Conclusions and recommendations
Proposed changes to the Code of Conduct
1.We have decided that the Behaviour Code, if approved by the House, should also be incorporated into the Code of Conduct. We propose that this should be done by inviting the House to make two modifications to the Code of Conduct:
- To insert the following new paragraph in Section IV (General Principles of Conduct [which would be renamed “General Principles of Conduct and Behaviour”], following existing paragraph 8):
Parliamentary Behaviour Code
Members will also be expected to observe the principles set out in the Parliamentary Behaviour Code: respect, professionalism, understanding others’ perspectives, courtesy, and acceptance of responsibility.
- To add a new Rule in Section V (Rules of Conduct) following existing paragraph 16:
A Member shall treat his or her staff and all those working for or with Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect. (Paragraph 13)
The role of the Commissioner
2.We believe that, in order to ensure that investigation processes are robust and consistent, the Commissioner should be involved in oversight of all investigations into Members’ conduct under the ICGP, as well as being involved in drawing up the protocols that will govern how those investigations are carried out. (Paragraph 17)
The role of the Committee
3.It is desirable, on grounds of fairness and natural justice, for the new system to include provision for ‘appeal’ by each party (the complainant and the subject of complaint). If the Commissioner, as we propose, has oversight of investigations into Members, it follows that she will not be appropriately placed to carry out an ‘appeal’ function. It would be logical for this function to be carried out by the Committee, as it is in relation to existing complaints of breaches of the Code of Conduct. (Paragraph 26)
4.We recommend that the Standing Orders of the House be amended to entrench ‘indicative votes’ in the rules of the House. (Paragraph 35)
5.We recommend that the Government bring forward primary legislation to guarantee that free speech in the Committee is protected by parliamentary privilege in order to allow the extension of full voting rights to lay members. (Paragraph 36)
Anonymity and confidentiality
6.We wish to see the following provisions apply in respect of confidentiality:
- Not every case accepted for investigation will reach the level where a remedy is required; in those cases there will not be any announcement of the investigation.
- Even where an investigation takes place and the Commissioner is involved in resolving it, the investigation will not be announced until its conclusion.
- At that stage a summary of the facts and findings will be published; in deciding on the contents of this, the Commissioner will pay careful attention to the sensitivities and wishes of the complainant.
- In truly exceptional circumstances, the Commissioner may disclose some information before the case has been concluded, either to other agencies, if this is needed in order to protect the interests of vulnerable people, or more generally, if she suspects that a Member is a serial harasser or bully.
- We do not believe that the party whips should be supplied with any confidential information relating to an upheld complaint; they will have access to any published information, and should not have privileged access to information that other third parties do not see.
- Where cases are serious enough to be referred to the Committee, or if they go to the Committee on appeal, the Committee will publish a report to the House, with the complainant anonymized and subject to any redactions the Committee considers necessary to protect the complainant’s privacy. (Paragraph 40)
7.We have considered the Steering Group’s proposal that the current practice of publishing on the Commissioner’s website details of all ongoing investigations (i.e. into complaints of breaches of the existing Code of Conduct) should be reconsidered.(Paragraph 41)
8.We are not persuaded that a change in practice would be desirable.(Paragraph 42)
9.We do not regard the proposal that the Committee should put before the House motions calling for the expulsion or suspension of a Member, without any supporting detail and without opportunity for debate, as being compatible with natural justice, or likely to command the support of the House. For similar reasons we reject the proposal that the power to impose severe sanctions, such as suspension or expulsion of a Member, should be delegated to the Committee, with no further reference to the House, and with the Committee’s decision and the reasons for it remaining confidential. It is the strong and unanimous view of the Committee that these proposals are unacceptable because they would undermine public confidence in the new system by giving the impression that decisions were being taken by Members in secret, “dodgy deals” were being struck or a Member being judged by a “kangaroo court”. We understand the laudable motives behind these proposals − to protect complainants and ensure the independence of the system − but do not believe they are workable or fair. They would indeed raise a significant prospect of a successful challenge to the House’s procedures at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. (Paragraph 44)
10.We hope, therefore, as an alternative to these original proposals from the Steering Group, that the House will be invited to approve a new system based on the proposals we set out in paragraphs 26, 27, 37 and 40 above, i.e. with the Committee providing the element of appeal in relation to complaints against Members, and the ultimate decision on sanctions in serious cases being taken by the House itself on the basis of a report on the case from the Committee, with the complainant anonymized and subject to any redactions the Committee considers necessary to protect the complainant. (Paragraph 45)
Conclusion
11.We believe that we have set out in this Report a pragmatic and robust contribution to creating an independent, fair, trusted and effective system for tackling bullying and harassment, and sexual harassment, by Members of Parliament. We know that further work is under way by the Steering Group and its associated workstreams to work out in more detail how the proposals will be implemented. We have not yet seen the motions which the Leader of the House will shortly be putting before the House relating to the ICGP. However, we believe that there is only one significant area where our view differs from that of the Steering Group, that of publication arrangements in the case of breaches of the existing Code of Conduct (see paragraphs 38 to 43 above). On that issue we hope that a means will be found for the House to be given the opportunity to take a final decision on a motion clearly and explicitly setting out the proposed change to existing practice. Whatever the House’s decision, on that and on other matters of ICGP implementation, we will use our best efforts to carry out the will of the House. We very much welcome the vigorous action which has been taken by the Working Group and its successor the Steering Group to ensure that the high standards of personal conduct which we, and we believe the vast majority of our colleagues, expect of all Members of Parliament are demonstrated and supported by an effective framework of guidance, and where necessary investigation and sanction, so that we are each and every one of us held fully accountable for any lapse from those standards. We look forward to helping to implement the new system.(Paragraph 46)
Published: 13 July 2018