HC 321

House of Commons

Committee on Standards

Respect Policy

First Report of Session 2014–15

HC 321 Published on 18 June 2014

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£0.00

House of Commons

Committee on Standards

Respect Policy

First Report of Session 2014–15

Report, together with appendices and formal minutes relating to the report

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 June 2014

The Committee on Standards

The Committee on Standards is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.

Current membership

Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) Mr Robert Buckland MP (Conservative, South Swindon) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Rt Hon Mr Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Sharon Darcy (Lay Member) Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) Sir Nick Harvey MP (Liberal Democrat, North Devon) Fiona O’Donnell MP (Labour, East Lothian) Mr Peter Jinman (Lay Member) Mr Walter Rader (Lay Member) Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) The following were also Members of the Committee during the Parliament: Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Powers

The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No. 149. In particular, the Committee has power to order the attendance of any Member of Parliament before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before the Committee. The Committee has power to refuse to allow its public proceedings to be broadcast. The Law Officers, if they are Members of Parliament, may attend and take part in the Committee’s proceedings, but may not vote.

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: http://www.parliament.uk/standards

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Eve Samson (Clerk), Danielle Nash (Second Clerk) and Miss Christine McGrane (Committee Assistant).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Committee on Standards, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6615

Respect Policy 1

Contents

Report Page

1 A revised Respect Policy 3 The background 3 A renewed Respect Policy 4 What will the new Respect Policy look like? 5

Management responsibility 5 Staff training 6 Scope of Commissioner’s remit 6 Fairness 7 Confidentiality 7

Conclusion 8

Formal Minutes 9

Appendix 1: Revised Respect Policy 10

Appendix 2: Letter from John Benger, current SRO for the Respect Policy, dated 8 May 2014 20

Appendix 3: Commissioner’s Procedure for Inquiries 22

Published written evidence 30

Respect Policy 3

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

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.

2 House of Commons, Respect Policy, March 2011

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.

4 Respect Policy

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.

4 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 15 July 2013

5 Letter from the Chair of the Committee on Standards to the House of Commons Commission, dated 16 October 2013

6 House of Commons Commission, Decisions 21 October 2013

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.

Respect Policy 5

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

8 Appendix 2

9 Appendix 1, paras 7.1–7.4

10 Appendix 2, para 6

6 Respect Policy

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.

11 Appendix 2, para 7

12 Appendix 2, para 3

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

Respect Policy 7

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

14 See paragraph 4.

15 Appendix 2, para 2

16 Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Procedural note on the Procedure for Inquiries, April 2012

17 Appendix 1, para 14.1

18 Appendix 1, para 14.4

8 Respect Policy

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

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

Respect Policy 9

Formal Minutes

Tuesday 10 June 2014

Members present:

Kevin Barron, in the Chair

Sir Paul Beresford Mr Robert Buckland Mr Christopher Chope Sharon Darcy Sir Nick Harvey

Mr Peter Jinman Mr Walter Rader Fiona O’Donnell Heather Wheeler Dr Alan Whitehead

Draft Report (Respect Policy), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 7 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 8 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 9 to 23 read and agreed to.

Three papers were appended to the Report.

Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House.

None of the lay members present wished to submit an opinion on the Report (S.O. No. 149 (9))

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for publishing on the internet:

RP 01 Unite the union

RP 02 FDA

[Adjourned till Tuesday 24 June at 9.30 am

10 Respect Policy

Appendix 1: Revised Respect Policy

1. Introduction 1.1. This section explains what is expected of relationships between House staff and Members and their staff. It covers:

• the aims of the Respect policy;

• the principles which should be followed;

• definitions of what may constitute bullying and harassment should this arise;

• the procedures to be followed should you feel you have been bullied or harassed by a Member or their staff;

• further information on where to go for help and advice.

1.2. The policy does not apply in respect of alleged harassment or bullying by House staff in relation to other House staff—that is dealt with under the Valuing Others policy 1. Any complaints from Members about the conduct of House staff should be addressed in the first instance to a manager of the member of staff concerned.

1.3. The policy was agreed by the House of Commons Commission in […] 2014. A guide to this policy for Members is available.

2. Aims of the policy 2.1. Members, their staff, and House staff work together to make the House of Commons function effectively. This work is typically undertaken in a constructive manner and there is clear commitment on the part of the House of Commons Commission and Management Board to ensuring that everyone is, at all times, treated with dignity, courtesy and respect.

2.2. However, as in any workplace, conflict, disagreements or disputes may occasionally arise. This policy aims to ensure that any workplace conflict is handled promptly, fairly and effectively. Should problems arise, the policy sets out the process for managing those situations where House staff feel that they have experienced unacceptable behaviour on the part of Members or their staff.

3. Principles 3.1. House staff, Members and their staff are all expected to treat each other with dignity, courtesy and respect.

