1 A revised Respect
Policy
The background
1. Employers have a duty of care to
their employees, both as a contractual obligation and a statutory
duty. This duty of care includes protecting employees from bullying
and harassment, even when the behaviour comes from persons over
whom the employer has no direct control (for example, third parties).[1]
Measures and policies to protect employees from bullying and harassment
are a common way to ensure that employers fulfil their contractual
obligations and their statutory duties to their employees: their
existence does not mean that an employer has a problem. As well
as fulfilling their statutory duties, most employers are keen
to foster a good working environment where all workers are treated
with dignity and respect. The House of Commons is no different
from any other employer in this regard.
2. The House of Commons Commission employs
staff of the House including Committee secretariats, procedural
advisers, finance officials, cleaners and chefs. It does not employ
Members or Members' staff, although Members, their staff and staff
of the House of Commons work closely together. In June 2011 the
House of Commons Commission, as the statutory employer of House
of Commons staff agreed such a policy—the "Respect
Policy"—to deal with possible bullying and harassment
by Members or their staff towards House of Commons staff.[2]
That policy had two facets: an informal procedure and a more formal
procedure. The expectation was that there would not be many cases,
and the majority of those cases would be dealt with using the
informal procedure. It was hoped that ensuring particular issues
were properly and promptly identified would in itself lead to
their resolution.
3. The formal procedure was to be used
only when the informal procedure had not provided a suitable solution,
or where the House of Commons staff felt that informal rectification
would not be appropriate because of the seriousness of the alleged
behaviour. In such circumstances a senior House of Commons official
would investigate the case and issue a report. If the case was
upheld then the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the Respect
Policy (who is also a senior House of Commons official) would
seek to resolve the matter in conjunction with the relevant party
Whip and the relevant Member (either as the person who was found
to have behaved inappropriately or as the Member responsible for
the staff member who had been found to have behaved inappropriately).
If this could not be done, then the matter would be escalated
to the Members Estimate Committee.[3]
4. Although well intentioned, in practice
there were at least two flaws in the formal part of the Respect
Policy:
· investigations
were undertaken by a House of Commons official, who might be considered
to have an interest; and
· Members
had no right of appeal if a complaint was upheld while staff could
appeal if it was dismissed.
The House of Commons Commission accordingly
decided to suspend the formal part of the procedure in November
2012, although the informal mechanisms remain in place, and have
been used successfully in the small number of cases where they
have been invoked.
A renewed Respect Policy
5. The House of Commons Commission has
been considering what should replace the suspended part of the
policy, and the Committee on Standards has participated in that
process. The Chair of the Committee on Standards discussed the
issue of a future Respect Policy with the House of Commons Commission
on 15 July 2013.[4] The
Committee was involved because of the need for there to be effective
sanctions, if necessary. In October 2013 the Chair wrote to the
Speaker noting that:
In principle, if the Commission
wishes, we will consider how a system might operate in which,
if resolution is not possible by other means, and if the complaint
is sufficiently grave, cases are referred to the Commissioner
for Standards for investigation and the Committee for adjudication.[5]
On 21 October 2013 the House of Commons
Commission agreed to invite the Committee to consider how a system
might operate in which, if resolution was not possible by other
means, and if the complaint was sufficiently grave, allegations
of harassment or bullying towards House staff might be referred
to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for investigation
and to the Committee on Standards for adjudication.[6]
After the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had consulted
her colleagues in other jurisdictions, the Committee drew upon
her advice and agreed a consultation paper on possible changes
to the Respect Policy, which was sent to all Members and to other
stakeholders, including the relevant trade unions. We received
three responses to that consultation paper.[7]
6. We wrote to the Speaker in February
2014 with the conclusions of our consultation identifying some
concerns which we discuss at paragraphs 11 to 19 of this Report.
We indicated that we wished to see a further draft policy before
coming to a final view.
7. In March 2014 the House of Commons
Commission agreed a further draft of the Respect Policy and the
unions were consulted upon it. We understand that the Unions consider
the revised Respect Policy "as a basis for an effective and
proportionate policy".[8]
What will the new Respect Policy
look like?
