Written evidence from the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) (LAN0014)

1. Background

The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) was established in 2018 and is Parliament’s independent mechanism for handling complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. The ICGS applies to all current and former members of the parliamentary community and complaints about these behaviours on the parliamentary estate or elsewhere in connection with their parliamentary activities. “The parliamentary community” includes for example (but is not limited to): staff of the House of Commons and House of Lords, the Parliamentary Digital Service, Members of both Houses, their staff (including constituency staff), contractors, and visitors to the estate.[1] The Scheme is the first of its kind in any Parliament in the world and is an important step forward in tackling inappropriate behaviour. 

2. The ICGS consists of:

• The Behaviour Code, which clearly sets out the behaviour expected of all members of the parliamentary community;[2]
• An independent bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct Helpline and an Independent Sexual Misconduct Advisory (ISMA) service, provided by the independent charity Victim Support;
• The Bullying and Harassment Policy and separate procedure;[3]
• The Sexual Misconduct Policy and separate procedure; [4]
• Independent Investigators; and
• Provisions in the Codes of Conduct for Lords Members and their staff, which mean that bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct constitute a breach of the Codes.[5]

3. In addition to providing a route for complaints to be investigated, the ICGS also works with culture change teams across both Houses on preventative initiatives aimed at embedding the behaviours expected from everyone in Parliament and delivering lasting cultural change. The ICGS Director is one of three sponsors (alongside the Directors of Cultural Transformation in both Houses) of the Behaviour Code programme, made up of an awareness programme to promote the key messages of the Behaviour Code, and supporting seminars. The Behaviour Code: why it matters seminars, and the previous Valuing Everyone training programme, are key products of this bicameral approach. As reported in the last ICGS annual report (published in November 2022), 92% of MPs had attended the Valuing Everyone training programme.[6]

4. The ICGS team are responsible for:

• managing complaints, from the original disclosure until the delivery of final investigation report;
• allocating independent investigators and quality assuring their work;
• providing support and guidance to those who have experienced, witnessed, been accused of or are supporting someone with bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct;
• procuring and contract-managing the external independent Helpline through Victim Support;
• recruiting and training the pool of investigators;
• monitoring and reporting on investigations data (including timescales) to promote trust and transparency;
• seeking feedback to improve the scheme for users;
• promoting the ICGS through Parliament-wide outreach activity and proactive media;
• working with colleagues from across both Houses to improve the working culture

What does the current landscape of bodies and processes regulating MPs (including MPs who are also Ministers) look like to the public?

5. The ICGS is a high-profile part of the standards landscape. The Scheme, and cases dealt with under its auspices, are often the subject of significant media interest. As a result, there is a high level of public awareness that there is a scheme for dealing with bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct in Parliament. Whilst this creates challenges—for example, in maintaining the confidentiality of individual cases—it is important that all members of the parliamentary community know that there is a way of dealing with bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct that they may have experienced. It is also appropriate that Parliament as a body is an exemplar of taking such behaviour seriously and addressing it. Despite the high profile of the Scheme, there is also sometimes public and press confusion over the roles within the Scheme – for example, between the ICGS team or independent investigators, the IEP, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

6. Based on press inquiries we have received, and feedback from the contractors who operate the ICGS Helpline, we recognise that the remit of the ICGS can sometimes be unclear, particularly where there is a question over whether some behaviour has taken place “in connection with…parliamentary activities” (where it has not taken place on the parliamentary estate). The independent investigators have also found this test difficult to apply on behalf of the ICGS. We are considering ways to ensure that issues of scope which arise during a case can be addressed in a consistent way, and do not unduly hinder the timeliness of investigations.

Is there any scope for simplification or consolidation? What would be the benefits and what would be the risks?

7. Any proposals for simplification and consolidation that relate to the ICGS would, in our view, need to maintain the key elements that underpin trust and confidence in the system. These include independence and separation from Parliament (e.g. through the ICGS helpline, Independent Sexual Misconduct Advisors, external investigators, the Independent Expert Panel); the equal application of ICGS policies across the parliamentary community; and the provision of informal resolution routes. In relation to cases where an MP is the respondent, one such element is the fact that MPs play no part in deciding complaints against other MPs. This followed a central recommendation in Dame Laura Cox’s 2018 review, namely that “that the process for determining complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament” should be “an entirely independent process, in which Members of Parliament will play no part”.[7]

8. We would also draw a distinction between the simplification of the governance of the standards system, and of the processes within it. The ICGS has been subject to two comprehensive external reviews (the Alison Stanley 6-month and 18-month reviews) which have prompted significant improvements and changes, taking account of the views of a wide range of stakeholders. The governance arrangements for the ICGS form part of the published terms of reference for a further external review established by the two House’s Commissions.

