text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  MPs' expenses - Staff to continue to be employed by MPs - rejected
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  The majority of MPs voted against changing the words of the motion (which was passed in the [http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2009-04-30&number=108 next division]):
  
  * In the opinion of this House, staff who work for an hon. Member should be employed by the House, as a personal appointment and managed by the hon. Member; and
  * The House of Commons Commission shall consider this decision and make 5 recommendations for its implementation, including any transitional provisions.
  
  ... by deleting the first paragraph.[1]
  
  Yes, this would have made the motion pretty meaningless as there would have then been no decision on which the Commission could make recommendations about, but Parliament ultimately operates like a word game and not everything needs to make sense.
  
  * [1] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-04-30a.1133.0 Member's staff], House of Commons, 30 April 2009
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  