Reporting of unacceptable behaviour

Question

On the levels of "trust" reported in the PWSS (as per the highlighted graphics on p. 30) 1. The final paragraph of the report seems euphemistically framed to promote the PWSS as a trusted service. How does the PWSS reconcile this with the low formal psychosocial hazard reporting and low EAP utilisation figures? Does the PWSS accept that low participation rates in the culture survey itself may also reflect futility or a lack of trust and confidence in systems and the PWSS? 2. Page 19 of the report says: "Although 76% of MOP(S) Act employees who responded know how to report unacceptable behaviours... only 52% were confident that those who report misconduct will be supported rather than punished." What measures has the PWSS put in place to address perceptions that speaking up about unacceptable behaviours in parliamentary workplaces may lead to professional risk, isolation or adverse consequences? How is the PWSS helping to rectify the power imbalance that the Set the Standard Report identified and to ensure people are actually safe to do speak up without reprisal? 3. Has the PWSS undertaken any analysis regarding whether individuals who raise concerns remain employed in parliamentary workplaces 6 or 12 months later? 4. Does the PWSS accept that fear of professional consequences, reputational harm, career limitation or exclusion may be suppressing reporting rates in parliamentary workplaces, including formal reporting of psychosocial hazards and unacceptable behaviours? If so, what is the PWSS doing about this?

Answer

Please see the attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• F112.pdf (opens in a new tab)