Disciplinary policy and issuing of passes (2023)
Request
1) The Disciplinary Policy and/or Code of Conduct and/or any other relevant documents relating to standards of conduct of people who work in (paid or unpaid), or have Parliamentary passes. I already have the House of Lords Values Guide online version.
2) The Bullying & Harassment Policy (or similar titles) and state whether the rules apply also to harassment of members of the public.
3) Any documents regarding the Nolan Principles which pass-holders may be required to sign as an undertaking to comply with these standards.
4) Any documents relating to procedures for issue of a Parliamentary pass, and specifically but not exclusively any which require signature by a sponsor of a pass-holder and/or by the pass-holder. These may include standard items found in most non-Parliamentary employment procedures such as template reference requests, template forms requiring full career/qualification history, any questions about criminal charges or cautions by Police, template checklists that all information has been received and checked.
5) Can a Parliamentary pass be issued solely on the request of sponsoring MPs or Peers, or are background checks carried out into their claimed work history and their claims to any qualifications?
6) What accountability arrangements are in place if a pass is found to have been issued recklessly or without due diligence, or if the sponsor had been notified previously of dishonesty? eg if a pass holder was evidenced to have made numerous false claims to the media and the public, would the sponsor be liable for any disciplinary action?
7) Any documents relating to a pass-holder's entitlement to allow guests into the Parliamentary estate and whether any records are kept of who their guests are. The documents I request are those which apply specifically to Parliamentary pass-holders in administrative posts such as secretariats to APPGs and researchers, Parliamentary assistants, secretaries and any similar roles.
8) Are these Staff categories [secretariats to APPGs and researchers, Parliamentary assistants, secretaries and any similar roles] paid from public funds?
Response
In the first instance, please understand that, unless otherwise specified, our answers below only relate to the House of Commons. We are a separate public authority to the House of Lords so, if you require any of their information, you should request it directly by emailing them at FOILORDS@parliament.uk.
1) The Disciplinary Policy and/or Code of Conduct and/or any other relevant documents relating to standards of conduct of people who work in (paid or unpaid), or have Parliamentary passes. I already have the House of Lords Values Guide online version.
Please note that a wide range of people are provided parliamentary passes that enable them to work on the parliamentary estate. In the House of Commons this includes staff of the House, Members, Members’ staff, and a variety of contractors. The information we hold is detailed below.
Staff of the House of Commons
House staff are expected to comply with the various policies and procedures detailed in the Staff Handbook. They are also expected to comply with Parliament’s Behaviour Code and its associated policies, as well as the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for our digital services.
Members of Parliament
MPs are not employed by the House of commons and are similar in status to self-employed persons. However, they are expected to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules. They are also expected comply with Parliament’s Behaviour Code and its associated policies, as well as the Acceptable Use Policy for our digital services.
Members’ staff
MPs employ their own staff and may have relevant information within their own offices. However, the House of Commons does not hold this information. MPs’ staff are expected to comply with Parliament’s Behaviour Code and its associated policies, as well as the Acceptable Use Policy for our digital services.
Contractors
Contractors may have relevant policies and/or codes with which they are expected to comply issued by the contracted organisation for which they work. The House of Commons does not hold that information. Contractors are expected to comply with Parliament’s Behaviour Code and its associated policies, as well as the Acceptable Use Policy for our digital services.
The House of Commons holds the Staff Handbook, the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules, the Behaviour Code and the Digital Service Acceptable Use Policy. However, this information is also already available from a public source. This information is therefore exempt from disclosure in accordance with section 21(1) and (2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), which removes a public authority from the obligation to provide access to information which is already in the public domain. This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.
Information relevant to your request can be found on our webpages in the following locations:
• Parliament’s Behaviour Code
• The Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules
• The House of Commons Staff Handbook
We also hold a copy of the Acceptable Use Policy, and this is attached. Please note that some information in this document has been withheld in accordance with sections 24 & 31 FOIA. Details on these exemptions are detailed below.
Section 31– Law enforcement
Cyber-crime remains a constant threat to public authorities, and we consider that disclosing the information redacted within this document would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime (including cyber-crime) and also the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. This is a qualified exemption and the public interest test applies.
We have considered the public interest in disclosing this information. We recognise there is a legitimate public interest in the House of Commons being open and transparent about its processes. Disclosure of this information would reassure the public of our dedication to cyber security and safety, and also provide a greater insight into the challenges we face and prepare for regarding cyber security. Also, as this policy and the systems it relates to have been financed via the public purse, there is a public interest in being able to scrutinise all parts of a policy which certain the potential misuse of systems which have been publicly funded.
