Business of the House
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady may recall that not so many years ago we had a Second Reading debate for a couple of days on the role of the upper Chamber in an attempt to reform it, but it did not get very far. The problem with those debates is that so many people have so many different ideas that nobody can come to a conclusion about what ought to be done, so I would suggest that if people want such a debate, they have a word with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Last week, 50 new towns were added to the future high streets fund. Ellesmere Port was not one of them, which was hugely disappointing, but then I saw that the majority of successful bids were from Conservative constituencies. May we have a statement, please, from the relevant Minister to assure us that this is not a political fix ahead of a snap general election?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Oh, of course it is not a political fix! No Government would ever behave like that.
Bullying and Harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary Staff
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am sure none of us thought we would be surprised to read Gemma White’s report, given that there were reports of bullying and harassment of MPs’ staff in the press as far back as November 2017, but even though we knew there was a problem, the report has been no less shocking. It is shocking to know that in the place where I work, some staff have been and are still being subjected to an
“unacceptable risk of bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, at work”
from their employers. Those employers are Members of Parliament, not some backstreet employer. They are people elected by this country to lead, not to have an attitude to staff that belongs to a bygone era.
No one reading the report could fail to be moved by the testimonies of those who have suffered at the hands of some of our colleagues. Like many others who have spoken today, I want to pay tribute to the former and current members of staff who have been brave enough to come forward and participate in this inquiry. I am sure that their stories were not easy to share, and I want to assure them that I and others will listen to what they have to say and do our best to put in place measures to ensure that those in the future do not go through what they have gone through. I want to read out the words of some of those members of staff. One talked about an MP who
“would intimidate, mock and undermine me every day”.
Another stated:
“After I resigned I suffered a breakdown which I have never recovered from”.
Another said:
“My entire sense of self was crushed, and by the end, I felt incapable and incompetent”.
No one should be made to feel that way when they go to work.
Grown men and women have been shouted at, sworn at, belittled and humiliated. Some have been relentlessly picked on, day in and day out, and worn down by the drip-drip nature of the abuse that they have suffered. Others have been the victims of unwanted sexual advances or banter. This is nothing short of sickening. It might not be something that many Members have personally been on the receiving end of, but we all know people who have received appalling treatment at the hands of their employer. These are people who wake up each morning with a knot in their stomach, or worse, because they do not know what they will face when they go into work. However, they know that what they will face will be unpleasant, harrowing and debilitating.
Staff are already expressing their concern that the number of Members here today does not send out the right message about the importance that we should place on the way in which our staff are treated in this place. This has happened right here under our noses in these buildings, in the corridors and the offices. It is like something from a bygone era: staff feeling bullied and abused and, most importantly, feeling powerless to do anything about it. Talk to any member of staff and they will almost certainly know someone who has been involved in such issues. Unsurprisingly, that will have had a detrimental effect on them, with some becoming too anxious or ill to work. Some have been forced to resign, often following a period of sick leave, and some have been sacked. Some have left Parliament altogether with promising careers ruined while the perpetrators get off scot-free.
Eddie Hughes
I recognise so much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He used the word “banter”—he was referring to the report—so I googled it, and it seems to imply some sort of friendly, playful exchange. However, the impacts that he is describing are far from friendly and playful. We should get away from the idea that abuse can sometimes be acceptable because it is casual.
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. People may sometimes feel that they are being amusing or engaging in banter, but they have no idea of the effect that that is having on the individual. Many sexual harassment cases over the years will have the same characteristic. That is why training is important, because we all must understand that some of the things we say can have a negative effect on people.
This behaviour has been happening for a long time, and perpetrators have been getting away with it, enabling them to carry on the cycle of abuse with the next member of staff, a problem that we absolutely must end. It is unsurprising that one contributor to the report states that staff have come to believe that there has been
“general disregard for the dignity, wellbeing and employment rights of MPs’ staff”.
I agree with that, and Gemma White agrees with that. She concludes that
“bullying and harassment in MPs’ offices is widespread and cultural”,
and it would be impossible for anyone who reads her report to conclude otherwise.