3.2. If any problems arise with Members or their staff, the expectation under this policy is that the majority of cases will be resolved informally. Where, however, the matter cannot be resolved informally, the policy includes provisions for raising and dealing with the matter formally.

3.3. Staff who believe they have been subject to such behaviour which they are unable to resolve quickly themselves, or who are unsure whether their situation is covered by this

1 http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-resources/STAFF%20HANDBOOK-%20April%202013.pdf

Respect Policy 11

policy, should in the first instance discuss this with their line manager, or another source of support and advice (See section 15).

3.4. Any complaints from staff of bullying or harassment on the part of Members or their staff will be taken seriously. Complaints may not be raised anonymously.

3.5. It will normally be in everyone’s interest to make every possible effort to resolve the issue at an informal stage. Where this is not possible or appropriate and where a formal complaint is made to management, this will be treated as a grievance. However, given the special circumstances in these cases, the procedures in this section must be followed rather than those in Chapter 21 of the Staff Handbook.

3.6. Managers have a clear responsibility to understand the issue being complained about, to seek to resolve the problem informally where possible and appropriate, to ensure that the Member concerned has an opportunity to give their comments and to ensure that actions are taken where necessary to deal with any factors which impact on the situation or the well-being of their staff.

3.7. Any complaints must be made in good faith. While employees will be fully supported when they are involved in raising concerns of harassment or bullying, complaints that are found to have been made maliciously will be dealt with under disciplinary procedures.

3.8. Any complaints must be dealt with confidentially at all times. They should only be discussed with managers and those who are legitimately involved in the process, such as HR.

3.9 Any workplace conflict will be handled promptly, fairly and effectively without undue delay.

3.10. The Management Board will monitor statistics relating to this policy, including the number and outcome of complaints raised, but sensitive information such as the identities of complainants will not be passed on.

4. Definitions of harassment and bullying 4.1. Guidance on harassment and bullying can be found in Chapter 6, Section 4 of the staff handbook. This follows guidance provided by The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) to employers and employees about the effective management of bullying and harassment at work.

4.2. Definitions of both bullying and harassment as well as some examples of what such unacceptable behaviour might involve are set out below.

Bullying: may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.

Harassment: is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic (i.e. age, sex, race or nationality, disability, religion and belief, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, or sexual orientation), which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual.

12 Respect Policy

4.3. Possible examples of bullying and harassment based on the ACAS definitions of such behaviour include:

• Spreading malicious rumours or insulting someone

• Ridiculing or demeaning someone—picking on them or setting them up to fail

• Exclusion or victimisation

• Overbearing supervision or other misuse of power or position

• Unwelcome sexual advances—touching, standing too close, display of offensive material, asking for sexual favours, making decisions on the basis of sexual favours being accepted or rejected

• Deliberately undermining a worker by overloading and constant criticism

4.4. These definitions and examples should not be seen as exhaustive or overly prescriptive, and any allegations of bullying or harassment need to be considered in context. If you believe that you have been subject to bullying or harassment by a Member or their staff you should consider taking the steps set out in section 5.

5. Procedures 5.1. The following sections set out what you should do if you feel that a Member has behaved unacceptably.

What to do if you think you have been subject to bullying or harassment?

5.2. Early intervention is often the most effective way of resolving issues of bullying and harassment, and the majority of cases are likely to be resolved when they are first raised.

5.3. As a first step you will need to reflect on whether what you have experienced falls under the types of behaviour described in section 4. It is worth bearing in mind that the House of Commons, like many workplaces, is a pressurised environment and not every brusque response in a highly charged political situation constitutes bullying or harassment. If, however, you think that what you have experienced does constitute bullying or harassment, or you would like help in order to decide, you are strongly encouraged to consult one of the possible sources of help, support and advice available to you. Individual circumstances will vary, and it is important that you talk to someone you are comfortable discussing your situation with.

5.4. Within your department this might be your line manager, countersigning manager or the Head of your Department or it could be another Head of Department; alternatively (or in addition) you might want to talk to one or more of the range of other trained staff in the House. If you are a member of a trade union you might want to consult your union representative. These situations can be extremely stressful, so do not hesitate to contact the House’s welfare officers who can offer support and counselling.

5.5. To assist you as you do this you should write down anything you feel might be relevant to your complaint, recording as much information as you can about what occurred, where, when and any witnesses, and keeping copies of any relevant letters or emails, and you should continue to keep a record. You will generally want to avoid

Respect Policy 13

being alone with the person you believe is bullying/harassing you, and you should ask your manager for support in this where appropriate.

