by pre-booked appointment only. The House of Commons has a duty of care to the staff who work in MPs offices – it should ensure that basic security measures are provided as a standard minimum requirement away from the parliamentary estate.

If we expect MPs’ staff to absorb trauma, safeguard vulnerable people and keep constituency services functioning, then we also have a duty to equip and protect them. If we do not do this, the public ultimately feels the consequences, and we further erode faith in democracy.

• Estelle Warhurst is the office manager for a Labour MP and an executive committee member for the parliamentary wellness working group

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Reporting from The Guardian contributed to this story.