Bullying in Parliament: new measures may make matters worse

In late 2017, following press reports about bullying and harassment in Westminster, the Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom set up a cross-party working group tasked with developing a system that would allow MPs’ staff to challenge inappropriate behaviour. The group’s proposals, which will be debated by the Commons on Thursday, would establish a system where previously there was none.

Objectively that is a good thing. Until now MPs’ staff have had to rely on the weak protections offered by political parties. Or – more commonly – just put up and shut up. Now they will have access to independent support and advice, and any complaints will be investigated independently. 

But these changes are not enough. Decisions on how to sanction anyone found guilty of a ‘serious’ breach of a shiny new ‘Behaviour Code’ would be made by MPs on the Standards Committee and then put to the House. Despite their obvious conflict of interest over standards matters - MPs would still be marking their own homework. This means the proposed new system shares the same fundamental flaw as the ‘Respect’ policy which currently applies to staff employed directly by the House of Commons.

The Standards Committee given a role in Leadsom’s new system is the same one that – seemingly intent on proving its own unfitness for purpose – recently decided to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards from investigating serious allegations against the Speaker. In doing so – on technical grounds - it denied both him and his accusers the opportunity to prove their case. The fact the Committee did this against the objections of its own lay members illustrates why tweaks to their role under the new system (allowing them an ‘indicative vote’ before MPs take a final decision) will do nothing to rebalance power in the system.

Disincentives for change

The limited nature of Leadsom’s reforms illustrate just how difficult it will be to achieve real culture change in Parliament. And the fact that – according to reports - MPs may not even agree to take this baby step forward, underlines the powerful disincentives for change.

A really credible system would be one in which MPs had no role unless a member was found to have committed an offence that could lead to a recall petition (which would allow their constituents to decide if they wanted a by-election), in which case the whole House would vote. Such a system would provide credible protection for everyone in Parliament but would increase the risk for MPs as individuals, and for their parties, of sanctions actually biting. For political parties – particularly in the context of a minority government – there is a powerful incentive against establishing a system which might actually increase the risk of losing one of their number from the division lobbies, either temporarily through a period of suspension, or permanently through recall.

For MPs individually, being asked to adhere to normal standards of HR practice enforced by an independent, professional body would apparently be a bridge too far.  Many individual MPs dislike the external controls imposed on their use of taxpayers’ money by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority created in the wake of the expenses scandal. This is despite the fact that press stories about MPs’ use of expenses have dwindled to almost nothing since IPSA was established.

Working in this context, rather than look at external best practice and design a new system accordingly, the working group seems to have started with the status quo and asked itself what is ‘achievable’ politically.  The result is a minimalist system that appears designed to protect the interests of all those involved in the design and use of previous bullying processes and to limit the risks to past and future perpetrators, including by restricting its application to incidents from the start of the 2017 Parliament, suggesting that it might be having some effect.

And while Leadsom has emphasised that the new approach would apply equally to everyone on the parliamentary estate, the hard fact remains that it is only MPs who get to decide if it goes ahead. Leadsom is pressing on with a vote this week despite the concerns of the FDA union which represents many House staff.

Why not wait for the Cox review?

More bizarrely Leadsom is not waiting to hear the conclusions of a review of existing bullying and harassment processes by former High Court judge Dame Laura Cox, which she herself established, and which is highly likely to comment on issues relating to the proposed new system. The timescale for the review has had to be extended because of the weight of evidence that it has received, and yet Leadsom is not prepared to wait just a few weeks to consider its implications for the new system.

Leadsom has said that subsequent reviews of her new system – at six and eighteen months – will take into account the findings of the Cox review. This is disingenuous. If the ‘Pestminster’ scandal which got us to this point has generated only this incremental attempt at reform, the chance of precious parliamentary time and political capital being invested in further change must be close to zero.  

In putting her proposals to the House now, Leadsom is undermining the potential impact of a review which could well support the case for more ambitious reform.  If the Leader was really committed to getting the best possible system in place she would wait until Laura Cox had reported. The fact that she has refused to do so proves that in terms of parliamentary culture, nothing has changed.