Appendix 2: Letter from John
Benger, current SRO for the Respect Policy, dated 8 May 2014
Updated revised draft Respect
Policy
Dear Sir Kevin
Your Committee, having completed its
consultation, concluded that it needed a detailed draft policy
to be available for consultation with the unions. Only once that
was in place did your Committee wish to review its role and that
of the Commissioner for Standards.
The House of Commons Commission, at
its meeting on 10th March, reviewed a draft revised policy and
was content that this should go forward for consultation with
the unions. The Commission proposed no revisions to the draft.
The consultation with the unions is now concluded and the unions
have now advised me that they are content with the wording of
the policy and see it as a basis for an effective and proportionate
policy. I enclose herewith the draft policy, as agreed by the
Commission and the unions.
In terms of the conditions set out in
your Committee's letter to the Speaker and elsewhere, I hope I
can provide some reassurance.
To take each of the items raised in
your consultation:
2) One response asked whether this superseded
the previous Respect policy or added another layer to it.
· The new policy replaces the
previous policy.
3) One response noted that it was unfair
for House staff to investigate complaints against Members and
for staff to have a right of appeal when no right applied to Members.
· The new policy does not require
House staff to investigate complaints against Members.
· 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.
4) You requested clarity about the fact
the Commissioner will only consider serious allegations. The Committee's
paper noted "the Commissioner could be expected to investigate
either complaints that there had been a single very serious incident,
or complaints involving repeated incidents or a sustained and
damaging pattern of behaviour. She would not be concerned by a
brusque response in a highly charged situation."
· The policy explicitly states
as a general principle that "the majority of cases will be
resolved informally".
· The actual wording of the
Committee in terms of "brusque responses" etc is now
on the face of the policy at paragraph 5.3 and again at 9.3.
· 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 deemed to be made
maliciously will be dealt with under disciplinary procedures (paragraph
3.7).
5) I note that as set out in the Committee's
consultation paper:
[…] any material generated specifically
for the purpose of a Commissioner's investigation or a Committee
report would not be usable in any subsequent employment tribunal,
since such investigations and reports are proceedings in Parliament
and there is a statutory bar on impeaching or questioning them
in legal proceedings. The fact that the House did have a process
to deal with complaints about a Member's behaviour which could
not otherwise be resolved would be a matter of record.
6) Elsewhere, the Committee and the
Commissioner sought assurances that management was taking seriously
its responsibilities and not simply passing the buck; and that
the policy should form only part of a wider exercise to improve
Member/ House staff relations by the provision of appropriate
training.
7) The Committee will note the 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.
8) In terms of training, as I have already
indicated to the Committee, the Management Board of the House
of Commons 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.
9) Please let me know if you need anything
further from me.
| 