5.6. If you decide you want to take action about what has happened, the following procedure should be followed.

6. Internal resolution (stage 1) 6.1. The most effective way to deal with bullying and harassment is often by raising the issue with the person concerned and asking them to amend their behaviour towards you

• If you feel able to, approach the person concerned and make it clear that his or her behaviour towards you is unwelcome and you want it to stop. You can ask a colleague to accompany you

• Alternatively, write to the person concerned. Keep a copy of what you have written and any reply

• Another option is to ask a line manager2 to contact the person concerned on your behalf, to put your side of the story to them, to hear their response, and then to advise you on how best to proceed

6.2. Note that if the concern is about the behaviour of a Member’s staff, it may be more appropriate to raise the issue with the Member, who will in any event need to be involved if formal action is taken at a later stage.

6.3. In any of these approaches, you should set out exactly what the problem is, clearly and concisely. You should also be as objective and reasonable as possible.

6.4. The aim here should be to obtain a quick response, leading to a successful resolution of the situation. If you are satisfied with the response you have received there is no need to do anything further.

6.5. If the issue is not resolved immediately, you should inform your line manager of the problem (if they have not already been made aware or been involved in the initial actions), and tell them whether you wish to pursue the matter or take other advice.

6.6. Your line manager will consider the issue informally in consultation with you, the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO)3 for the policy or their deputy, HR4, the Member involved, and/or any other relevant person as necessary (see paragraph 15). In order to consider:

• whether any management action is needed to ensure that the legal requirements of duty of care for you and all employees are met, e.g. are there resourcing, capacity or other issues which need addressing; what support/protection is needed for you if appropriate;5

2 References in this guidance to a line manager or line management means immediate line manager or above.

3 The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) has overall responsibility for the Respect Policy. The current SRO for the policy is John Benger; in their absence matters can be referred to the Deputy SRO for the policy who is [TBC].

4 For the purposes of this document ‘HR’ refers to staff in the Department of Human Resources and Change.

Information on the relevant staff will be contained in separate management guidance.

5 Support available to Members will be included in separate guidance.

14 Respect Policy

• whether there are any direct interventions that can be taken, on a case by case basis, to resolve the problem e.g. discussion with Whips, Committee Chair (if appropriate) etc;

• whether mediation will help.

6.7. If some further action is considered to be required, the steps necessary will be taken by your line manager with you and the Member (or their staff) as appropriate, with a view to facilitating a resolution.

7. External mediation 7.1. A neutral third person—a trained mediator—can often help in situations where someone feels that they are being bullied or harassed. Mediation is a voluntary process where the mediator helps two (or more) people to find a solution that they can both agree. The mediator does not take sides or tell the parties what to do, nor do they make judgements about right or wrong.

7.2. Mediation can be used at any stage, but is often more effective if used early on. It is most likely to be successful if both parties understand what mediation involves, enter into the process voluntarily, and want to repair the working relationship. Mediation is encouraged as an effective resolution process wherever it is an appropriate action to take.

7.3. If mediation is considered to be an option, and both sides agree this would be helpful, the SRO for the policy will be consulted by your line manager or other senior manager dealing with the issue. The SRO will consider (in conjunction with you, HR, the Member concerned and your line management) whether the conditions for mediation are met. This includes whether both you and the Member concerned agree to it; whether the problem is appropriate for and capable of being resolved via a mediation process; whether there is a commitment on both sides to seeking resolution; etc. If it is a suitable option, then an external mediator agreeable to all parties will be engaged by HR and mediation action taken as appropriate. 6

7.4. If your complaint is not resolved via mediation or through other actions, you will need to consider whether to pursue your complaint further. If you wish to do so, you will move to the next stage.

8. Internal resolution (stage 2) 8.1. If you wish to pursue your complaint you will need to lodge a formal grievance in writing. For complaints raised under the Respect Policy, the following procedures should be used in place of those set out in the Grievances chapter in the Staff Handbook.

8.2. Your grievance should be addressed to the SRO for the policy and should include details of the complaint, with any supporting material if available. You should also set out what you wish to happen to resolve the matter. You can ask a colleague or your

6 Further information about mediation is available from your HR Business Partner and the HR Advisory Service. ACAS

also produce a guide about mediation, available at: www.acas.org.uk. If it is a suitable option, then an external

mediator agreeable to all parties will be engaged by HR and mediation action taken as appropriate.

Respect Policy 15

Trade Union Representative to help you with your letter and/or attend any follow-up meeting or hearing.

8.3. Managers should note that members of staff have the right to be accompanied by a Trade Union Representative or fellow employee of the House of Commons during paid working hours for any interview or hearing which forms part of the formal grievance procedure. Section 4.6 of Chapter 21 in the staff handbook explains the role they can play in these proceedings.

8.4. The SRO will decide, in consultation with HR, whether to handle the grievance personally or to nominate a Head of Department to do so either with him or alone.

8.5. The SRO or nominated Head of Department will invite you to a grievance hearing within 14 days of receipt of your grievance. The purpose of the grievance hearing is to listen to your grievance and to go through the issues with you. You will be given a minimum of seven calendar days’ notice, in writing, of the hearing, unless a shorter period is agreed.

