My dealings with parliament's complaints service reveal a flawed process
4 min read
In December 2021, I concluded a process through the Independent Complaints and Grievances Service (ICGS) against a former employer.
I had worked for this MP for about a year; the complaints process took around the same length of time. Employment tribunals of any kind are difficult and involved. Due to the unique nature of MPs as employers, cases with Parliament’s ICGS are even more so.
Recent news about MPs censured by Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary standards commissioner, has cast a spotlight on ICGS procedures. Yet despite the increased attention, few know what is actually involved.
To begin a process, you phone ICGS and outline your grievance. They review this and decide whether what is alleged constitutes a possible breach of the parliamentary code of conduct. If it is deemed viable, the case moves to an independent investigator – third party conflict resolution contractors, hired from outside Parliament.
I know of people who have given their employers’ versions of events to investigators for fear of reprisal
Next, the independent investigator interviews the complainant and the MP, asking both for a list of witnesses. Given the nature of the cases, witnesses are often parliamentary workers – the complainant’s colleagues or people with whom they shared an office. The investigator then interviews those witnesses they consider germane to the case.
Everyone interviewed as part of this process is sent a transcript of their interview and asked for sign-off to confirm it is an accurate rendering of their account. They also sign a confidentiality agreement, and are told testimonies and identities will be closely guarded throughout the process.
This agreement becomes more significant when, once interviews are conducted and any evidence is submitted (usually emails, WhatsApps and contracts), the investigator compiles their interim report. Sent to the complainant and respondent, it includes the investigator’s assessment of whether the case should be upheld, along with the transcripts and evidence – which should be redacted or anonymised – used to reach that conclusion.
The complainant and respondent can request corrections if they feel there are any inaccuracies or mischaracterisations in the report, and a final version is sent to the commissioner, who makes the ultimate decision. There are a lot of steps to this process, and the timelines on which they work were – in my experience – communicated poorly. It is also within the power of the MP to stall proceedings by not responding to requests for interview, evidence, or sign-off, as happened in my case and as I am aware of happening in others.
I was alarmed by the recent revelation that Liam Byrne, the Birmingham Hodge Hill MP found to have bullied his former staff member, was shown unredacted transcripts of interviews relating to the case including the names of witnesses. It is difficult to overstate just how damaging this breach is to a process that runs, to a large degree, on trust.
Politics is a small world, and the world of each political party is smaller still. If you knew giving evidence about an MP's misbehaviour would jeopardise your chances of securing jobs in the future, would you be entirely honest? Anecdotally, I know of people who have given their employers’ versions of events to investigators for fear of reprisal; the news about the Byrne case would bear out the logic of this.
In my dealings with the ICGS, I was told I would need to take a great deal on trust. I was not told why the MP I was complaining about would not sign the confidentiality agreements that I and the witnesses in the case had signed, and I was given little clarity on the timelines of the case. All the logistical and emotional support I received during the process came from my trade union.
If the standards commissioner is going to run an operation based on trust, she needs to show the operation is deserving of that trust. If serious action is not taken in light of recent events, many will be justified in feeling that is not the case.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
