Bullying claims in Parliament up 40pc in a year
Bullying complaints in Parliament have increased by 40 per cent in a year, with MPs most likely to be accused of misconduct.
The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS), which investigates bullying, harassment and sexual wrongdoing in Parliament, said it had seen a spike in complaints in the year to this April, which encompassed the general election.
The body's annual report, published on Monday, said it had investigated 69 cases in the year, up from 47 the previous year.
The cases were the result of 50 'disclosures' from parliamentary staff, some of which related to multiple individuals. The number of disclosures also increased by 25 per cent, and they were investigated at a total cost of almost £2 million.
The ICGS said all but three of the complaints were of bullying and harassment, with the remainder relating to sexual misconduct including assault, harassment, stalking and voyeurism.
Only four were upheld, with the remainder withdrawn, found to be out of scope or not completed by the end of the year.
The report, which did not give details of individual cases, said the presence of alcohol in Parliament was 'a factor in almost one out of every five complaints investigated' and was 'notably prevalent' in sexual misconduct cases.
MPs were the largest group of alleged perpetrators of either bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, followed by House of Commons employees, staff working for MPs and members of the House of Lords.
The ICGS did not explain the reason for the uplift in the number of complaints, which came after more than half of MPs were replaced at the general election.
But it said that some of the bullying cases were caused by a 'power imbalance' in the workplace, where managers had 'abused their authority by publicly humiliating staff' or being 'openly critical and dismissive'.
'This behaviour caused complainants to feel insecure about their job stability and created an intimidating work environment,' it said. 'Additionally, it was alleged that managers assigned tasks that were excessively challenging or impossible to complete within the given timeframe, making the complainants feel as though they were being set up to fail.'
Criticism over speed of investigations
The ICGS was established in 2018 in response to the #MeToo movement and complaints that sexual misconduct was prevalent among MPs and their staff.
But it has been criticised for the speed at which it can conduct investigations, with some dragging on for more than a year and involving multiple rounds of analysis by officials.
In one case, a complaint was upheld by the ICGS and passed to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which investigates the conduct of MPs. The commissioner rejected the complaint, resulting in an appeal to another body, the Independent Expert Panel, which returned it to the commissioner. The appeal was ultimately not upheld.
Thea Walton, the director of the ICGS, said: 'During the reporting period, we experienced a notable increase in the number of people contacting the ICGS. We received 25 per cent more disclosures in 2024-25 than in 2023-24.
'Unfortunately, this increase, the complexity of cases and the introduction of new processes and ways of working has contributed to longer timescales for completing cases. Over the next 12 months, the team will be working hard to reduce these timescales while bedding in our new processes and continuing to deliver a high-quality service for the parliamentary community.
'I am encouraged to see that awareness of the ICGS remains high across Parliament and more people are coming forward to use the scheme to seek redress when they feel they have experienced poor behaviour.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
36 minutes ago
- Sky News
Post Office scandal: Govt has not done enough to ensure compensation for victims, committee of MPs finds
The government has not done enough to ensure all victims entitled to compensation from the Post Office scandal have applied for it, a report has found. Many current and former postmasters affected by Horizon IT failings and associated miscarriages of justice are not yet receiving fair and timely compensation, according to the report by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Only 21% of the 18,500 letters the Post Office sent to postmasters to make them aware of the Horizon Shortfall Scheme had been responded to, figures provided by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) show. About 5,000 further letters are expected to be sent in 2025. Under the scheme, current and former postmasters who were financially affected by the Horizon IT system, but who were either not convicted or did not take the Post Office to the High Court, can either settle their claim for a final fixed sum of £75,000 or have it fully assessed. There is also the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS), which is for sub-postmasters who had their convictions quashed after the passing of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act last year. The 800 or so sub-postmasters who are eligible to claim under the HCRS are entitled to a £600,000 full and final settlement, or the option to pursue a full claim assessment. By the end of March, 339 had accepted the settlement sum, the report by the PAC, which is made up of MPs from all sides of the House of Commons, found. But the PAC report states that the government has no plans to follow up with people who are, or may be, eligible to claim but are yet to apply. 3:09 The committee recommends that the DBT should outline what more it will do to ensure every affected postmaster is fully aware of their options for claiming. A third scheme provides compensation to sub-postmasters who were wrongly convicted of fraud, theft and false accounting. Of the 111 sub-postmasters eligible to claim for the Overturned Convictions Scheme and who are either entitled to a £600,000 full and final settlement, or to pursue a full claim assessment, 25 have not yet submitted a claim, some of whom represent the most complex cases. The DBT has taken over the management of the scheme from the Post Office, and the PAC report recommends that the department should outline how it plans to handle the remaining cases under the scheme. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, chair of the PAC, said thousands of people were "deeply failed" by the system during "one of the UK's worst ever miscarriages of justice". He added: "This committee would have hoped to have found government laser-focused on ensuring all those eligible were fully and fairly compensated for what happened. "It is deeply dissatisfactory to find these schemes still moving far too slowly, with no government plans to track down the majority of potential claimants who may not yet be aware of their proper entitlements. "It is entirely unacceptable that those affected by this scandal, some of whom have had to go through the courts to clear their names, are being forced to relitigate their cases a second time."