However, we have also considered the public interest in withholding this information. The parliamentary network remains constantly under threat by malicious groups seeking to attack the network for their own aims, whether that be to disrupt to the functioning of parliament, for personal financial gain, or numerous others. It is therefore important to consider whether the release of information will benefit these groups and prejudice our cyber security in turn. In this instance, the information withheld concerns cyber security policies and details specific to Parliament itself. Were these disclosed, it would provide a significant advantage to groups looking to target the network, as it would allow them to gain a greater overview into our specific cyber security processes. This would in turn allow them to more easily determine the most effective method of targeting or exploiting these measures, and would be likely to lead to an increase of attacks against the network, in particular successful attacks, as a result. As the release of this information would prejudice the prevention and detection of crime, it is therefore in the public interest to withhold the information in this instance.
In these circumstances it is therefore our view that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section 24 – National security
In addition to the increased threats and incidents of cyber-crime, national security is also increasingly under threat from organisations and individuals seeking to disrupt the workings of government and democratic institutions. In order to safeguard national security, this information is also exempt under s.24(1) FOIA, which is a qualified exemption and the public interest test applies.
We have considered once again the legitimate public interest in disclosing this information. Disclosing this information may increase public awareness of how the House of Commons operates, and again would reassure the public that we have systems and processes in place to ensure that House is adequately protected against cyber-threats. As before, the parliamentary network is publicly funded, and there is an public interest in being able to scrutinise publicly-funded policies to determine whether they are fit for purpose and cost-effective in nature. Furthermore, Government Ministers may carry out important work using the parliamentary network, and it is therefore in the public interest to know that this work is done securely and appropriately.
However, we have also considered the public interest in withholding this information. The parliamentary network constitutes part of the critical national infrastructure, and constantly faces threats from malicious and terrorist groups looking to compromise both our IT functions and information stored on the network. The release of this information would allow these malicious groups and actors to gain a greater understanding of our unique cyber-security measures and procedures, in turn making the network more vulnerable to cyber-attack as a result, particularly if this information exposed potential weaknesses within these processes or effective methods of targeting the network itself. Any successful attack against the network would compromise national security, as it would allow these groups to potentially access confidential or sensitive information, or to intentionally disrupt the work of parliament itself and also government departments by extension. This would in turn allow malicious groups to compromise both the constitutional and governmental systems of the United Kingdom, and their functions, as a result. As the release of this information has the potential to severely compromise national security, the public interest favours withholding the information in this instance.
For these reasons, we have concluded that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
2) The Bullying & Harassment Policy (or similar titles) and state whether the rules apply also to harassment of members of the public.
This information is held by the House of Commons. The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) deals with complaints made under Parliament’s Behaviour Code. Complaints are dealt with under two specific policies (Bullying and Harassment as well as Sexual Misconduct), and we hold details for both.
While the House of Commons holds information relevant to this part of your request, it is also already available from a public source. This information is therefore exempt from disclosure in accordance with section 21(1) and (2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), which removes a public authority from the obligation to provide access to information which is already in the public domain. This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.
However, it may help you to know that Parliament’s Bullying and Harassment Policy can be found on our webpages in full.
3) Any documents regarding the Nolan Principles which pass-holders may be required to sign as an undertaking to comply with these standards.
We have interpreted “Nolan Principles” in this instance to mean the Seven Principles of Public Life.
This information is not held by the House of Commons. House of Commons passholders are not required to sign any documents specifically undertaking to comply with these principles.
It may help you to know that the Seven Principles of Public Life have been enshrined explicitly or implicitly in our policies, such as the Members’ Code of Conduct linked above.
4) Any documents relating to procedures for issue of a Parliamentary pass, and specifically but not exclusively any which require signature by a sponsor of a pass-holder and/or by the pass-holder. These may include standard items found in most non-Parliamentary employment procedures such as template reference requests, template forms requiring full career/qualification history, any questions about criminal charges or cautions by Police, template checklists that all information has been received and checked.
and
5) Can a Parliamentary pass be issued solely on the request of sponsoring MPs or Peers, or are background checks carried out into their claimed work history and their claims to any qualifications?
Some information is held by the House of Commons regarding this part of your request. We hold a Parliamentary Security Pass Policy which sets out the principles and procedures for the management and control of passes, including sponsorship.
Regarding template forms relating to the issuing of passes, including reference requests, career/qualification history and others, it may help you to know that the Parliamentary Security Department requires those applying for a parliamentary pass to complete a Pass Application and Security Questionnaire. Please note however that this is carried out via online solution via an online portal, and we therefore do not hold a blank, distributable template version of this in the way you have requested.
However, to be helpful, we have also provided an older, physical version of this questionnaire. Whilst this is no longer used, it should help to give you an idea of this process.
Additionally, please note that some parts of the policy attached have been withheld from disclosure in accordance with Section 40 as well as Section 24, 31, and 38 of the FOIA. Further information on these exemptions is detailed below.