8.6. An HR representative acting in an advisory capacity will normally attend formal meetings. A note of the meeting will be taken.

8.7. The person hearing the grievance will:

• hold the grievance meeting with you to consider the circumstances, any evidence available to support your complaint, the actions already taken and whether any further steps are possible to resolve the problem;

• confirm to the Member concerned (and their staff where appropriate) that a complaint has been made (which they should already be aware of from stage 1); provide them with a copy of the complaint made against them; and request their comments for consideration;

• if there are any witnesses, such as colleagues, ask them to supply evidence either face to face or in written format. On occasion witness statements may be given via telephone so that the process is not prolonged;

• consider (in consultation with HR and line management) whether any further management actions are required to meet duty of care requirements;

• consider whether the grievance is being made in good faith;

• take any appropriate steps to explore with you and the Member concerned (and others, on a case by case basis, eg Whips, Committee chair etc, assuming all parties are content with this approach) whether a resolution is possible in light of the meeting with you and any evidence gathered; and

• consider again whether mediation (or further mediation) is appropriate and if it is, and both parties agree, take action to put this in place.

8.8. When these actions are complete, the person hearing the grievance will:

• write to you setting out the issues you complained about, the actions taken to try and resolve the complaint, and confirming: the options and support available to you; any

16 Respect Policy

further actions to be taken; and any management decisions taken with regard to the grievance;

• write to the Member concerned (and their staff where appropriate) confirming the position on options/actions to resolve issues (eg an apology where appropriate) and any decisions taken by management such as alterations in staff complement or workstreams, training, mediation etc;

• ensure that any actions necessary and decisions are carried out.

• give you written notification of their decision within 14 calendar days of the date of the hearing.

8.9. If the grievance is still not resolved to your satisfaction and you wish to pursue it further, you have two options:

• if your dissatisfaction relates to decisions or actions taken by management during the internal resolution stages, then you can lodge an appeal with the SRO against the decisions/actions taken;

• if your dissatisfaction is specifically about the substance of your original allegation about a Member’s behaviour, then you can lodge a complaint with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards requesting an investigation (which should be notified to the SRO for information).

8.10. If you lodge an appeal against management decisions/actions, HR will decide who should deal with this. The grievance appeal procedure in Section 5 of Chapter 21 of the staff handbook will be followed. On conclusion of the appeal process, the person hearing it will notify all parties of the outcome and actions taken in light of further decisions or recommendations made. The decisions made at this point are final and there is no further right of appeal.7

8.11. If you decide to complain to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, you should proceed to the next stage, as detailed in section 9.

8.12. Note that the Commissioner can only consider complaints about the behaviour of a Member. If your complaint is about the behaviour of a Member’s staff, this would normally be dealt with separately by management action e.g. if appropriate and justified, to deny the individual access to House staff and services. The Commissioner would normally only consider a complaint relating to the behaviour of a Member’s staff if: the employee’s behaviour was itself unacceptable; the Member was aware of the problem; and had failed to intervene to prevent continued problems. In such cases, the complaint made would need to be against the Member concerned.

9. Commissioner for Standards—consideration (stage 3) Note: Procedures in this section are dependent on changes being agreed by the House to bring staff complaints within the remit of the Commissioner and some definition of which complaints are likely to be sufficiently serious for her to investigate.

7 The current Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is Kathryn Hudson

Respect Policy 17

9.1. You should submit your complaint to the Commissioner in writing with full details of the problem; any evidence available about what has happened (including copies of any correspondence on the issue); and setting out why this has not been resolved to your satisfaction.

9.2. The procedures relating to the role of the Commissioner are subject to parliamentary privilege.

9.3. The Commissioner will consider whether the complaint is within her remit and whether there is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation by her. This involves her considering whether the Member concerned has behaved in such a way as to breach the MPs’ Code of Conduct and that such a breach is sufficiently serious to cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House as a whole or of its Members generally. In practice, the Commissioner could only 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 complaint of a brusque response in a highly charged political situation.

9.4. The Commissioner may at this stage request further preliminary information, including confirmation from the SRO about: actions taken to date; any evidence and correspondence available which constitutes ‘relevant material’ for the Commissioner’s consideration; and that the earlier stages of this process have been properly completed. The Commissioner may also consult with other House staff as she sees fit (e.g. the Diversity and Inclusion team). She may decide to interview you and you may, at her discretion, be accompanied. The Commissioner will then decide whether or not to accept the complaint for investigation.

9.5. If a complaint is not accepted for an investigation, the Commissioner will write to you, the Member and the SRO to give her decision. At her discretion she may also make observations or recommendations, where for example she considers that further actions could be taken to resolve the matter. The Commissioner’s decision is final and there is no appeal process.