As has already been said, a minority of Members are involved in this kind of activity, but it is important to say at this point that Gemma White explicitly stated:
“Some Members were the subject of contributions from a number of different contributors.”
In some cases, we are talking not about isolated incidents, but about the same MP repeating a pattern of abusive behaviour with successive members of staff. The fact that this is just a minority must not stop us treating the matter with the utmost urgency. If the same names keep cropping up in reports, without any acknowledgment of wrongdoing or any action to put things right, we know that something is not working.
The majority of us, of course, are perfectly able to be fair and reasonable employers, but that is not an excuse for a small number who behave inappropriately. People have got away with that for too long, because we have not had the right procedures in place. We must now collectively find a way to deal with the situation, or we will all be responsible for what goes on in this place.
There is no place for bullying and harassment in any workplace, but we should be the exemplar of best practice. We should be the place that people look to for positive behaviours. We should set the standards for others to emulate. If we cannot get our own house in order, how can we effectively challenge the employment practices of others? We are failing badly to get our own house in order, because we have here another publication with yet more cases of bullying and harassment, but we have not properly implemented the recommendations from the last one.
We must stop dragging our feet. We must at least implement changes to employment practices to give our staff the same protections that we would expect from every other employer and that we would expect our constituents to have. We must ensure that the necessary steps are taken so that staff can report incidents without any fear of reprisal or retribution, because many who took part in the inquiry were clear that they felt unable to raise a complaint against their MP because, until July of last year, those complaints had to be made directly to that MP. In many cases, they were complaining to the boss about the boss’s behaviour, so who could blame them for concluding that there would be literally no point in doing so because the same person being complained about would be the judge and jury over that particular complaint?
Staff now have access to an independent complaints and grievance scheme, but it is clear that, even though the new system is in place, they still do not have confidence that it would not be career suicide to refer complaints to it. Indeed, Gemma White concludes that, even now, it is
“unlikely that the majority of bullying and harassment suffered by MPs’ staff will be reported under the ICGS.”
We must consider that seriously today.
Staff are simply not convinced of the process’s independence, so it is vital that we move to a fully independent process in which MPs are not able to sit in judgment on their colleagues in any way, shape or form. No longer should an employer be a judge in his or her cause. It really is not good enough for the Commission to recommend the non-involvement of Members in determining bullying and harassment cases. We have to move away from it altogether.
It is not good enough that there is a complete lack of clarity on the sanctions that can be imposed on an MP. The Women and Equalities Committee heard at the beginning of this month, in evidence on a gender-sensitive Parliament, that sanctions against MPs appear to amount only to an informal quiet word with a dozen or so offenders. If that is all that happens, who can blame staff for feeling that there is not much point in going through the system?
Mrs Miller
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. The Select Committee’s concern is that, even though there is now a formal grievance procedure in place, it appears that some senior members of staff still think it is the right procedure just to have a quiet word. If they are not recording who they are talking to, there is no ability to monitor repeat offenders. We are quite concerned that that procedure and practice still seems to be embedded in this place.
Justin Madders
I thank the right hon. Lady for that point. I find it incredible that we are still in that place. I cannot imagine that the contracts of employment of those staff do not make it explicitly clear that bullying and harassment are considered gross misconduct. A quiet word following an allegation of gross misconduct is not good enough, and it deters people from making valid complaints in future. That really has to change.
Even if we get to a truly independent process, we still need to think about why staff feel inhibited in making a complaint against their employer. The employer might have to write them a reference, or they might still share an office. Until recently, staff could not pursue a complaint at all if they left Parliament. I think that will change with the motion on the independent complaints and grievance scheme, but it was a ridiculous distinction to make—it would not be allowed in any other workplace—because a lot of people, for valid reasons, will not make a complaint until they have left their employment.
I am pleased that we will finally have a chance to extend the independent complaints and grievance scheme to cover non-recent cases of bullying and harassment. I do not know why we need to wait for the autumn, as has already been mentioned, and we have to be clear that this is not the final point on our journey but is a step towards it.
