Parliamentary Bully or Reforming Speaker
This is a transcript of the Podcast Episode on this website entitled Parliamentary Bully or Reforming Speaker. It can be found on this link Podcast – Barry Baines
John Bercow was Speaker of the House of Commons from June 2009 until November 2019. When he was chairing debates in the House he displayed an entertaining and robust style and will be particularly remembered for his interventions in the Brexit debates when he became popular the world over.
But after the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was appointed, three people who served under him made various complaints of bullying and harassment.
The Parliamentary Commissioner appointed three separate investigators to undertake independent investigations of the complaints. A senior investigator oversaw them.
In respect of the first complainant, Angus Sinclair, the Commissioner upheld four allegations; for the second complainant, Katharine Emms, she upheld three allegations; and in respect of the third complainant, Lord Lisvane, the Commissioner upheld 14 complaints of bullying finding also that two of the complaints should properly give rise to findings of harassment.
The Commissioner referred her findings to the Independent Expert Panel for sanction.
Mr Bercow rejected those findings and appealed the Commissioner’s decision. He made clear that his case was that all the complainants were lying, or at the very least wilfully exaggerating. He said that there had been collusion or, at the very lowest, a high degree of cooperation between the complainants.
The appeal was heard by a sub-committee of the Independent Expert Panel composed of Sir Stephen Irwin (until recently a Lord Justice of Appeal), Sir Peter Thornton QC, another senior judge and formerly Chief Coroner, and Mrs Lisa Ball.
The Appeal Committee observed that dealing with allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, was a comprehensive workplace disciplinary process.
The investigations into these three cases were extensive. They necessarily took some time to complete because of the far-reaching nature of the case against Mr Bercow.
The evidence alone amounted to more than 1,850 pages. The investigators took comprehensive evidence from Mr Bercow and read his very full written submissions in response to the allegations.
He submitted a total of 87 pages of grounds of appeal and was given every opportunity to reply to the allegations. At no time did he complain that he was not given adequate opportunity.
Delivering its appeal decision in an 87 page report, the Committee rejected each ground of the appeal, observing that there was no substance in them. It was satisfied that there was no unfairness either in the investigations or in the role of the Commissioner. There was no flaw in the way the set procedures were carried out.
This was behaviour which had no place in any workplace. Members of staff in the House should not be expected to have to tolerate it as part of everyday life. No person at work, however senior, indeed particularly such a senior figure, should behave in this way. It was an abuse of power.
On the question of sanction, the Committee received submissions from the complainants summarising the impact on them of the Speaker’s behaviour. All three complainants emphasised the serious and sustained nature of the bullying consistent with the findings upheld by the sub-panel’s report. The conduct was the more serious because of the pre-eminent and powerful position of the Speaker.
The complainants were also aware of Mr Bercow’s denials, lack of any remorse and repeated publicity in breach of the confidentiality process. It was suggested that there were many aggravating factors and no mitigation.
The impact on all three could be described as very significant: severe at the time and enduring.
Mr Bercow did not accept the findings of the Committee and did not acknowledge the impact of his behaviour. In the Committee’s view he had little or no insight into the way he behaved or its consequences. He sought to minimise the outcome for the complainants.
The Committee concluded that there was a marked abuse of power and authority by Mr Bercow, also concluding that he targeted the three complainants specifically and bullied them. It was motivated, at least in the case of two of them, by a rooted and prejudiced hostility to those who he perceived to be well-educated members of the establishment. He also breached his obligation of confidentiality during the currency of the complaints something which he himself acknowledged.
The appropriate sanction was a formal reprimand by means of a published report. It was appropriate that the full appeal report should be published. The detailed conclusions spoke for themselves.
It was for historians to judge whether Mr Bercow was a successful reforming Speaker of the House of Commons. However, there was no need to act as a bully in order to achieve that aim. A great office could be filled forcefully and effectively without descending to such behaviour.
The findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards which had been upheld, showed that Mr Bercow had been a serial bully. Like many bullies, he had those whom he favoured and those whom he made victims. The three complainants were victims.
His evidence in the investigations, the findings of the Commissioner, and his submissions to the Committee, also demonstrated that he had been a serial liar. Mr Bercow’s behaviour fell very far below that which the public had a right to expect from any Member of Parliament.
His conduct was so serious that, had he still been a Member of Parliament, the Committee would have determined that he should be expelled by resolution of the House. As it was, it recommended that he should never be permitted a pass to the Parliamentary estate.
As a footnote it should be noted that John Bercow was not accorded the usual honour of elevation to the peerage on completion of his lengthy period of Speaker of the House of Commons. The damning decisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner, upheld by the Independent Expert Panel, have now indelibly blotted his escutcheon and effectively barred a future review of that decision.