8. The new Respect Policy is appended
to this Report (Appendix 1). It will not be retrospective. It
will only consider complaints made after the House agrees this
Report. It now has four stages, rather than two:
Stage one:
internal resolution (issue raised and possible mediation)
Stage two:
internal resolution (formal grievance meeting)
Stage three:
Commissioner for Standards (consideration)
Stage four:
Commissioner for Standards (investigation and possible referral
to the Committee on Standards)
9. Informal processes are strengthened
in the revised policy to ensure that all means of resolution have
been exhausted before a complaint is escalated to the later stages
of the policy. This includes a requirement for proper management
engagement at an early stage, and a provision for external mediation
on the face of the policy.[9]
10. The new policy deals with the concerns
we raised with the House of Commons Commission, and which we now
detail.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY
11. The effective functioning of the
Respect Policy relies on line managers in the House taking their
management responsibilities seriously. The Respect Policy is not,
nor should it be, a means by which line managers can shirk their
management responsibilities, either to protect their staff or
to introduce a sense of perspective if minor matters are blown
out of proportion.
12. The SRO for the Respect Policy informed
us that there is a:
far greater emphasis on management
ownership of the policy. The role of management in trying to tackle
issues early on and taking responsibility is much more explicit
in the current policy than in its predecessor. Heads of department
have to engage with complaints as soon as they are escalated rather
than relying on more junior officials. Explicit provision is made
for mediation and the Management Board has confirmed that this
will be funded where necessary.[10]
We consider that the revised Respect
Policy explicitly places management obligations on line managers
and involves them in the process from the outset.
STAFF TRAINING
13. Line managers need training to ensure
that they are equipped to undertake their responsibilities. The
SRO for the Respect Policy was able to offer us assurances that
the House of Commons Commission were taking this issue seriously,
and:
has agreed financial provision for
this in the current financial year; modifications to existing
management programmes have already been made, and some staff have
already received revised customer training; and new trainers will
be in place by the early autumn for a comprehensive House-wide
training programme. In addition, the business manager for each
House department has been asked to nominate areas ('hotspots')
where there is greater potential for problems to arise and these
will be the priority for the new training team.[11]
We are aware that such training has
already been provided to large numbers of staff across the House
service, and there are plans for more. We are reassured by the
guarantees given by the House of Commons Commission and the SRO.
SCOPE OF COMMISSIONER'S REMIT
14. It is necessary that only cases
which cannot be dealt with using internal resolution processes
are referred to the Commissioner for consideration, and investigated
by her only if she thinks such an inquiry appropriate. We note
that:
· The policy makes clear that
it is a matter for the Commissioner whether she investigates any
case and that there is no right of appeal against her decision.
· Complaints [by House of Commons
staff] deemed to be made maliciously will be dealt with under
existing disciplinary procedures (paragraph 3.7).[12]
15. We also note that the bar for the
Commissioner accepting complaints for investigation is a very
high one. The alleged behaviour would have to have the potential
to "cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity
of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally".[13]
We are satisfied that this bar is appropriate. Matters which are
less serious than this should be able to be dealt with using internal
processes.
FAIRNESS
16. The Respect Policy needs to be fair,
and needs to be seen to be fair. As we noted earlier in the Report,
one of the criticisms of the previous policy was that Members
and their staff did not have the same rights of appeal as House
of Commons' staff.[14]
It would be a serious flaw if the revised Respect Policy failed
to overcome this criticism.
17. We are satisfied that the Respect
Policy is fair to all parties given that, "there is no right
to appeal against decisions of the Commissioner/Committee for
any party, nor any other distinction in the relative rights of
Members and staff".[15]
The decision about whether or not to investigate is taken by the
Commissioner, who is independent of both House management and
of Members. Her fixed term, non-renewable contract acts as a safeguard
of that independence in all her investigations, however sensitive.
CONFIDENTIALITY
18. The previous Commissioner agreed
a Procedure for Inquiries with the Committee on Standards
and Privileges which is published on the Commissioner's webpages.[16]
That procedure requires a high degree of confidentiality when
investigations are in progress, but does require the Commissioner
to release the name and a summary of the complaint against any
Member she is investigating when her webpages are regularly updated.
The Commissioner has proposed a revised Procedure for Inquiries
under the Respect Policy, noting the need for Respect Policy cases
to be treated differently to other cases considered by the Commissioner,
in order to maintain a higher degree of confidentiality.
