Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

That idea has been discussed a number of times through the working group. It was decided not to include that specific recognition, mainly because there are many different organisations in this place, all of which do a good job. Therefore, there is no non-recognition, but neither is there a specific formalised recognition of the Unite branch within the complaints procedure.

The motion asks the House to endorse specific changes that were identified in the working group’s report that was published and agreed by the House in February. Today, the principles of that report will become reality. First, today’s motion asks the House to approve the independent complaints and grievance scheme delivery report, and in doing so it will also ask the House to endorse a new behaviour code that makes it clear to all those who come here—whether an MP, member of staff, peer, contractor or visitor—the standard expected of everyone in Parliament.

Secondly, the motion asks the House to eliminate the threat of exposure that prevents many people from coming forward, by ensuring that all investigations are managed confidentially. Thirdly, it will provide the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards with a broader set of powers and make changes to the Committee on Standards, including to the voting role of lay members. Fourthly, it proposes that a further independent inquiry be established, with similar terms to the Dame Laura Cox inquiry, to hear historical allegations about Members, peers and their staff. Finally, the motion will make provision for a full review of those arrangements after six and 18 months.

In addition to the measures in today’s motion, the steering group has established two independent helplines—one to deal with bullying, and one to deal with sexual misconduct—as well as independent HR advice for staff, and there is an aspiration to improve the general culture of Parliament, including through a new programme of comprehensive training. Members, staff and the public can rest assured that this new independent complaints and grievance policy puts the complainant at the very heart of the process, while taking care to ensure that the principles of innocent until proven guilty are upheld. The ICGP will be fair and transparent, and I believe it will win the confidence of everyone.

Following an intensive period of implementation, today is the final parliamentary hurdle to getting this much needed new scheme up and running. This is the first step, not the final step, towards the culture change that we all want. That is why we have built in a six and 18-month review of the scheme, to ensure that it achieves exactly what we set out to do. Importantly, the six-month review will take careful account of the findings of the independent inquiry by Dame Laura Cox QC and the further independent inquiry that we are establishing today.

Let me turn to the key elements of today’s motion. First, the new behaviour code will apply to everyone on the parliamentary estate. It has been drawn up following extensive consultation with trade unions, staff associations and the public, who were asked for their views about what behavioural expectations we should have of those working for and within Parliament. It seeks to ensure that everyone in and working for Parliament is respected and valued and that we take a zero-tolerance approach to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. Unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with seriously and with effective sanctions.

Today’s motion will also make changes to the Standing Orders for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and to the Committee on Standards. We propose that the commissioners of both Houses keep their investigations entirely confidential until such time as there is a finding. That is crucial if individuals are to place their trust in the new system. There is clearly a balance to be struck between public interest in transparency and putting the complainant at the heart of the process by protecting their identity, and that is vital. In deciding whether to publish any findings, the PCS will also put the complainant’s wishes at the heart of the decision.

I thank, very sincerely, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) for the extremely thoughtful and collaborative way that he and his Committee came to their position. I must point out, however, that we have had to respectfully disagree on one issue, which is about whether confidentiality should also be observed during an investigation in non-ICGP cases. I would be the last person to want to avoid transparency, but for this scheme to succeed, it is vital that we achieve consistency. The amendment by the Committee on Standards would effectively mean that there is one process for ICGP cases and a different one for non-ICGP cases.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