9.6. No further internal action in relation to the Member will be possible or appropriate following consideration by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

9.7. The SRO will decide (in consultation with HR and line management) whether any further management action is required in the light of the Commissioner’s decision and any comments she has made.

10. Commissioner for Standards—investigation (stage 4) Note: This section is again dependent on changes being agreed to by the House; and also the drawing up by the Commissioner of new procedures for investigating this category of complaint, agreed by the Committee on Standards

10.1. If the Commissioner accepts a complaint for investigation, she will decide how this should be conducted. This may include exchanges of correspondence, the gathering of witness statements and interviews with you, the Member concerned and any other relevant witnesses. If the Commissioner decides to interview you, you may, at the Commissioner’s discretion, be accompanied. The Commissioner may also draw on

18 Respect Policy

additional resources or expert advice as required—it is open to the Commissioner to commission such external advice if she thinks fit.

11. Complaint not upheld 11.1. If the Commissioner does not uphold the complaint she will write to you, the Member concerned and the SRO to give her decision. At her discretion she may also make observations or recommendations, where for example she considers that further actions could be taken to resolve the matter. The Commissioner’s decision is final and there is no appeal process.

11.2. No further internal action in relation to the Member will be possible or appropriate following consideration by the Commissioner for Standards.

11.3. The SRO will again decide (in consultation with HR and line management) whether any further management action is required in the light of the Commissioner’s decision and any comments she has made.

11.4. If the Commissioner concludes there may have been a breach of the MPs’ Code of Conduct, she will consider whether the matter can be appropriately resolved through a rectification process. If the Member accepts that he or she has breached the Code of Conduct and has apologised and/or taken any other appropriate action agreed by the Commissioner, the Commissioner may at her discretion ‘rectify’ the complaint without reference to the Committee. Appropriate rectification action might include, for example, an apology to you.

12. Complaint upheld 12.1. If the Commissioner considers that there has been a breach which is not suitable for the rectification procedure, or that her inquiry raises issues of wider importance, the Commissioner will normally report the facts and her conclusions in a Memorandum to the Committee on Standards for its consideration. This will set out the evidence for upholding the complaint; and the Commissioner’s view on how serious the breach is. [The Commissioner will give you and the Member an opportunity to comment on the factual parts of the Memorandum before it is finalised.]

13. Consideration by the Committee on Standards and/or the House 13.1. The Committee on Standards will review the Memorandum, decide on the appropriate course of action; and, if appropriate, report accordingly to the House under its normal procedures. [At its discretion it may wish to interview you and/or the Member as part of its consideration.] These procedures are subject to parliamentary privilege.

13.2. Note that you have no right to any involvement in the formal procedures of the House at this stage and will have no right of appeal against decisions taken by the Committee or the House. Proceedings will be published by the House in the normal way. If you have any questions about this you should consult the SRO for the policy.

13.3. No further internal action in relation to the Member will be possible or appropriate following consideration by the Committee or the House.

Respect Policy 19

13.4. The SRO will decide (in consultation with HR and line management) whether any further management action is required in the light of the Commissioner’s decision and any comments the Commissioner or the Committee have made.

14. Confidentiality 14.1. It is important that issues raised under this policy are treated confidentially and kept between those involved in resolving them. This gives the process the greatest chance of success and treats everyone involved with respect.

14.2. This means that you should only discuss your complaint with people in the context of trying to resolve the issues in line with the policy. These people must also treat the matter as confidential, as should anyone else who becomes involved in the process.

14.3. Complaints cannot be raised with Members anonymously. Some details, including your name, would need to be shared. This would only be to the extent needed to resolve the complaint, and would be discussed with you.

14.4. Any complaint made to the Commissioner for Standards will also be considered confidentially by her. However, any Memorandum submitted by her 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.

15. Where to go for help and advice 15.1. Various sources of guidance, support and advice are available to you if you need to make a complaint under this policy. The following internal people are available to help you in confidence:

• Line Manager: Your Line Manager, or other senior manager can be approached in confidence for advice. They may approach the other party on your behalf, or just act as a sounding board for you. Your Line Manager or another senior manager is often the best person to take these problems to initially.

• HR Advisory Service (extension 2358)

• The SRO for the Respect Policy (John Benger, extension 3622)

• Harassment and Bullying Contacts (HBCs) (formerly harassment support officers): HBCs provide a confidential support service to staff who feel they are being harassed or bullied at work (see chapter 6, paragraph 4.14 of the staff handbook for further details)

• Welfare Officer: a welfare service is offered which offers confidential counselling and support to staff (see chapter 5, section 3 of the staff handbook for further details)

• Trade Union Representative

• Member of the Diversity and Inclusion team (extension 1412)

20 Respect Policy

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”.

Respect Policy 21

• 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.