From what Gemma White has said, it is clear to me that, without effective sanctions and a truly independent complaints panel, we will not have true justice. It is bizarre that we can talk about extending the scheme, when the report basically says that staff do not have confidence because of the lack of independence and the lack of sanctions. That problem will not be rectified when we pass the motion on the independent complaints and grievance scheme, and we need to address it as a matter of urgency.
Ultimately, this comes down to the power imbalance between MPs and staff, the high demand for jobs in politics and the reliance on patronage in our political system, which means that the risk of abuse of power is all too great. We have 650 individual offices, which together employ more than 3,200 staff. Any other public sector organisation of that size would have a body that allows some degree of independent oversight of its employment practices, whether it be the use of probation periods, appraisals, performance management or training.
As an absolute minimum, we need basic policies and procedures to drag our worst offenders into the 21st century, and it cannot be ignored that probation periods and performance management were repeatedly raised by contributors to the report. Those of us who already recognise employment practices in a fair and reasonable manner use them to support and develop our staff, but they can be used as a stick to prevent people from making complaints—those are the tactics of a bullying employer. So I welcome the Commission’s statement that it will begin consulting immediately to see what implementation issues there will be in the creation of a new HR department, because it is clear that we need to give much more support to Members and staff in developing and implementing policies in a fair and reasonable manner. That we do not already do this in 2019 is shocking to the outside world, so we have to get on with it as soon as possible.
Having spoken to staff, I know that they are keen to see that department set up, because, as Gemma White recommends, it would also support staff welfare. We hope it would also introduce initiatives such as a buddy system for new staff, to reduce isolation, and peer mentoring for staff who need extra support. Many staff do this in an informal way already, but others are struggling behind closed doors and are not calling for help but actually need it.
There is a role for IPSA or a similar independent body in respect of the introduction of both a leavers survey and a way to collect data to monitor MPs’ employment records, which would help to identify trends or specific pockets of concern in individual offices. That is important, because there must be nowhere for bullies to hide. Only through introducing transparent systems and independent scrutiny will we be able to end the impunity that currently exists in some quarters to hire and fire at will. Let us imagine it became public knowledge that a Member had gone through a dozen or more staff in a couple of years—questions would rightly be asked about what was going on there. So although I also welcome the Commission’s announcement that it will consult on how to collate this data and use it to improve employment practices, I again urge it to do that with the utmost expediency.
Finally, I come to an issue that I have spoken about before and that the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) spoke about at length. Many MPs enter Parliament with little or no management training or experience, but that cannot be used as an excuse. If we know MPs lack that training, we should be providing it, to make sure that no one falls behind. Even with my experience in the law, I would still have welcomed a Members’ staff handbook, with correct procedures and policies in place, and I was shocked to find that there was little support here when I was starting out as a new MP, having to hire staff, set up offices and so on. Clearly, with such a low take-up so far of the Valuing Everyone training, voluntary training is not the answer. I see no reason why that training should not be mandatory for all current Members and their staff, and it should be completed within a short timeframe. It is up to us as Parliament to set the standards not just for this place, but for the rest of the country. We cannot lecture others on the way they treat their staff if we cannot get our own house in order. We must be an example of the best practice, not the worst. That starts with getting our house in order, and getting true independence in our procedures and meaningful sanctions for those who transgress.
Mel Stride
The message from the Dispatch Box this afternoon is that we expect these measures to be introduced by October. Therefore, the message to anybody who is minded to come forward is that there is now time to prepare prior to October, when we hope that the independent assessors, who will handle that work, will be in place. I think that I can at least signal that that is our anticipation, and hope that that in itself is helpful.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. I must say that I am a little perplexed that we have a scheme that is essentially identical to the current complaints scheme, that it has taken this long to come to fruition and that there will be a further delay. What is also of concern is that there may be an election later this year and those who may get caught by this historical complaints process may no longer be Members of this place. Can the Leader of the House confirm that, in those circumstances, those people will essentially not face any inquiry?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman has very perceptively poked his finger into one of a few areas where it is not entirely clear how the system will work. Indeed, he is right. If a Member has left this place, I guess that an investigation could be conducted, but then there would be the issue of what sanctions could be applied and by whom. Indeed, a Member may have left this place and gone to the other place and, in those circumstances, he might ask what the process would be and who would apply the sanctions—if sanctions are to be applied. The best answer that I can give him is that there are elements of this that will require further work. If he would like to contribute to that, my door is always open.