9. The ICGS is unique among the bodies or offices listed in the Committee’s call for evidence in that there must always be an injured party for an investigation to take place (since third party reporting is not permitted). This is not the case for any of the other bodies listed. The ICGS process must therefore take into account the needs of complainants in a way that other disciplinary processes involving MPs do not normally need to. The ICGS policies apply equally across the parliamentary community, and Members can, and do, make complaints against other members of the parliamentary community on the same basis as anyone else. In addition, investigating allegations of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct requires specialist knowledge and skills.

10. The Committee may wish to consider if there should be an authoritative resource outlining which bodies can accept complaints about what areas of conduct, and the potential powers/outcomes of each process, to help potential complainants know where to direct any concerns.

How do political party processes and formal regulatory processes interact? Should there be greater consistency in internal party processes?

11. Internal political party processes to determine complaints that might otherwise fall within the remit of the ICGS will not normally have the degree of independence, nor transparency and accountability, that is built into the Scheme. For example, the ICGS team publishes an annual report; quarterly data about our work; and regular updates from the Director. In addition, the ICGS team are building a performance framework and quality assurance framework, and we intend to publish information about our performance on a regular basis once these are developed.

12. Alison Stanley recommended, in her 18-month review of the ICGS, that “in respect of complaints against members of the House of Commons or their staff that have already been subject to a decision or formal resolution by respondent's political party […] that this same paper-[bas]ed assessment [ie. of whether an ICGS investigation would be warranted] be carried out”.[8] In light of this, it may be helpful for Whips’ offices to make an explicit commitment to direct eligible complainants to the ICGS rather than to internal party processes when individuals approach them with concerns. We acknowledge, however, that sometimes complaints are complex and involve more allegations than would necessarily be covered under the ICGS, meaning that multiple processes may be necessary. Political parties also have means which the ICGS does not have to protect individuals during an investigation and to manage potential risks. We are open to working more closely with political parties in instances where there are multiple processes involving the same complainant/respondent, on the basis of a shared understanding of the importance of confidentiality and support for individuals going through an investigation process.

13. The ICGS bullying and harassment and sexual misconduct procedures both provide that, at the stage of initial assessment (that is, to determine whether a complaint should progress to a full investigation), the independent investigator will “consider whether the complaint has been or is being considered in a different forum (e.g. in a workplace disciplinary process or an employment tribunal)”, and that “complaints that, in the Independent Investigator’s opinion, have already been fully and fairly examined in another forum, or which are in the process of being considered in another forum, may not also be considered under the ICGS”. Where there is or has been a parallel complaint, but it has not been “fully and fairly” examined by the other body, then this may still be considered under the ICGS. These provisions were built into ICGS procedures in recognition that there were existing routes for redress at the time that the ICGS was established, but that they may not always have commanded the confidence of potential complainants. The provisions on parallel investigations are intended to ensure that the ICGS can operate alongside existing routes (such as political party processes) in a practicable way and avoid duplication and confusion.

14. Sometimes it may appear that a case is subject to parallel processes (for example, there may be press reports that there is both an ICGS investigation and internal party investigation) when it may be that, for example, different allegations have been made about the same individual.

15. There is not currently a settled policy on whether materials or evidence from an investigation in one forum can be used in an ICGS investigation (or vice versa). This is an area in which the ICGS team are intending to develop a clear policy, in consultation with stakeholders.

Are there ways in which different processes, or the relationship between different bodies, could be streamlined for MPs?

16. When a complaint is first passed to the ICGS, a member of the ICGS team will always get in touch with the complainant to offer to explain the process and answer any questions, and remains available throughout the investigation to provide updates and offer support. The same is offered to respondents if a complaint progresses to full investigation (that is, where the respondent is then notified by their relevant decision-making body).

17. There will be different points of contact at decision-making or appeal stage—for cases where an MP is the respondent, the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Secretary to the Independent Expert Panel respectively. We recognise that this may be unclear or confusing for complainants and respondents. It may be worth considering in future whether complainants and respondents could have a single point of contact throughout the onward stages of a case, i.e. when a case progresses to decision-making or appeal stage (where relevant). This issue could be considered as part of the external review of the ICGS, which includes within its terms of reference consideration of the support available to parties in ICGS cases.

