Staff complaints (2021)

Response

1) Of the investigated cases in a) 2018-19 and b) 2019-20, how many related to bullying and harassment and how many to sexual misconduct?

This information is held by the House of Commons. The ICGS collects this information by calendar year rather than financial year. The information held by the House is as follows:

• 2018
o Bullying and Harassment – 23
o Sexual Misconduct – [REDACTED]
• 2019
o Bullying and Harassment – 61
o Sexual Misconduct – [REDACTED]
• 2020
o Bullying and Harassment – 51
o Sexual Misconduct – [REDACTED]

You will see that some information above has been redacted. This is because in some instances, owing to the low numbers of staff involved (fewer than 5), disclosing this data may make it possible for individuals to be identified. This information is therefore exempt by virtue of section 40 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), because disclosure of this information would not be consistent with data protection principles in Article 5 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

2) Of the upheld cases in a) 2018-19 and b) 2019-20, how many related to bullying and harassment and how many to sexual misconduct?

This information is held by the House of Commons. The ICGS collects this information by calendar year rather than financial year. The information held by the House is as follows:

• 2018
o Bullying and Harassment – [REDACTED]
o Sexual Misconduct – [REDACTED]
• 2019
o Bullying and Harassment – 14
o Sexual Misconduct – [REDACTED]
• 2020
o Bullying and Harassment – 6
o Sexual Misconduct – [REDACTED]

Some information above has been redacted in accordance with section 40 (2) FOIA, as detailed in our response to Q1. This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

3) Of the not upheld cases in a) 2018-19 and b) 2019-20, how many related to bullying and harassment and how many to sexual misconduct?

This information is held by the House of Commons. The ICGS collects this information by calendar year rather than financial year. The information held by the House is as follows:

• 2018
o Bullying and Harassment – 10
o Sexual Misconduct – [REDACTED]
• 2019
o Bullying and Harassment – 38
o Sexual Misconduct – [REDACTED]
• 2020
o Bullying and Harassment – 11
o Sexual Misconduct – [REDACTED]

Some information above has been redacted in accordance with section 40 (2) FOIA, as detailed in our response to Q1. This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

4) Of the upheld cases in a) 2018-19 and b) 2019-20, how many were involved recent allegations and how many non-recent?

This information is held by the House of Commons. The ICGS collects this information by calendar year rather than financial year. The information held by the House is as follows:

• 2018
o Recent – [REDACTED]
o Non-recent – [REDACTED]
• 2019
o Recent – 17
o Non-recent - [REDACTED]
• 2020
o Recent – 7
o Non-recent – [REDACTED]

Some information above has been redacted in accordance with section 40 (2) FOIA, as detailed in our response to Q1. This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

5) What were the outcomes of the upheld cases in a) 2018-19 and b) 2019-20, eg 1 referred to police, 2 referred to standards committee, 3 referred for training?

This information is held by the House of Commons. With upheld cases involving staff of either House, the next stage is taken forward by the relevant Decision Making Body. Action taken as a result of the upheld case is confidential, which is in line with any internal employment procedure. Action could include training or disciplinary action, which could lead to dismissal.

Section 41(1) FOIA provides that information is exempt if it was obtained by a public authority from any other person and that disclosure to the public by the public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person. We consider that unauthorised disclosure of this information would amount to an actionable breach of confidence, therefore this information is withheld.

Section 41 is an absolute exemption and therefore not subject to the public interest test, however we appreciate that a court would be unlikely to uphold a breach of confidence if the public interest in disclosure outweighed the public interest in maintaining the confidence. Therefore, we have considered the public interest factors and accept that there is a legitimate and reasonable interest in the public scrutiny of information held by the House of Commons, and the importance of furthering public understanding of issues being considered that may affect the lives of members of the public. However, where a duty of confidence exists, there is a strong public interest in favour of maintaining that confidence, and this is the case on this occasion. We have also considered the impact of disclosure on the interests of the confider. In this case we consider that the public interest in favour of maintaining the confidence outweighs the public interest in disclosing this information.

For cases involving MPs, outcomes are confidential as and when a report is published by the Standards Committee (up to July 2020), or the Independent Expert Panel (after July 2020).

Whilst the House of Commons holds this information, it is also already available publicly. This information is exempt from disclosure in accordance with section 21(1) and (2)(a) 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 information relevant to your request can be found in the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards area of our parliamentary website .

The Independent Expert Panel is yet to publish a report, the first is expected in 2021. This information is being withheld under section 22 FOIA (intended for future publication). This is a qualified exemption, and accordingly we have to consider whether the public interest is in withholding the information or in disclosing it. The arguments for and against disclosure are detailed below.

The general argument in favour of releasing information is that there is a public interest in being able to scrutinise aspects of the House of Commons where that information might be easy to access and will not prejudice the House. The argument against disclosure is the public interest in permitting public authorities to publish information in a manner and form and at a time of their own choosing. It is a part of the effective conduct of public affairs that the general publication of information is a conveniently planned and managed activity within the reasonable control of public authorities. Where the decision has been made in principle to publish, there is a reasonable entitlement to make arrangements to do so.