That brings me rather neatly on to the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. She rightly asked the question about this whole issue of transparency, ownership, accountability and leadership, and where these decisions ultimately rest. I am standing at this Dispatch Box as a Minister leading this debate, but, of course, these are matters not for the Government, but for the House. They are matters for all 650—600-plus—MPs who have actually taken their seats in this place. In some senses, there are some quite deep and reform-related issues around governance here that various Members have raised, which really fall to the House to grapple with. My role in that is that I sit on the House of Commons Commission, as does the shadow Leader of the House, but I do not lead the House in terms of reforming its own procedures and practices, albeit that I can facilitate some of those changes, as I have done, by bringing forward this debate today, and, indeed, the motion that we will very shortly and hopefully be passing in regard to historical cases.
Finally, let me turn to some other points that have been made. I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for her outstanding work on the Committee on Standards, and for the time and courtesy that she offered to me when we met recently to discuss a number of the aspects of the work of her Committee. I also thank her for the work that she is doing at the moment on the different sanctions that may apply to Members of Parliament and for her best endeavours to complete that work, as suggested in the report, by December of this year. Finally, I thank her for the work that she will be doing alongside the House of Commons Commission in respect of the Cox 3 recommendation around MPs effectively not being able to mark their own homework.
In conclusion, I thank again all those who have contributed to this very important debate. We in this House hold this place dear. We are the guardians of its present and of its future, and we have a duty to ensure that it represents the very finest traditions and principles of our country. The way in which we treat those who support us in that endeavour lies right at the heart of any claim that we may make that we meet that vital test. I thank Gemma White for her report. Progress has been made, but there is still more to do and we will press ahead now with vigour.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Gemma White report on bullying and harassment of MPs’ Parliamentary staff.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I will not speak for too long, because I am sure the House has heard enough from me today, but I have a couple of queries, following what I said in the previous debate about this only being a staging post to our final destination.
The Gemma White report says that
“contributors to this inquiry have expressed considerable concern about using the new procedures and scepticism as to what the ICGS can realistically achieve. Many of them told me they would not contemplate making a complaint under the new ICGS procedure, because it would be ‘career suicide’… Some are concerned about the independence of the ICGS process… and the lack of clarity as to the sanctions which could be imposed on an MP.”
Those are still the issues with getting a process that we and, most importantly, staff can be confident in. Until we have a process that does not involve Members at all—I appreciate that work is going on in respect of that—staff will feel a bit inhibited in making a complaint.
The other issue is sanctions. I am not at all clear, and I hope the Leader of the House can clarify when he responds, what sanctions will be levied against an MP for a complaint being upheld under this procedure. For the procedure to have the confidence of staff, it must have proper sanctions.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
To clarify, on behalf of the Committee on Standards, we are conducting an inquiry into exactly the question of what sanctions would be appropriate in a number of different situations. We would be more than happy to hear from my hon. Friend and, indeed, all Members.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware that a consultation is ongoing, but it begs the question of what will happen with complaints that are being dealt with now if sanctions have not been clarified. Presumably some complaints will be resolved before the Commission reports. If I am wrong about that, I am happy to be corrected. Will sanctions be applied retrospectively after they have been agreed, or will investigations be reopened? Those are the questions that I hope the Leader of the House can clarify when he responds.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution, because I totally recognise that dementia is an increasing issue for the health of our nation and—although she did not express this—the cruel nature of the condition. I know that a huge amount of work is being done, particularly by volunteers: through memory cafés, for example—like me, she probably has some in her constituency. They do such wonderful work to find those areas where people with dementia can remember, enjoy and reflect. It might be a rather good subject for a Westminster Hall debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
May we please have a debate on the responsibility of the Post Office to engage with the communities it is supposed to serve? Hope Farm Road post office in my constituency has been shut at random times without explanation, and the other day I heard on the grapevine that the post office in Willaston, which is an isolated, rural community, is being shut next month, with no consultation or forewarning. How are communities expected to access these vital services if there is no dialogue?