22 Respect Policy

Appendix 3: Commissioner’s Procedure for Inquiries

This procedural note is to assist those involved in cases investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards under the Respect Policy of the House of Commons.

Specific guidance for staff members, MPs and witnesses may be found at Appendices 1, 2 and 3.

Introduction 1) The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will consider complaints by a member of House of Commons staff alleging that a Member of Parliament has breached his or her rights under paragraph 3.1 of the Respect Policy of the House of Commons and paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct for MPs, if the complainant believes that the original complaint has not been satisfactorily resolved through the management procedures of the House.

2) The Commissioner will consider four questions when deciding whether to initiate an inquiry:

i) Does the matter come within the Commissioner’s remit?

ii) Is there sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation?

iii) Have the management processes set out in the Respect Policy been exhausted? (The complainant may either appeal to the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) or complain to the Commissioner but may not do both.)

iv) Is the breach sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct? (This is a very high hurdle which the Committee expects to be met only in extreme and extremely limited circumstances. In practice the Commissioner will normally investigate only a complaint of a single very serious incident, or complaints of repeated incidents or a sustained and damaging pattern of behaviour.)

The Commissioner has discretion, when considering the complaint, or at any stage of the process, to make any observations or recommendations for actions by management.

3) On receiving a complaint the Commissioner may request further preliminary information, including information from the SRO, about action taken to date, any available evidence and/or correspondence, and/or confirmation that the earlier stages of the process have been properly completed. The Commissioner may consult with any member of the House staff (e.g. the Diversity and Inclusion team), and may interview the complainant or others.

4) The Commissioner will then decide whether or not to accept the complaint for investigation. The Commissioner will then write to the complainant, the Member and the SRO to communicate that decision. If the complaint is not accepted for investigation, no details of it will be published, other than anonymised statistical

Respect Policy 23

information in relation to the work of the office. The Commissioner’s decision is final and there is no appeal process.

After accepting a complaint 5) If a complaint is accepted for investigation, Commissioner will write to the Member and complainant concerned. These letters will set out both the nature of the original allegations, any concerns expressed about how these have been dealt with, and the areas which the Commissioner intends to consider. The Commissioner will ask the Member and the complainant for any further information required at that stage. The expectation is that both will give a prompt, full and truthful account of the matters under consideration.

6) It is for the Commissioner to decide how to take forward an investigation, always bearing in mind the need to be fair to all the parties involved. The Commissioner may seek information, for example by way of witness statements, may draw on additional resources if required and may also commission such external advice as he or she thinks fit.

7) It is open to anyone being interviewed to be accompanied by a legal adviser or friend, or (if they are a House of Commons employee) by a colleague or trade union representative; or (in the case of a Member) by another Member. Interviewees will, however, be expected to answer for themselves (and not through their friend or adviser) any questions put to them. The House will not meet the costs of either Members or House employees who decide to retain a legal adviser.

8) The Commissioner will normally make a written record of any interview and will subsequently ask the interviewee to approve that record. In some circumstances the Commissioner will instead make an audio recording of the interview and will ask the interviewee to approve the transcript.

9) The Commissioner’s office will arrange for witnesses to be reimbursed for the reasonable costs of their travel to London to give evidence. This will not cover loss of earnings, or the costs of retaining a legal adviser.

10) Any attempt to obstruct the Commissioner in an investigation may be treated as a contempt of the House of Commons.

Confidentiality 11) While a complaint is under investigation by the Commissioner or being considered by the Committee on Standards, it is to be regarded as confidential. Neither the complainant, the Member involved nor any witnesses may disclose evidence or other details of the case to anyone else until it has been formally closed. If such evidence or correspondence were published or disclosed to anyone else without the Committee’s agreement, that would be a contempt of the House. Statements to the press while a complaint is under investigation would also be regarded as a contempt.

12) The Commissioner will not provide updates to complainants or anyone else during an investigation.

24 Respect Policy

Parliamentary privilege 13) The fact that complaints can be made to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does not affect other legal rights, except when parliamentary privilege is involved (see paragraph 14). When making a complaint, the complainant will not be protected from legal action (for example, for defamation of character) unless and until the Commissioner decides that the complaint is appropriate for investigation. The ability to complain to the Commissioner does not in itself prevent a complainant taking a grievance against the House management to an employment tribunal. Communications with the Commissioner are not covered by parliamentary privilege unless and until the Commissioner has accepted the complaint.

14) Once the Commissioner has accepted a complaint for investigation, the evidence supplied for that investigation, and any related correspondence, will be covered by parliamentary privilege, as will be the Commissioner’s and (if relevant) the Committee and the House’s findings. Proceedings in parliament cannot be questioned in any court, including employment tribunals.