Section 40 – Personal data
Some information within this document, specifically personal data of individuals including names and contact details, has been withheld in accordance with section 40(2) FOIA as the disclosure of this information would not be consistent with the data protection principle found in Article 5.1(a) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.
Section 24 – National Security
Some information within the document attached contains details on individual pass types and their arrangements, and we have concluded that withholding this information is necessary for the purpose of safeguarding national security and this information is therefore exempt by virtue of Section 24(1) FOIA. This is a qualified exemption and the public interest test applies.
We have considered the public interest in disclosing this information. We recognise there is a public interest for the House to be transparent and open about its systems and procedures. The release of this information may help the public to better understand the security needs on the parliamentary estate and to better understand the procedures of the House. Furthermore, it may help to reassure the public of our dedication to security on the estate, which would be particularly beneficial to those looking to run in by-elections and who may currently be wary or reluctant to do so due to ongoing national security risks to MPs. Also, as this system was financed from the public purse, we accept that it is also in the public interest to be able to scrutinise this system to ensure that it is sensible and fit for purpose.
However, we have also considered the public interest in withholding this information. The release of this information would make UK citizens, specifically those on the parliamentary estate, more vulnerable to national security threats, and would compromise the security of those persons and the estate on the whole as a result. More specifically, it would make those who use the estate, especially Members, more easily identifiable and potentially subject to being targeted by those with malicious intent. Furthermore, if these details were released, this may potentially allow malicious groups to create counterfeit or imitation passes to use for illicit purposes. Knowing the specific uses and limitations of these passes, they could use these to infiltrate the estate in order to carry out a number of malicious acts, including attempting to steal confidential information or to target individuals on the estate. Any successful circumvention of our security measures via the release of this information would in turn significantly increase their ability to launch attacks against the estate, severely compromising security and safety and very likely deterring both visitors and pass holders from attending the estate as a result. This would in turn significantly disrupt the ability of parliament to function, including disrupting legislative proceedings and other core parliamentary functions, as well as the functioning of government departments by extension. The withholding of this information is therefore necessary in order to continue safeguarding national security on the parliamentary estate, as its release would create an unsafe environment more likely to be subject to attacks by groups and fixated individuals, affecting the ability of both passholders and parliament to function as a whole, and ultimately severely disrupting and compromising the protection of democracy as a result.
For these reasons, we have concluded that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Section 31 – Law Enforcement
The House also considers that disclosing this information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. This information is therefore also exempt by virtue of Section 31(1)(a) FOIA. This is a qualified exemption and the public interest test applies.
We have considered the public interest in disclosing this information. As stated before, there is a general public interest in transparency and accountability regarding the House’s systems. Information on passes detailed in this document may help the public to better understand how the parliamentary estate functions, and better understand parliamentary systems in general, particularly the distinctions between those who can access the estate and how. The release of this information may also help to reassure the public of the House’s dedication to the safety of those who access the estate. Furthermore, as this system is financed via the public purse, there is also
However, we have also considered the public interest in withholding this information. The pass system exists to ensure that those on the estate are easily identifiable and have authorisation to be there. In particular, restricting the release of core details of our pass measures in turn hinders those looking to infiltrate the estate for criminal purposes as they are more likely to be caught out by these security measures as a result. The release of these details however would allow malicious groups to more easily identify and target individuals who use the estate, especially Members, in a way they would not be able to were this information not released. Furthermore, a breakdown of passes may help these same groups with the creation of forgeries, which would aid them in carrying out malicious aims. They would be aware of the level of access and limits which individual pass categories had, and therefore would be better able to carry out their intentions on the estate as a result, as well as also improving their chances of avoiding detection. This would therefore prejudice the prevention and detection of crime as it would give criminal or malicious groups the ability to potentially circumvent parliament’s security procedures as it would better allow them to carry out criminal actions on the estate, including terroristic actions against individuals or stealing confidential or sensitive information, in a way which they would not be able to were the information not released. It would potentially also allow them to remain undetected on the estate while carry out these actions, compromising security efforts on the estate even further. As the release of this information would prejudice the House’s efforts to detect and prevent crime, the wider public interest is therefore to favour non-disclosure in this instance.
In these circumstances therefore, it is our view that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Section 38 – Health and Safety
The House also considers that disclosing the colour scheme for House of Commons passes would be likely to endanger the safety of individuals on the parliamentary estate. This information is therefore also exempt by virtue of Section 38(1)(b) FOIA. This is a qualified exemption and the public interest test applies.
We have considered the public interest in disclosing this information. As stated above, there is a need for the House of Commons to be transparent about its procedures, in order to both better educate the public on the functions of the House, as well as making these procedures more transparent and open to scrutiny. There is an obvious interest in the public being reassured that those procedures are sufficient to protect the health and safety of those visiting and working on the parliamentary estate. A breakdown of the pass system would also better help the public to understand the groups which make up the House of Commons as well as their functions, and gain a better understanding of the House’s processes in general.