Mel Stride
Post offices are absolutely vital. I think that, in terms of national affection, they rank second only to the national health service in the passion that people feel about what is almost an institution. That is for good reason, particularly in rural areas, because post offices often provide services, including banking services, to local traders and residents that would otherwise have been hollowed out and become unavailable due to the absence of banks.
I take the issue extremely seriously. The Government have generally protected the size of the post office network; there are nearly 13,000 branches across the country, and the vast majority of people live within 1 mile of a branch. How the Post Office is handling that network might be a rather good subject for a Westminster Hall debate.
Business of the House
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
Clearly I am not privy to the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised. However, I urge her to beat a path to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has departmental responsibility for HMRC. If the hon. Lady requires my assistance in that purpose, it will be available. As to the observation that she might have been treated as an English taxpayer rather than a Scottish taxpayer, I would imagine that that might be slightly welcome, given that she might pay less tax as a consequence.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As was mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the company that owns Vauxhall Motors at Ellesmere Port has announced that we are going to get the new Astra model, but only if we avoid a no-deal Brexit. Now, I cannot help thinking that the reason the company has said this is that both the men who want to be the next Prime Minister have been talking up the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. Given that there is now a very specific threat to the livelihoods of many of my constituents because of a proposed Government policy, I am astounded that the Business Secretary has not been here to give a statement about how we are going to avoid those job losses. Please can we have a statement from the Business Secretary on this issue as soon as possible?
Business of the House
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is most unfortunate that there are redundancies at the Bridgend plant. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have been very much engaged in and closely connected to what is happening there.
The hon. Lady raised the specific issue of termination payments and rightly said that tax was due on payments over a £30,000 threshold, although there are some exceptions to that. I believe that is one of the most generous arrangements in the world and think I am right in saying—I stand to be corrected—that in Germany, for example, there is no threshold in play at all. However, she raised important points, particularly in respect of pensions, so I direct her to Treasury questions, which will be held on 2 July.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
May we please have a debate on the statutory requirements for changes to bus services and the consultation process? Stagecoach has announced that seven services in and around my constituency might change. It has not given any details on what the changes are, other than to say that people in Neston will no longer be able to go to Arrowe Park Hospital. It is all squirrelled away online and is very inaccessible. It really is not good enough. Can we have a proper consultation process on changes to important local services?
Mel Stride
That would make an excellent subject for an Adjournment debate, at which the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity to ask the appropriate Minister specific questions about the specific routes and so on in his constituency.
Cox Report: Implementation
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips
Oh my gosh! It is like a “get out the vote” moment. I am going to stand for something now, because it would seem that I have the will of all the House behind me.
Jess Phillips
Indeed.
What I find about the people who want me to be involved in their cases is that they do not usually have anything to hide. It is a small thing that this is about me, and it is a pleasure that everyone is offering me their kind regards, but this highlights an issue in the system—namely, that the way in which bad behaviour, harassment and bullying are handled in this building can be controlled by patronage, power, friendships and politics. That cannot be ignored, and while it is the case, people will still come to people like me and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke and tell us their stories. Until we get this right, no system that we put in place will ever have the trust of the people who work in this building or of those who interact with them.
I also want to highlight the issue of historical cases. In the end, Dame Laura Cox said the exact opposite of what came out of the systems that we created around historical cases. She said that it would be beneficial for historical cases to be heard, and not that it would be legally difficult for people to be held accountable for a code of conduct that they had not previously signed up to. I do not personally need to be told not to sexually harass anyone. I do not need it written down that I should not murder people in the House of Commons. That is not what stops me murdering people; there are many other things that do. The trouble with the issue of historical cases is that it immediately puts aside some of the issues and challenges that would have been cleared up, had those cases been able to be heard. We have to open up the idea of historical cases. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that historical cases concerning people who are no longer here, for example, are much more difficult. We have no sanction over people who are no longer here or who have died, and I can see that there is nervousness about going back to the beginning of time in that way.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I might well vote for her if there is an election. On historical cases and the point about people no longer being here, is there not a danger that the longer we leave this, the more chance there is of people no longer being here?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. That is certainly a concern. This place has a way of reminding us how welcome we are at the moment. I have absolutely no doubt that there are people here whose processes have been in the long grass for a very long time, and that they will be allowed to go off to pastures new. Any constituency MP will know how a constituent feels when that happens in the police force, for example, when complaints are made and people are allowed to be retired off.
