By Gabriel Princewill-
The decision made by the Standards Commissioner to dismiss a complaint filed by Ms. Wendy Morton, a Member of Parliament, against Sir Gavin Williamson MP, was unreasonable, according to the lengthy report by the IIEP.
Mr Greenberg, who is responsible for monitoring the operation of the House of Commons Code of Conduct and Registers (including investigating alleged breaches) failed Wendy Morton when assessing her complaint against Gavin Williamson early this week.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
A detailed study of the 17 page document published yesterday reveals the ruling as casting doubt on the Commissioner’s impartiality and expertise.
The drama began to unfold after Ms. Wendy Morton, a prominent Member of Parliament and holder of the esteemed position of Government Chief Whip, lodged a formal complaint against Sir Gavin Williamson MP.
Daniel Grenberg was expected to deliver a credible ruling in his assessment of the complaint, but overruled the original investigator in favour of Gavin Williamson- a man with a known record of bullying in the political landscape.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Instead of spotting the bullish actions of Williams, Mr Geenberg ruled in favour of Mr Williamson.
Ms Morton’s grievance centered around allegations that Williamson had breached the parliamentary Bullying and Harassment Policy.
At the heart of her complaint were a series of text messages from Gavin Williamson, and a phone call exchanged in September and October of 2022, interactions that Ms Morton characterized as menacing, intimidating, and fundamentally undermining.
MP Wendy Morton Image: Getty Images
The report said that in a series of text messages on the 13th and 14th September 2022 between the respondent and complainant, Williamson attempted to put pressure on the complainant by criticizing their decisions on the allocation of tickets for the Queen’s funeral.
The text messages stated the following phrases: ‘Also don’t forget I know how this works so don’t piss me off”
‘It’s very clear how you are going to treat a number of us
which is very stupid and you are showing fuck all interest in
pulling things together. Don’t bother asking anything from
me’
‘Well let’s see how many more times you fuck us all over.
There is a price for everything’ ‘You are using her death to punish people who are just supportive, absolutely disgusting.’
Prescribed Definition Of Bullying
The report stated that the Bullying & Harassment Policy governing the UK Parliament defines bullying as ”behavior that is offensive, intimidating, malicious, or insulting, which involves an abuse or misuse of power and leaves a person feeling vulnerable, upset, undermined, humiliated, denigrated, or threatened.
The crux of this policy lies in the careful balance between identifying behavior as bullying and ensuring that perceptions of bullying are reasonable within the context.
The turning point in this saga came with the Standards Commissioner’s decision to dismiss Ms. Morton’s complaint.
The report stated that Commissioner’s rationale was based on several pivotal arguments, the most erroneous of them being that the threat conveyed by Sir Gavin Williamson in his messages did not constitute an abuse or misuse of power.
Greenberg reasoned that, as a backbench MP at the time, Williamson had the discretion to cooperate with or withhold support from the government.
While this point is unarguably valid, the commissioner failed to take into account that Mr Williamson vented his anger and disapproval of Ms Morton’s decision not to invite him to the Queen’s funeral in the wrong way.
Analysts are convinced that The Standard Commissioner’s judgement incorporated a ruling based on whether Ms Morton was correct to exclude Mr Williamson from an invitation to the Queen’s funeral.
Yet, there are no declared rules stating what determines who is invited to the Queen’s funeral.
One female analyst in linguistics, who insisted on anonymity told this publication: ”The fact Greenberg made a ruling based on whether a potentially wrong motive underlay Mr Williamson’s exclusion from the Queen’s funeral should have had no relevance in determining whether he bullied Ms Morton or not.
”The definition of bullying is articulated in the parliamentary rules, so a competent Standard’s Commissioner ought to have known the actions of Mr Williamson amounted to bullying.
The Standard Commissioner’s professional competence was in question here and the ruling by The Independent Panel aptly reflected this, she said.
The report stated that the Commissioner’s stance was further reinforced by his belief that, while the text messages displayed rudeness, aggression, offensiveness, and intimidation, it would have been more reasonable for Ms. Morton to perceive them as unprofessional expressions of anger, rather than as instances of bullying.
However, the credibility of the Commissioner’s decision was found wanting when subjected to further scrutiny after it was appealed by Ms Morton.