However, we have also considered the public interest in withholding this information. Parliament has a duty to ensure that the physical and mental wellbeing of those who access the estate, including visitors and passholders. It has a duty to ensure the safety of those individuals, and this also extends to the release of any information which may compromise this safety. A safe and secure environment is a fundamental need for those on the estate to ensure they can carry out their work without threat or fear of violence, and the release of this information would endanger the safety of passholders both on and off the estate by making them more easily identifiable and targetable. This would in turn endanger their safety and physical health as it would make them much more likely to be subject to attack by these groups as a result, along with aiding these same groups with avoiding detection on the estate, making them significantly more likely to be subject to harm as a result. Furthermore, this release of this information would also significantly harm the mental wellbeing of those who use the estate. By setting a precedence of releasing sensitive details of security measures implemented by the House, it would create a greater sense of unease and vulnerability for those who use the estate, which would be likely to severely impact their ability to carry out their duties as a result. This would be particularly exacerbated by the ability of malicious groups to create forged passes, in turn allowing them to infiltrate the estate and more readily target individuals. This could potentially lead to pass holders and visitors alike refusing to attend the estate out of fear for their own safety, which would in turn disrupt many of the core aspects of the parliamentary process. The release of this information would therefore be likely to endanger both the physical and mental health of individuals on the estate, as well as endangering their safety, leaving them physically more vulnerable to attacks and affecting their mental wellbeing also as a result.
In these circumstances therefore, it is our view that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
6) What accountability arrangements are in place if a pass is found to have been issued recklessly or without due diligence, or if the sponsor had been notified previously of dishonesty? eg if a pass holder was evidenced to have made numerous false claims to the media and the public, would the sponsor be liable for any disciplinary action?
In line with your previous questions above, we have interpreted this part of your request to mean what accountability arrangements are in place for Members in these circumstances.
This information is held by the House of Commons.
As stated in our response to Q1 of your request, Members are expected to adhere to the Code of Conduct, and Paragraph 11 of the Code states that Members should “never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole”. If an individual believes that an MP has breached their Code of Conduct, including via situations specified above, it is possible for them to make a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (PCS) who will consider beginning a formal investigation if he is satisfied the matter falls within his remit, and if the evidence provided is sufficient to justify beginning an investigation.
Additionally, in some instances the PCS may refer cases to the Committee on Standards to decide if there has been a breach of the Code, who upon conclusion of their own investigation may recommend to the House that sanctions be enacted against the relevant Member. More details of the remit of both the PCS and the Committee on Standards (including sanctions available) can be found on our webpages in the following briefing: Procedural protocol in respect of the Code of Conduct
Furthermore, page 8 of the Parliamentary Security Pass Policy provided to you in response to Questions 4 and 5 contains a section related to your request about the responsibilities of pass sponsors regarding those they sponsor and what is expected of them.
7) Any documents relating to a pass-holder's entitlement to allow guests into the Parliamentary estate and whether any records are kept of who their guests are. The documents I request are those which apply specifically to Parliamentary pass-holders in administrative posts such as secretariats to APPGs and researchers, Parliamentary assistants, secretaries and any similar roles
This information is held by the House of Commons.
Page 10 of the Parliamentary Security Pass Policy provided to you in response to Questions 4 and 5 contains a section about a pass-holder’s entitlement to allow guests onto the estate, and this can be found in the document attached.
Regarding whether records are kept of guests, certain passholders are provided with escorts rights based on business needs, which allows them to bring non-passholders on the parliamentary estate in certain situations. They do not have to register these guests however, and so we do not hold records of guests brought on to the estate by each pass holder.
8) Are these Staff categories [secretariats to APPGs and researchers, Parliamentary assistants, secretaries and any similar roles] paid from public funds?
This information is not held by the House of Commons. The staff of APPGs and Members’ parliamentary assistants and secretaries are not employed by the House of Commons. They are instead directly employed by MPs, and it is the Independent Parliamentary Standards’ Authority (IPSA) which handles salaries for both Members and their staff, and not the House of Commons.
Whilst we hold no details regarding salaries of Members and their staff, more information for this part of your request is likely be held by IPSA, and may wish to contact them also for the information you seek; contact details can be found on the IPSA website.
It might be also help you to know that the House of Commons Administration employs a large amount of staff directly to run Parliament. These staff include clerks, tour guides, catering and shop staff, security staff, library staff and administrators. All these staff are employed by the House of Commons which is funded by the tax payer. More information about staff and offices of the House of Commons Administration can be found on the commons pages of our website.