19. We agree with the Commissioner's
assessment of the need for enhanced confidentiality in cases brought
under the Respect Policy. The policy we have agreed with the Commissioner
to deal with such complaints is appended to this Report (Appendix
3). As the revised Respect Policy states, confidentiality "gives
the process the greatest chance of success".[17]
Respect Policy proceedings deal with interpretations of personal
behaviour and relate to the reputations both of the staff concerned
and the relevant Member. Nonetheless, as the revised Respect Policy
states:
any Memorandum submitted by [the
Commissioner] to the Committee on Standards will normally be published
by the Committee at the conclusion of its proceedings, together
with its findings. This will include the names of the individuals
directly involved in the issues covered by the Memorandum, subject
to the Committee's right to redact evidence if it considers this
appropriate.[18]
We agree. This provides both the complainant
and Member involved with suitable protection, while also ensuring
appropriate transparency.
Conclusion
20. We are grateful to the House of
Commons Commission for responding to our concerns in the revised
Respect Policy. We are satisfied that the revised Respect Policy
is fair to Members and House of Commons staff; has a clear process
for investigation; provides both sides with the opportunity to
put their case; and provides sanctions for improper behaviour.
21. If the new policy is effective,
complaints should be resolved at an early stage. Indeed, it is
possible there will in practice be no role for the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards. Nonetheless,
there needs to be an effective mechanism in place to deal with
serious problems. The partial suspension of the current Respect
Policy has left the House without such a mechanism for a significant
period. While it was necessary to consider its replacement carefully,
there should now be as little delay as possible.
22. We
are content for the House of Commons Commission to conclude an
agreement with the unions based on the draft Respect Policy. We
recommend that the Commission in conjunction with the Committee
on Standards reviews the operation of the policy in the next Parliament,
and should have the power to renew or suspend it.
23. The change is however significant,
and we recommend that the House be given the opportunity to endorse
these proposals, including the power of the successor House of
Commons Commission to decide whether to continue or suspend the
policy, by agreeing to this Report. If the Report is agreed,
consequential changes will need to be made to the section in the
Guide to the Rules setting out the procedure for inquiries. When
the Guide to the Rules is next reprinted, the Committee will make
any necessary consequential changes to the Guide to the Rules
to reflect that there will be a distinct procedure for Respect
Policy cases due to their sensitivity. A decision by the House
on the outstanding changes to the Guide recommended by the Committee
on Standards and Privileges in December 2012 is long overdue and
needs to be made in good time before the 2015 General Election.[19]
1 The Equality Act 2010 states that in order for behaviour
to be regarded as harassment it must have occurred on more than
two occasions (though it does not have to be from the same third
party); and the employer must have failed to have taken steps
which "would have been reasonably practicable to prevent
the third party" from behaving as they did and which would
prevent recurrence. Back
2
House of Commons, Respect Policy, March 2011 Back
3
The Members Estimate Committee has the same membership as the
House of Commons Commission and was set up under Standing Order
No. 152D to have oversight of the House of Commons Members fund. Back
4
House of Commons Commission, Decisions 15 July 2013 Back
5
Letter from the Chair of the Committee on Standards to the House
of Commons Commission, dated 16 October 2013 Back
6
House of Commons Commission, Decisions 21 October 2013 Back
7
The Committee's consultation document and the submissions it
received are available on the Committee's website: www.parliament.uk/standards.
One of those three responses was received in confidence and is
therefore not published in any form. Back
8
Appendix 2 Back
9
Appendix 1, paras 7.1-7.4 Back
10
Appendix 2, para 6 Back
11
Appendix 2, para 7 Back
12
Appendix 2, para 3 Back
13
House of Commons, The Code of Conduct together with The Guide
to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members: 2012, Session
2010-12, HC 1885, para 16 Back
14
See paragraph 4. Back
15
Appendix 2, para 2 Back
16
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Procedural note
on the Procedure for Inquiries, April 2012 Back
17
Appendix 1, para 14.1 Back
18
Appendix 1, para 14.4 Back
19
Committee on Standards and Privileges, Third Report of Session
2012-13, Proposed Revisions to the Guide to the Rules relating
to the conduct of Members, HC 636 Back
| 