Lord knows we are doing an absolutely terrible job of convincing people that we are even equal to the value of the British people. Politics stinks at the moment, but we have an opportunity, in trying to do what Cox has asked of us, to show that we do not think we are above the people, that we are better than them, or that our jobs and the employment system are just too complicated for us to be able to do anything about this. We have to deal with complicated stuff all the time; our job in this building is to deal with really complicated issues. We cannot keep falling back on the idea that this is too difficult, simply because some people work for us, some people work for Parliament, some people work in this bit of the building and some others are journalists, for example. We have to deal with people when they behave badly.
Tom Brake
I will come to those recommendations, but if the purpose of what we are doing is to ensure that there are no future complaints about bullying and harassment, that course is part of the answer. Having attended the course yesterday, it is very clear that bullying and harassment is going on now, and that there are members of staff in particular who do not yet feel able to have that behaviour addressed and do not feel confident in speaking out openly. I would therefore suggest that the more Members who go on this course and the quicker that happens, the better.
Justin Madders
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for plugging the course because I certainly was not aware of it. I did, however, get an email last week advising me about a compulsory fire safety training course. Apparently the email was sent in error because I had already done the course, but my point is that if we are saying to Members that fire safety courses are compulsory, why can we not say that the course to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is compulsory as well?
Tom Brake
I do not want to get diverted on to fire safety, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is a matter that we discuss at the House of Commons Commission. Having been on the fire safety course, I am very much in favour of naming and shaming the other 600 Members of Parliament—that is probably the number at this point in time—who have not been on it. I recommend that people attend that course because we are in a position of responsibility towards our staff. Therefore, if we have not been on the fire safety training course, we are not in a position to help them should an incident occur. But I need to focus, rightly, on the three critical points that came out of the Cox report.
The first recommendation is the termination of the Valuing Others and Respect policies. I hope that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke would agree that that has been acted on. The second recommendation is access to the independent complaints procedure for historical complaints. I agree that that has not progressed particularly quickly. However, the right hon. Lady may or may not be aware that the consultation on that closed on 14 June, and the Commission expects to consider its outcome on 24 June. We hope that the Leader of the House, who is very much new in his role but who I know will take these things very seriously, will ensure that any recommended proposal is brought before the House before the summer. I agree that it is not as quickly as we wanted—
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
This place has a culture of
“deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying, harassment and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed.”
Those were the words of Dame Laura Cox when her report was published in October 2018. Let us be honest with ourselves: if we received that report about any employer in our constituency, we would be on the phone to them straight away demanding action. That is why we have had so many Members making similar points today.
Such was the shocking extent of those revelations, just nine days later the House of Commons Commission agreed to implement the recommendations of the Cox report in full and without delay. There was agreement across the House that something should happen as soon as possible. House of Commons staff bravely came forward, shared their stories and gave evidence to Dame Laura. They felt that they had been listened to and that their efforts had not been in vain. There was a sense that we were beginning to see a real change in the culture of this place.
Like many Members, I am frustrated that, nearly a year since the House adopted the independent complaints and grievance scheme and nearly nine months since the House accepted Dame Laura’s three principal recommendations, we still have a long way to go. It should be to all our shame that we are not much, if any, further along than where we were seven or eight months ago. There is little or no evidence that the culture of acquiescence and silence is being actively challenged. The sense of urgency has, I feel, dissipated from this debate.
The House of Commons Commission is responsible for the implementation of Dame Laura’s recommendations, so it is right that the commission should answer to this House about the lack of progress, engagement and information to date. We are told that things are happening, but they are clearly not happening quickly enough. I wholeheartedly agree with the motion. The reputation of the House has been further damaged by the lack of progress made. I came to this place to fight for better working conditions for everyone in this country. That includes people who work in this place. It is only right that we get our own house in order.