Glaring Omission
One glaring omission in the Commissioner’s decision was the inadequate consideration of the language and tone used in the text messages, the report said.
Although he acknowledged their rudeness, aggression, offensiveness, and intimidation, the Commissioner failed to recognize the inherent abuse of power implicit in their delivery form Mr Williamson- a male in a superior position to a woman.
A major point of contention arises from the seemingly contradictory nature of the Commissioner’s conclusions.
Despite acknowledging that the text messages were intimidating and threatening, he incredibly found it unreasonable for Ms. Morton to perceive them as bullying.
This inconsistency raises valid questions about the decision’s coherence and validity.
Divergence
The Commissioner’s decision notably diverged from the stance of the independent investigator, who had observed that Sir Gavin Williamson’s use of the phrase “don’t forget I know how this works” implied a readiness to employ his prior knowledge as a form of threat. The Commissioner, however, did not give this interpretation its due weight.
Former Education Secretary: Gavin Wilkinson
The Commissioner’s decision raises a host of pertinent questions and concerns. The decision’s inherent flaws has called into question the Standard’s Commissioner’s expertise in assessing cases of bullying and harassment, particularly within the realm of politics.
The decision has sparked speculation regarding potential personal relationships or biases that might have influenced the Commissioner’s judgment.
”When individuals in top positions with the power to make decisions, the can be prone to compromising their standards based on vested personal interests
‘Those vested interests can often lead to judgements actually based on a conflict of interest’, she said
”This has often cast a shadow over the Commissioner’s perceived impartiality and neutrality.
Mr Williamson informed the sub-panel in his written and oral submissions that he has sought guidance on how to better manage the issues that lead him to behave in the way that he did on 13
and 14 September 2022.
He said he hoped the lessons he had learnt would help him better manage his behaviour in future.
Disconcerting Precedent
Most concerning is the fact Mr Greenberg’s original ruling had the potential to set a disconcerting precedent for interpreting and enforcing the Bullying & Harassment Policy within the UK Parliament, potentially affecting future cases, had it not been overturned.
”Not everybody, especially women who have the emotional strength to even launch an appeal to challenge the ruling of a standard’s commissioner, the linguistic said.
”The perceived flaws, inconsistencies, and potential implications, raises profound concerns about the transparent and impartial handling of cases related to bullying and harassment, especially within the arena of politics”.
Calmly
The report said the complainant, to her credit, responded calmly and professionally to the offensive and intimidating texts that she received from the respondent. Not all people would have had the strength and resilience to even launch an appeal.
”Furthermore, she has acted with commendable moderation in not seeking an outcome that might be seen as a punitive sanction such as suspension from the House, the report stated.
Ms Morton was praised by the author of the report for responding calmly and professionally to the offending and intimidating texts she received from the former education secretary.
She questioned the extent of the respondent’s insight into the impact of his behaviour on her.
The implication of this lack of insight on the part of Mr.Williamson is thought to possibly be at play with the Standards Commissioner who failed to spot that Williamson’s behaviour amounted to bullying.
Four cases appealed to the Independent panel after passing through the Commissioner have been overruled by The Independent Panel in the past year.
The ruling underscores the pressing need for transparent and impartial assessments in cases of bullying and harassment, particularly within the intricate
The onus now lies not only on the Standards Commissioner but also on the UK Parliament itself to restore confidence in the Bullying & Harassment Policy.
Comprehensive Review
‘Real progress can be achieved through a comprehensive review of the policy’s implementation and the role of the Standards Commissioner, including potential reforms to ensure a more rigorous and impartial evaluation process’, the lingustic said
‘It is also a valid question whether all Members of Parliament, as well as parliamentary staff, need to undergo training on the Bullying & Harassment Policy to raise awareness about what constitutes bullying and harassment and the importance of reporting such incidents’ she added.
Others say the appointment of an independent body or ombudsman, separate from the political establishment, could help provide a more unbiased approach to handling complaints related to bullying and harassment within Parliament.
The Ombudsman is not always reliable and competent in delivering fair outcomes.
As this complex and contentious case continues to unravel, the debate over the Commissioner’s role will likely persist.
The Standard’s Commissioner was contacted for comment through his representative.
He declined to comment.