As the right hon. Lady knows, we have agreed on nearly everything in the report. On this issue, however, I wish to put on record that I did not agree with the position of the group, which was to say that we did not want the amendment tabled by the Committee on Standards. Consistency is not the most important issue, and the optics of this House rolling back transparency are deeply worrying. I would far rather live with a bit of inconsistency, particularly since it essentially means that—quite rightly—MPs are under more of a spotlight. That to me is a much lesser concern than the fact that it looks to the outside world—indeed, to some extent it is true—that we are rolling back transparency at exactly the time we should be expanding it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for her considerable efforts on this scheme but, very respectfully, I disagree with her on that point. She and I have had a number of conversations about the matter, and we have always been clear that the confidentiality at the heart of this policy must be observed so that a complainant will have the confidence to come forward. As I am sure Members will appreciate, a difference in process between ICGP and non-ICGP cases will be lost on those who observe it, which will inevitably lead to confusion. People will not think, “Oh well, this procedure must be for one issue, and that must be for another issue.” They will just see the naming of an individual, and that will have repercussions for those who want to come forward in confidence to a complaints procedure, feeling that their confidentiality will be upheld.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Westminster is the first Parliament anywhere in the world to have tackled bullying, harassment and sexual harassment so comprehensively, and huge progress has been made towards making this place a safer, more respectful and more equal environment. I join those who have thanked all members of the working group for their contributions. In particular, I pay tribute to its chair, the Leader of the House, for her commitment to change, her leadership and her seemingly unending patience. I also want to thank the secretariat, our special advisers, the staff representatives on the group, and those who came to speak to us on behalf of their trade unions to increase our understanding of the issues we were seeking to address. As others have said, more than anyone else we need to thank those who were brave enough to come forward and put in the public domain the kind of experiences they have had to go through, because that has been a driving force for all of us to work with the urgency and commitment that we have.

The report, and its policy and procedures, are really important steps, and it is welcome that we have built in from the outset mechanisms to ensure this is the start rather than the end of an ongoing process—others have referred to those. Although we are rightly celebrating what we have achieved, we must be mindful of what more there is still to do. I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me if I concentrate on the areas where I think we have further to go, rather than simply celebrating what we have achieved. That is not because I do not think we have achieved a lot, but if we are to be the best we can be, we still have a bit of a way to go.

I wish to start by discussing making the final stages of the new system more independent—truly independent. I know that every effort has been made to guarantee independence at the point when reports are made and investigations are carried out. I hope that that will give everyone in Westminster renewed confidence in the system, and that all bullying, harassment and sexual harassment will be treated with the seriousness and objectivity to which all workplaces should aspire.

The principle of full independence is still somewhat undermined by allowing MPs to play a role in final decision making about serious complaints involving colleagues. The motion goes some way towards addressing that, for example by recommending that lay members of the Standards Committee are allowed an indicative vote, but the final decision to trigger the recall of an MP will still be subject to a vote of the House of Commons and, at least as it stands, lay members of the Committee still do not have full parity with MPs. I note with much approval that the Chair of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), is in favour of looking again at the role of lay members and has put on record that he is in favour of primary legislation to establish the absolutely equality of lay members in a Standards Committee vote.

Some aspects of the process are still left in the hands of MPs. One of the obstacles to further reform and making the system genuinely independent was concern that an MP might launch legal action if someone unelected had a say in a recall decision. I remain of the view that, with the right political will, that and other objections could be overcome. Recall rightly leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of the electorate, so a mechanism that, for example, gave the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards the power in some instances to trigger the recall process herself, could offer a way for MPs to be further removed from the process. I appreciate that that is a radical proposal and I do not expect it to find agreement in the House at the moment, but to my mind it is the logical consequence when we say, again and again, that MPs should not mark their own homework. Only such a radical proposal would ultimately ensure genuine independence from party political influence from start to finish.

I very much hope that the possibilities I have outlined, and others, to build on what has been achieved to date will be reviewed as a priority, because staff otherwise risk continuing to lose out through a system that still protects MPs just that little bit more. That risk is also there when it comes to the handling of historical complaints. It is important to be clear that the new independent inquiry will hear reports of historical complaints. The new system will allow those affected to access emotional support and signposting to next steps. That will mostly be either to party political grievance mechanisms, the police or, in the case of House staff, the previous Respect policy. It is widely agreed, however, that the Respect policy was not fit for purpose in respect of such issues. Historical complaints referred to the new process cannot result in outcomes or sanctions other than those that were permissible at the time of the incident. That is even more the case for behaviours that have clearly always been wrong, such as sexual harassment or bullying, but which Respect has been shown to be unable to deal with fairly.