We should be an exemplar of best practice. We should be the standard that others look up to and try to emulate. We are so far from that at present and I feel very frustrated about that on a personal level. More importantly, I am frustrated for all those who contributed in good faith to Dame Laura’s report, particularly those who have been the victims of bullying and harassment. They have shown such bravery in coming forward to take part in the inquiry, even under the condition of anonymity, to record their experiences in the hope that by coming forward they would change things for the better. Men and women, former and current colleagues, have been let down again and again by this House, and we are still being let down now. People who have waited years are still waiting to see the changes we need to come forward.
Sometimes I think people do not appreciate just how debilitating, damaging and distressing it is to go into work every day not knowing what it is you are going to face. I was an employment lawyer before I came to this place, so I saw clients every day who faced intolerable workplaces, but at least there was a way forward. What my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) said earlier about the power imbalance is absolutely right. Every workplace has power imbalances, but the difference here is that our power is pretty much absolute. She is absolutely right that we need to give away some of that power to get a sense of fairness and balance in this process.
We were all clear when we met here in November that we needed to move forward quickly and that people had waited long enough. Swift action on the two outstanding principal recommendations—the historical cases and the independent process—is needed immediately. We all seem to agree that that is needed, so I have to ask: what is stopping that happening much sooner? I am aware that there has now been a consultation on historical allegations, which concluded last week. The proposals, which set out that non-recent cases will be treated in exactly the same way as the current independent procedure, with the same assessors, steps and decision-makers, will, I hope, ensure that whoever brings a complaint will have an equality of process moving forward. Given that what has been consulted on is exactly the same as the current procedure, I do not know why it took so long for the proposals to come forward. If we are to have the same system, we should have been implementing it a long time ago. It is only when the system is up and running for all complaints that trust will be restored and we can begin to take those crucial steps, which are desperately needed, to change the culture.
I am also deeply concerned about the lack of progress towards meeting the priority of non-involvement of MPs in the independent complaints process. This was in response to the specific recommendation that the House considered the most effective way to ensure the process for determining complaints on bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament would be an entirely independent process in which Members of Parliament play no part. That is pretty clear—we all know what it means. The Commission agreed last December that a small working group should be set up to examine and report on that recommendation, but seven months on and it was only last week that any progress was made. A staff team is to be set up that might report in the autumn—a year after the initial recommendations —and only then would the Commission consider its proposals. Goodness knows when it will come back to the House for us to vote on implementing any changes.
There are serious questions to be asked about what has been happening for the last seven months. How can staff have faith that further announcements will be forthcoming? It feels like someone is dragging their feet. We need to move this on much more quickly. How can we give the impression that this is a priority for people in this place? There is no legislation coming forward at the moment, and we know that the Government are in a holding pattern until they sort out the leadership. We could be using this time to implement these recommendations, to have a proper debate in here and to get them on the books sooner rather than later.
The culture identified in the Cox report as widespread, enduring and profound is still preventing progress. Many Members have rightly expressed concern about the delays, and we are told that there are working groups and so on. The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), is right that the nub is the lack of clear accountability—it is not clear who is responsible for implementing the recommendations. Well, we are all responsible, and we all have to do a bit better. We need concrete action. We need much more frequent updates. There is no reason it should take any longer.
We have to get this right. Staff feel this is being kicked into the long grass. This does nothing to reassure them that the problems with the culture identified in the Cox report will be addressed. We are not asking for the earth; we are asking for something that is commonplace in every working environment up and down the country. In accepting Dame Laura’s report and agreeing to implement the recommendations in full, we have already agreed what needs to be done—the clue is in the title: it is an independent procedure. Why can we not get on and get that independent procedure in place? The failure to act swiftly only damages further the reputation of this place.
One way to instil confidence in this system is to make sure people know that what is happening is effective. I am not suggesting we name individuals who have had complaints lodged against them, but if we at least knew that those complaints had been upheld or dealt with and that offenders had been sanctioned, we would know that something was happening.