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
From the archive: ‘A nursery of the Commons': how the Oxford Union created today's ruling political class
We are raiding the Guardian long read archives to bring you some classic pieces from years past, with new introductions from the authors. This week, from 2022: at the Oxford university debating society in the 80s, a generation of aspiring politicians honed the art of winning using jokes, rather than facts By Simon Kuper. Read by Andrew McGregor
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Nearly 100,000 adults in England denied state-funded social care due to cuts
Nearly 100,000 adults have been denied government-funded social care because of a decade's worth of spending cuts, a Guardian analysis has revealed, as ministers come under mounting pressure to increase funding for the sector. The analysis, which is based on a study by the Institute for Government (IfG), shows the number of people in England receiving subsidised care has fallen far more quickly than the country's disability rate. The figures highlight how a range of government cuts have put so much pressure on the English social care service that it is leaving tens of thousands of people without the access to long-term care that they would have received 15 years ago. Stuart Hoddinott, the associate director of the IfG, said: 'Financial pressure means local authorities with high levels of demand are forced to ration services to people who would receive care elsewhere. 'That injustice is compounded when caring responsibilities fall to friends and family, many of whom leave the workforce or reduce working hours to care for loved ones. The government should ensure that funding for local government reflects the need for services and that it doesn't pass the costs of care on to unpaid relatives.' The social care sector has faced a financial squeeze since 2010 thanks to cuts to local government budgets. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that councils' core budgets are 18% lower per person in real terms than they were in 2010, with many of the cuts feeding through to social care. With less money to pay staff, the sector has faced an employment crisis, which it has partly filled by hiring workers from abroad, many of whom have been scammed or abused in the process. Experts say local authorities have rationed care by judging fewer people as needing it than they used to and putting more people on short-term care plans rather than long-term ones. Meanwhile the Westminster government has also restricted access to government-funded care by freezing the financial threshold at which people qualify for state support since 2010. The Labour government continued that practice earlier this year when it announced the rules for 2025-26. The net effect of these changes have been to restrict the number of people receiving long-term care, even as the population gets older. The IfG's report shows the proportion of the adult population receiving long-term social care has dropped from 2.3% in 2003-04 to 1.4% now, an estimated decrease of more than 250,000 people. This decline has happened almost entirely in people aged 65 and over. The report shows that 8.2% of older adults received long-term care in 2003-04 compared with 3.6% in 2023-24. The Guardian has used the IfG's figures to compare the number of people receiving long-term social care with the number of people living with disabilities, which experts say is a good proxy for need. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The analysis shows that had access to social care continued rising in line with disability rates, more than 98,000 more people would be on government-funded care plans now than actually are. Mark Franks, a director at the Nuffield Foundation, which also contributed to the report, said: 'The social care system is subject to big variations in quality and a patchwork of strained funding arrangements. These lead to both rationing of care and big variations in quality and availability determined by where people live rather than greatest need.' Part of the problem has been fuelled by perceived unfairnesses in the formula for allocating central government money to local authorities, which did not take account of factors like deprivation. The government signalled its intention to change that on Friday, launching a consultation into a new funding formula that would mean less money going to wealthier councils in the south-east and more to deprived and rural areas. But ministers are also under pressure to mitigate the effect of the government's decision to increase both the minimum wage and national insurance contributions for employers. The Nuffield Trust has estimated the two decisions will cost independent social care employers nearly £3bn in 2025-26, with the government now looking to find extra money to make up the shortfall. The IfG report says: 'Rationing care is not cost free. The burden of reduced access to care can often fall on friends and family – predominantly poorer people and women – who step in to provide unpaid care. 'This is both unfair, and indirectly expensive for the government, as these people are less likely to be able to work full-time (or at all). Increasing access to care can therefore support the government's goal of improving workforce participation.'