Standard of Proof 15) When reviewing those allegations which concern breaches of an individual’s rights under paragraph 1.2 of the Respect Policy and of paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct, the Commissioner and the Committee will apply a high standard of proof, namely, that the allegations are significantly more likely than not to be true.

Concluding a complaint case (i) The role of the Commissioner 16) The role of the Commissioner is

• to report the facts as found, and

• to offer a conclusion on whether the Respect Policy and the Code have been breached, and

• to offer a formal view on the management response to the original events.

17) The Commissioner will normally conclude an investigation of a complaint under the Respect Policy either

a) by concluding that the case requires no further action, or

b) by submitting a formal memorandum to the Committee on Standards.

18) If the case requires no further action, the Commissioner will inform the Member, the complainant and any witnesses as well as the SRO.

19) If the Commissioner prepares a formal memorandum, this will set out his or her view on the seriousness of any breach of Respect Policy and of the Code of Conduct and on the response by management. The Commissioner will give the complainant and the Member an opportunity to comment on the factual parts of the Memorandum before it is finalised. Before submitting the memorandum, the Commissioner will append all the relevant evidence.

Respect Policy 25

20) The Commissioner will inform the Member and the complainant when a memorandum has been submitted to the Committee on Standards. There is no appeal against the view taken by the Commissioner.

(ii) The role of the Committee on Standards 21) The Committee will meet to deliberate on the Commissioner’s memorandum, and will then prepare its own Report. It is for the Committee to reach its own view on the complaint, on the basis of the Commissioner’s memorandum.

22) Shortly before the Committee meets to consider the memorandum, the Clerk of the Committee will send the Member and the complainant a copy of that memorandum. The Member and the complainant will then have the opportunity, if they so wish, to let the Committee have any written comments on it. The Committee expects that any such comments will focus on the Commissioner’s conclusions, as any dispute about facts should have been addressed earlier. If the Member or the complainant wishes the Committee to hear specified witnesses, or wishes the Committee to put specified questions to witnesses, he or she should make representations to the Committee.

23) The Committee may take further evidence. Given the sensitivity of the proceedings the Committee would expect to take such evidence in private. In the last resort the Committee may require a Member or a complainant or witness to attend and to produce any documents it requires. 1

24) If the Committee finds the Member is in breach of the Respect Policy and of paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct, it may recommend an appropriate sanction in its report. This could be that the Member make an apology to the House or to the complainant, either in writing or in person, or repay any costs involved; or that the House should withhold the Member’s salary or suspend him or her. In the most exceptional cases the Committee could recommend the expulsion of the Member. Significant sanctions such as suspension would be imposed by the House, on a debatable motion.

(iii) Publication of the Committee’s Report about a complaint 25) The Clerk of the Committee will inform the Member and the complainant when the Committee has decided to publish a report, and will make available to each of them an embargoed copy of that an hour before publication. The Committee’s report will include recommendations for any sanctions. There is no appeal against the conclusions of the Committee.

26) The Committee will normally append to its own report a summary of the Commissioner’s memorandum setting out the relevant facts and conclusions. The Committee will not publish the Commissioner’s full memorandum, or the evidence received by the Commissioner.

27) The Committee will normally be sympathetic to requests for the deletion of confidential and personal information which is not relevant to the resolution of the investigation.

1 Standing Order No. 149 (6)

26 Respect Policy

(iv) Consideration by the House of Commons 28) The House must debate and approve any sanction. The relevant Whips will normally inform the Member, and the Clerk of the Committee will normally inform the complainant, of the timing of the debate before any formal announcement is made.

Respect Policy 27

Appendix 1: Guidance for complainants Members of staff considering making a complaint under these procedures are advised to familiarise themselves with the whole policy, and in particular the section on confidentiality. The following additional information may be helpful.

1) A member of staff of the House of Commons who wants to make a complaint against an MP because of bullying or harassment should follow the Respect policy agreed by the House and the procedures which it contains. Early intervention is often the most effective way of resolving issues of bullying and harassment and most cases will be resolved when they are first raised. If this cannot be done informally, procedures set out in the Staff Handbook will enable managers to work with those involved to come to a satisfactory conclusion. The complainant may either appeal to the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) or complain to the Commissioner but may not do both.

2) Any complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards must:

• be submitted in writing and signed by the individual concerned. If a complainant is not able to submit his or her complaint in writing for any reason the Commissioner will seek to make suitable arrangements to help them make their complaint.

• give full details of the events which gave rise to the original complaint, what has happened since then and the management response, and set out the reasons for the dissatisfaction of the complainant with that response. Any relevant evidence, such as correspondence or witness statements, should be appended.

3) If, exceptionally, the Commissioner accepts a complaint from someone other than the staff member whose rights under the Respect Policy have allegedly been breached, the Commissioner may take evidence from that person as well as the complainant.