Staff employed by MPs were never covered by Respect, and those not employed by their party have no prior system to have recourse to in the case of a historical complaint, if they seek more than the opportunity to be heard and to get emotional support. Those employed by political parties have that route but, as we know, there are signs that the promises made by every political party to get their own houses in order have not yet been properly fulfilled. In other words, the decision to impose an arbitrary 2017 cut-off point for historical complaints, alongside the independent inquiry, does not take us far enough. It leaves many people still unable fully to resolve their historical complaints.

There are some important and potentially game-changing provisions in the new policy and procedures, including those allowing multiple offenders to be identified and pre-2017 allegations to be referenced if a live case involves the same parties. But we should not let those real positives cloud the fact that some staff continue to be let down. The working group received legal advice noting the increasing difficulty of delivering fairness the further back in time one goes. That is true, but the advice also made it clear that, if there was enough political will, ways could be found to accommodate that. In some instances, for example, there may be written evidence that makes wrongdoing very clear. I hope that the six-month review will look again at the 2017 cut-off date and that historical allegations will come before whatever group is set up to look into allegations, because I do not think we have got it quite right yet.

Let me say a few words about promoting long-term cultural change. Although some voluntary measures have been put in place, reforms that will deliver real and meaningful culture change, such as compulsory consent training and meaningful good employer training for all MPs and peers, have been delayed until after the next election. Apparently, the justification is that nobody knew when they stood for election that they would have to undertake such training. To that I say that nobody knew that when they came to work in Parliament they might have to put up with furniture being thrown at them or being groped. Action after the next election—probably in 2022—is better than never, and Parliament’s committing to taking action at all obviously sends a powerful and positive signal, but it is still hugely frustrating that there is not more understanding of how a culture of mutual respect and accountability benefits everyone. I hope that that time will come, because we urgently need a politics that is more equal, transparent and ethical —one that tackles all kinds of bullying and harassment, and which in particular moves us beyond #MeToo and #TimesUp by helping to dismantle privilege and what are all too often male-dominated hierarchies. That will be possible only if we keep up the pressure and continue to face up to ongoing obstacles to change, which are, in too many instances, vested interests and political self-interest.

If we want genuine confidence in the new system and the ongoing commitment to transforming the Westminster culture, we need to signal clearly that we want to continue to learn and improve, and we also need to be less risk averse. This is about leadership and setting an example. We need continued bold action, and if there are fears that that will upset some of our more regressive colleagues, so be it, frankly. The new behaviour code, by which all of Westminster will be expected to abide, asks that individuals recognise their power, influence and authority and do not abuse them. I would have liked that to be included in the motion, as it goes to the heart of what we need to see.

Finally, let me address the amendment with which we are all grappling as we try to work out the best way forward. Let me say loudly and clearly that if I thought for a moment that by deleting the part of paragraph (4) of the motion proposed in the amendment we would in any way put at risk the confidentiality of victims in ICGP cases, I would not support it, but I do not believe that that is the case. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that, in a sense, we are in a position of trying to weigh up options when none of them are optimal. None of them absolutely gives us everything that we want regarding a firm guarantee of confidence and confidentiality for victims. Right from the start of my involvement in this process, I have been among the foremost of people saying that individuals should have their confidence respected. That has to be the bottom line. I do not believe that the amendment would undermine that.

What is at stake is the issue of whether consistency is more important than transparency. To my mind, transparency is more important in this instance. Consistency is nice to have, but I think we can explain why there is a difference between the way in which we treat someone who fiddles their expenses or who fiddles paperclips, and the way in which we treat people who have made allegations of sexual harassment and bullying, with follow-up investigations. We can explain that inconsistency an awful lot more easily than I would find explaining why we were rolling back on transparency. I do not think this is about optics versus the protection of victims—if I thought that, I hope everybody would know that I would of course have the protection of victims as the overall objective—but I do share the sneaking suspicion voiced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that there are perhaps other forces at play that are leading us in this direction. I have no evidence of that either, but it feels like that is the more likely explanation for why we find ourselves in this difficult position.

I shall continue to listen to the debate, and particularly to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because she seems to be on top of the Standing Orders, but from what I have heard so far, I do not believe that the Standards Committee’s amendment would undermine victim confidentiality. If I did believe that for one moment, I would not support it.