3
Written evidence submitted by the House of Commons Trade Union Side (COD0020)
The Committee’s inquiry asks far-reaching questions about the MPs’ Code of Conduct and its interaction with other policies and procedures. These include:
We have confined our response below to those areas which seem to us relevant to protecting our members. Some issues fall outside the Code but are part of the context.
Summary Our priority for arrangements to be in place to protect our members and ensure that the House can fulfil its duty of care as an employer.
The introduction of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, complete with Dame Laura Cox’s recommendations was a major step forward for staff. Much progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of Alison Stanley’s six-month review and the 18-month review is underway. This work must be fully resourced and given time to succeed.
The framework that has been developed to support management action in response to behaviour that is detrimental to staff wellbeing should be introduced and kept under review to ensure its effectiveness.
A new requirement not to behave in a way that interferes with the House’s responsibilities or duty of care as an employer could be incorporated into the MPs Code. This would enable the House authorities to make a complaint to the PCS in circumstances where, for example, an MP has acted in such a way as to cause a risk to health and safety.
As recommended by Gemma White, mechanisms should be introduced to make Valuing Everyone training mandatory for MPs and to ensure that that they fulfil their employment responsibilities in a fair and inclusive manner and operate open and fair recruitment procedures. |
The introduction of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Service (ICGS) to deal with complaints of bullying and harassment was necessary because the Code of Conduct had proved wholly insufficient to deal with complaints of bullying and harassment by MPs.[1] Its amendment to incorporate Dame Laura Cox’s recommendations, (i.e. that non-recent cases should have access to the scheme and that the process for determining complaints of bullying and harassment by MPs should be fully independent of them) was a major step forward for staff.
As set out in Alison Stanley’s six-month review the ICGS was introduced at high-speed and the resources needed to implement it successfully were initially under-estimated. Since then, much work has gone on to improve the implementation of the scheme, with the introduction of new helplines and investigators and improved the communication of the scheme. The 18-month review, which has just been launched, is a critical opportunity to further make further improvements. The FDA fully supports this ongoing work to develop the scheme and build staff confidence.
How can the Code be made simpler, clearer, more transparent and more readily understood?
Our primary aim is to ensure there are arrangements in place to protect our members and enable the House as an employer to fulfil its duty of care.
The MPs’ Code of Conduct largely details MPs’ obligations to register and declare their financial interests, and the restrictions on lobbying for reward or consideration.[2] A potential exception, which could cover personal behaviour, is the test of not causing “significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally” would potentially cover personal behaviour. However, it was intentionally set as a ‘high bar’, to apply only in exceptional cases where “there is clear evidence that the Member’s conduct has been so serious and blatant as to cause significant damage to the reputation of the House.”[3] It is difficult to understand when it might apply and therefore what behaviour it seeks to discourage. We welcome the Committee’s inquiry as an opportunity to illuminate this.
From June 2018, the Code was amended to incorporate the Behaviour Code, saying that MPs were expected to observe the principles set out in it – of respect, professionalism, understanding others’ perspectives, courtesy, and acceptance of responsibility.[4] This is written in positive language, of what you can do. Illustrative examples in recognisable scenarios (such as setting unrealistic deadlines, undermining staff and inappropriate comments) could help building understanding and thereby make the Code more effective.
In its recent report on Sanctions, the Committee on Standards noted that the House authorities have been working on a framework to enable certain services to be withdrawn from a Member as a response to behaviour that is detrimental to staff well-being.[5] The trade unions fully support these aims and believe the new framework should be brought into effect as soon as possible.
A new requirement not to behave in a way that interferes with the House’s responsibilities or duty of care as an employer could be incorporated into the MPs’ Code. This would enable the House authorities to make a complaint to the PCS in circumstances where, for example, an MP has acted in such a way as to cause a risk to health and safety.
While the Ministerial Code was changed to include that Ministers shouldn’t bully or harass their staff there is no independent process (the equivalent of the IGCS) to deal with complaints against Ministers. This is clearly a problem for civil servants but does create an unfairness when thinking about the two in tandem – an MP could bully their member of staff in Parliament and that member of staff would have a means for it to be investigated and sanctions determined but if the same MP is a Minister and bullied civil servants in Whitehall the civil servants would have no independent, transparent process to deal with it.
The start should be to ensure that MPs fulfil their employment responsibilities in a fair and inclusive manner and operate open and fair recruitment procedures.
In her report on the Bullying and Harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary Staff in July 2019, Gemma White QC concluded that MPs should be “required to adopt and follow employment practices and procedures which are aligned with those followed in other public sector workplaces.” She said this shift should be supported by a properly resourced and staffed department within the House of Commons. Any necessary enforcement mechanisms (such as imposing conditions related to good employment practice on MPs’ entitlement to staffing expenditure) should be considered by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in conjunction with the new department.[6]
She also recommended that the HR department should have a monitoring and if necessary (in conjunction with IPSA), enforcement role as well as a welfare function. The areas she recommended should be covered by this was whether “there are MPs who are not operating open and fair recruitment procedures and, if so, adopt a more interventionist approach with them.” She also recommended that the HR department should collect data areas including “equality and diversity; staff turnover; reasons for staff leaving; sickness absence; working hours; pay; appraisals conducted; performance management and disciplinary action.”
Although progress has been made, some of her recommendations have not been implemented. For example, the IPSA Board decided not to make staffing allowances conditional on good practice and, perhaps, on MPs undertaking training.[7] There might be risks with this, for example, the impact on MPs’ staff. If so, other ways of achieving the same objectives should be explored, in consultation with staff representatives.
We understand that a mechanism to make Valuing Everyone training mandatory for members of the House of Lords is to be introduced. We hope the Committee will recommend something similar for MPs.
30 October 2020
[1] Cox report, p32
[2] https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/code-of-conduct-and-rules-of-the-house/; rules of conduct in Part V
[3] Committee on Standards and Privileges, Review of the Code of Conduct, 19th report of 2010/12, p6
[4] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmcode/1882/1882.pdf
[5] Committee on Standards, Sanctions in respect of Conduct of Members, July 2020
[6] Page 3
[7] Para 148 and 192