4) As part of the investigative process, the Commissioner may inquire into any of the matters raised by the complainant, including the original allegations and any relevant events after that date.

5) If the Commissioner concludes at the end of an investigation that the case requires no further action, he or she will inform the Member, the complainant and any witnesses as well as the SRO.

6) If the Commissioner submits a formal memorandum to the Committee, he or she will send the Member and the complainant a factual summary for approval before that memorandum is completed. The Commissioner will also inform both the Member and the complainant when the formal memorandum is submitted. Paragraphs 19 to 28 of this procedural note give further detail of the process which will be followed when the Commissioner submits a formal memorandum.

7) The Committee Clerk will send a copy of the Commissioner’s memorandum to both the Member and the complainant before the Committee considers it. The Clerk will also inform the Member before any Report by the Committee is published, and will normally inform the complainant in advance when the House is to consider any recommendations by the Committee.

28 Respect Policy

Appendix 2: Guidance for Members who are the subject of a complaint Members who are the subject of a complaint under these procedures are advised to familiarise themselves with the whole policy, and in particular the section on confidentiality. The following additional information may be helpful.

1) The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards may investigate a complaint by a member of staff of the House of Commons alleging that a Member of Parliament has breached the rights of an individual under paragraph 1.2 of the Respect Policy of the House of Commons and paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct for MPs, in cases where the complainant believes that the original complaint has not been satisfactorily resolved through the management procedures of the House.

2) When the Commissioner has received such a complaint, and has considered whether to accept it for investigation, the Commissioner will always write both to the Member and to the complainant to communicate the decision. If the Commissioner has accepted the complaint for investigation, the letter will set out the nature of the original allegations, any concerns expressed about how these have been dealt with, and the areas which the Commissioner intends to consider. The Commissioner will ask the Member (and the complainant) for any further information required at that stage. The expectation is that both will give a full and truthful account of the matters under consideration.

3) As part of the process, the Commissioner may inquire into any of the matters raised by the complainant, including the original allegations and any relevant events after that date.

4) If the Commissioner concludes that the case requires no further action, he or she will inform the Member, the complainant and any witnesses as well as the SRO.

5) If the Commissioner submits a formal memorandum to the Committee, he or she will send the Member and the complainant a factual summary for approval before that memorandum is completed. The Commissioner will also inform both the Member and the complainant when the formal memorandum is submitted.

6) The Committee Clerk will send a copy of the Commissioner’s memorandum to both the Member and the complainant before the Committee considers it, and will also inform the Member before any Report by the Committee is published. The Whips will normally inform the Member in advance when the House is to consider any recommendations by the Committee. Paragraphs 19 to 28 of this procedure note give further detail of the process which will be followed when the Commissioner submits a formal memorandum.

7) Under paragraph 19 of the Code of Conduct Members are prohibited from lobbying a member of the Standards Committee in a manner calculated or intended to influence its consideration of an alleged breach of the Code.

Respect Policy 29

Appendix 3: Guidance for witnesses Witnesses are advised to familiarise themselves with the whole policy, and in particular the section on confidentiality. The following additional information may be helpful.

1) When approaching witnesses, the Commissioner’s usual practice is to write informing them of the nature of the investigation and setting out the particular questions or matters where assistance is sought. If interviewing a witness, the Commissioner will normally make a record of the interview, subsequently agreeing the record with the witness to ensure accuracy. The Commissioner’s office will arrange for witnesses to be repaid the reasonable costs of their travel to London to give evidence to an inquiry. Loss of earnings expenses are not paid.

2) The Committee on Standards has indicated its expectation that those asked to give evidence will co-operate fully and frankly with the Commissioner, in the public interest and in the interests of justice. While the Commissioner has no power to compel witnesses to give evidence, the Committee itself has power to send for persons, papers and records. It has indicated that it would use its power in support of the Commissioner if that proved to be necessary.

3) If witnesses so wish, they may give evidence on oath, but are not required to do so. Witnesses may, if they so wish and at their own expense, take legal advice on any matter and be accompanied by a legal adviser (or other ‘friend’) at any meeting with the Commissioner. They will, however, be expected to answer for themselves (and not through their adviser) any questions put to them.

4) In certain circumstances, it is possible that the Committee on Standards will itself want to hear evidence from a witness. In these circumstances, the Clerk to the Committee will contact the witness about arrangements for the appearance before the Committee. The Committee will decide whether such sessions shall be held in public or in private. Such sessions are usually held in private.

5) It is open to a witness to ask the Committee to remove personal information about them from its Report before publication. The Committee will normally be sympathetic to requests for the deletion of confidential and personal information which is not relevant to the resolution of the investigation.

6) Wherever possible, the Committee will inform a witness of the impending publication of the Committee’s report.

30 Respect Policy

Published written evidence

The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/standards 1 Unite the union RP 01 2 FDA RP 02