I want briefly to return to the issue of having a truly independent system of adjudication for complaints. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) mentioned this. All political parties should look at their own internal processes at the same time as this work is ongoing. If we ever finally have independent processes in this place, we could find ourselves with different processes being operated against Members for essentially the same types of complaint. As far as we know, the new independent procedure covers everyone working in both Houses, whether paid or not, and anyone with a parliamentary pass, and it covers bullying and harassment committed while on the parliamentary estate, in constituency offices or when carrying out parliamentary work.
The third of those is a bit vague. What covers parliamentary work? Someone wanting to bring a complaint of sexual harassment might have to go through an entirely different process depending on where the offence took place. Where does an act committed at a party conference come into it? Is that parliamentary duties? What if the victim is not a passholder but is harassed in the course of parliamentary duties? Where do we draw the line? We want to avoid having different processes depending on where the offence takes place and who the victim is. We have an opportunity to get consistency across the board.
Sadly, there is ample evidence that political parties are prone to be tempted to make decisions about such complaints on a political basis, rather than on the basis of whether that behaviour needs to be dealt with. That has applied to all political parties for as long as politics has been in existence, but that does not make it right. If we do not get our own house in order and deal with bullying and harassment in our own parties, whoever has done it, we have no right to lecture other employers about how they treat their staff. That is why I believe that there needs to be a root-and-branch review of all political parties’ complaints processes and an acceptance that we need total transparency and total independence. If we carry on as we are, we shall run the risk that members of our parties will not be dealt with impartially when serious allegations are made—that they will not be dealt with as they would be dealt with here—or, at the very least, that there will be a perception that they are not being dealt with impartially. That could be as corrosive as not dealing with the allegations at all.
We have to think about the message that the low attendance in the Chamber is sending to staff. Where is this issue on our list of priorities? We should be fighting to ensure that everyone who works here, and everyone in every workplace in the country, is treated with dignity and respect, free from bullying and harassment. We need to accept that we have a long way to go, and that we really must find an answer and move this forward as soon as possible.
Business of the House
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I am genuinely sorry to hear about the problems those constituents who are being placed outside the borough are having. Obviously, the key point is that we do not want to see anybody homeless, so it is vital that people are enabled to have a roof over their head. The Government are putting billions more into affordable housing and allowing councils to borrow to build more homes, deliberately to try to address the problem of getting the right number of homes in the right places. The hon. Lady talks about a specific constituency issue, and I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can raise it directly with Ministers.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I have been applying for some time, without success, for a debate on transport issues in Cheshire as we urgently need to discuss some of the things that are occurring. If my constituents want to cross the River Mersey, they get ripped off whichever way they go. If they go to the Mersey Gateway, they have to pay an exorbitant fee, whereas use is free for residents of Halton. If they go through the Mersey tunnels, they find that fees have increased by 50% while people who live in Merseyside are getting a discount. This is a postcode lottery; it is completely unfair and we need to discuss it urgently.
Business of the House
Justin Madders Excerpts(4 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
May we please have a debate on the application of section 4 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991? I understand that Ministers come and go, and that the Government are in a permanent state of reshuffle, but I personally do not think it is right that those who are sacked or forced to resign because of serious allegations get a five-figure pay-off funded by the taxpayer.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I encourage him to raise it in a written question, so he can get a specific answer to his point.
Business of the House
Justin Madders Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a very serious issue, and she will know that there has been a consultation and evidence gathering about the problem. I am glad to hear that she has a debate in Westminster Hall. I will have to write to her after these business questions, because I do not know at exactly what time the debate is scheduled to start.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It was announced this week that the boss of Centrica, which owns British Gas, has got a 44% pay increase, which comes off the back of 10% rises in gas bills for my constituents. People are rightly asking whether that is a fair and reasonable way to proceed with our utilities, which everyone needs. May we therefore have a debate on controlling corporate greed?
Andrea Leadsom
There will be a lot of sympathy across the House for the hon. Gentleman on the need for corporate pay to remain at a suitable level and not to be excessive. There are concerns across the House about excessive corporate pay. However, he will no doubt be pleased to know that income inequality is at an historically low level. The Government are seeking to do all we can to curb excesses.