18. We are aware that there is some possible duplication in the current process for ICGS cases where the respondent is an MP. We are considering if there are ways in which by working with others this duplication could be minimised or eliminated in the future.

Could the role and remit of different bodies be better explained or promoted?

19. Communicating our role and remit is a core part of the work of the ICGS team. In 2022-23, the ICGS team undertook a programme of 42 outreach events reaching over 4,500 people, including speaking to vulnerable and “harder to reach” groups in the parliamentary community, outlining the complaints process in simple terms, answering questions, and gathering feedback.

20. These outreach events included:

• In-person and virtual presentations at all-staff town halls, departmental and team meetings across both Houses
• Constituency roadshows for MPs’ staff
• MPs’ staff new joiner meetings
• The House of Commons services fair  
• Monthly information stalls in common areas in both Houses
• Engagement sessions with networks, including the workplace equality networks (WENs) and the Guardians
• The mass distribution and display of ICGS posters and business cards, including a mail-out to all constituency offices
• Face-to-face meetings for estate-based colleagues, including catering, security, and doorkeepers

21. We have published accessible Guides for complainants, respondents, and witnesses to accompany the formal policy and procedures documents, to help all those who might be involved in an investigation to understand the process and what it means for them.[9]

Does the Recall of MPs Act 2015, and other legislation relating to the disqualification of Members, operate satisfactorily? How could it be improved?

22. The Recall of MPs Act 2015 means that, in practice, some of the sanctions available to each House in relation to its Members are different. For example, the House of Lords can impose long periods of suspension without the possibility of loss of office entailed by the recall process. Since the definitions used within the ICGS policies are identical across both Houses, the differences in sanctioning practice for Members of each House may have the potential to create perceptions of unfairness or inconsistency in outcomes in ICGS cases. This is something that has previously been commented on by complainants in ICGS cases. We nevertheless acknowledge that the ICGS has been implemented differently by each House in relation to their Members, and that each House has an exclusive right to discipline its own Members.

Could there be an easier way for members of the public to make complaints or raise concerns about conduct, where they are not sure which body has oversight?

23. We aim to ensure that all members of the parliamentary community are aware that the Scheme is available to anyone who has experienced bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. We do not want any potential users to be discouraged by being unsure how to make a complaint, or by approaching the wrong body in the first instance. We would therefore welcome any measures that would enable members of the parliamentary community to be signposted to the ICGS where appropriate.

24. We already work closely with other standards bodies in Parliament whose remit includes, but also extends beyond, the ICGS—for example, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Independent Expert Panel. We would be happy to work with other bodies inside and outside Parliament to help them better to understand our remit and enable them confidently to signpost individuals to the ICGS where appropriate. The ICGS helpline would aim to signpost callers to the appropriate body if an individual called about behaviour which fell outside the remit of the ICGS, as long as sufficient information was given to allow the helpline provider to advise on alternative routes.

25. In relation to MPs, the ICGS has a narrow remit (dealing only with cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct which meet the definitions set out in the policies agreed by both Houses); can only accept complaints from current and former members of the parliamentary community; and, unlike the other bodies listed in the Committee’s call for evidence, has an equal remit in relation to the House of Lords, staff of both Houses, PDS, contractors, visitors and others in the parliamentary community. Given this, we do not consider that the ICGS would be an appropriate public point of contact for MPs’ conduct more generally.

What can be learned from parallel processes in other parliaments/assemblies within the UK and elsewhere?

26. We regularly engage with other parliaments and assemblies to share learning. The ICGS is unusual among parliamentary schemes due to both (a) the degree of independence of the process, and (b) the fact that the Scheme applies equally to a range of employment relationships within Parliament. Our perception from engagement with other parliaments and assemblies is that the ICGS is seen internationally as a leading scheme of its type.

27. It is important to recognise that different schemes will often reflect the context in which they are established. The ICGS was set up at considerable pace, and was designed from conception to apply as equally to, for example, staff of both Houses, PDS, and MPs’ and Peers’ staff, as it does to MPs and Peers. This will not necessarily be the case for other parliaments and assemblies. The fact that the ICGS deals with behaviour which is not unique to Parliament—indeed which may take place in any workplace—means that it is also appropriate to learn from how bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct is dealt with in a range of contexts and professional environments, beyond parliamentary contexts.

October 2023