I was condemned by a kangaroo court that prefers hearsay to testimony
In 2018, the BBC’S alleged that I bullied staff between 2009 and 2011. I honestly denied those allegations and continued my work as MP and Speaker during a tumultuous period in British politics.
In 2019, the Commons extended its anti-bullying scheme to cover historic cases of alleged misconduct by MPS without any time limit. Press leaks suggested that there were complaints about me but I was told only in May 2020 that I would be investigated.
The system is bizarre. Non-lawyer investigators appointed with input from the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner recommend full investigations and are then paid to conduct them. The commissioner does not interview the respondent but pronounces judgment, including declaring someone “guilty” after an investigator has recommended “not guilty”. There is no cross-examination. Witnesses should provide evidence relating to the alleged incidents. Yet investigators interviewed a plethora of “absent witnesses” who couldn’t.
The English courts are wary of hearsay but such hearsay was often preferred to the testimony of those present. In several instances, investigators made findings without questioning me.
In one investigation, 26 witnesses saw no bullying but that still did not satisfy the investigator. Instead of demanding evidence, he opted for a pseudo-study of Pinteresque atmospherics by speculating on office mood over a decade ago. Confidentiality in the investigations is demanded, yet details of allegations were leaked to the media with impunity.
Of what am I accused? Allegedly, I stared hate-filled at an employee in 2010. Nine witnesses were not interviewed but I was judged guilty.
Allegedly, I ghosted a staffer on an aeroplane. No, it was a night flight and I went to sleep before addressing 300 people at a conference the next day.
Allegedly, I twice threw a mobile phone 12 years ago. The two witnesses present did not substantiate the allegation. This inconvenient fact was brushed aside in favour of two “witnesses” who were not present but who had been told of the incidents.
Allegedly, I swore at an employee sometime in 2009. The witness did not recall this but the investigator believes it happened. Why ask the only witness, only to dismiss her evidence?
Allegedly, I made a discriminatory remark – which I would never do. For over two decades, I have championed equality in and outside the workplace.
The commissioner has upheld 21 findings against me. Of course, behind the scenes, I have appealed against her verdicts, making my submissions to the so-called Independent Expert Panel (IEP), staffed by supposedly impartial lawyers.
This has proved a waste of time. I now realise that the IEP is just a rubber stamp for the commissioner. On every appeal from a respondent, it has sided with the commissioner; in my case agreeing with her 21 times out of 21.
At the end of a Kafkaesque two-year process entailing exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, the panel declares that I should be denied a parliamentary pass which I have never applied for and do not want. That is the absurdity of its position.
It was an honour to serve as Speaker longer than any post-war predecessor.
Strengthening the legislature, making the House more representative and fashioning a dialogue with the public, I made friends and incurred enemies.
If some people disliked me sticking to my guns, that is regrettable. It was not bullying and no court bar a kangaroo court would find that it was.