Standards and Members Interests' Committee Second

PP 2016/0073

STANDARDS AND MEMBERS INTERESTS’ COMMITTEE SECOND REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2015-2016

Remit of the Committee -

1. There shall be a Standing Committee of the Court on Standards and Members' Interests.

2. The Committee shall be chaired by the Speaker of the House of Keys, and composed of the Members of the Management and Members' Standards Committee of the Keys, and two Members of the Council elected by that branch.

3. The Committee shall consider and may report upon any matter that may from time to time be referred to the Committee by the Court, or by a Member which relates to the conduct of a Member, with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876 as amended.

3A. Tynwald may, on the recommendation of the Committee, require a Member to apologize for inappropriate conduct. In cases where a Member refuses to do so, or apologizes in a way which is unacceptable in the view of the President, the Member should be suspended until he/she complies properly with the Order of Tynwald.

4. No matter shall be considered under paragraph 3 above which concerns words used in proceedings in Tynwald, or the meaning or implication of such words unless -

(i) immediate objection to them has been taken under Standing Order 3.32(1) by the Member about whom the words have been used, and

(ii) the President, after receiving a request from that Member, has decided in all the circumstances that it is appropriate exceptionally to bring the matter to the Committee's attention, or

(iii) the President, after receiving a request from that Member who was absent from the Chamber when the words in question were used and who could not have taken objection to them under Standing Order 3.32(1), has decided in all the circumstances that it is appropriate exceptionally to bring the matter to the Committee's attention.

5. The Committee shall also consider and report on such standards and such privileges of the Court and of Members as have been, or in the future should be, recognised as necessary and desirable for the proper and effective discharge of the duties of the Court of Tynwald and its Members. 6. The Registrar of Members' Interests shall maintain a Register, to be known as the Register of Members' Interests.

7. The Committee shall from time to time, and subject to the approval of Tynwald, establish rules for the Register of Members' Interests, specifying the type of interests which must be registered, the manner in which the Register is to be kept, the time limits within which a Member must notify changes to it and the circumstances in which it is to be open to inspection by the public.

8. The Clerk of Tynwald shall be the Registrar of Members' Interests and shall be responsible to the Committee for maintaining the Register and for giving effect to the rules referred to in paragraph (7) above.

The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984.

Committee Membership

The Hon S C Rodan SHK (Garff) (Chairman)

Hon RH Quayle MHK (Middle)

Mr C R Robertshaw MHK (East Douglas)

Mr D J Quirk MHK (Onchan)

Mr T P Wild MLC

Mr D C Cretney MLC

Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW (Tel 01624 685520) or may be consulted at www.tynwald.org.im

All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM1 3PW. Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1

II. REFERRAL...... 3

III. INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE...... 4

IV. INVESTIGATION PROCESS ...... 5

V. ORAL EVIDENCE – THE ADDITIONAL WITNESS ...... 12

VI. SUMMARY OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE REFERRAL...... 15

VII. CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE...... 16

LYING PART ONE: INFORMATION ABOUT THE REFERRAL OF THE THIRD CLERK TO DR MCANDRY 16

LYING PART TWO: MR HOUGHTON CLAIMED THAT THE DISCUSSION ON THE 30TH OCTOBER 2014 WAS CONFIDENTIAL SAVE FOR THE SPEAKER 18

LYING PART THREE: MR HOUGHTON GAVE THE CLERK A LETTER FROM HIMSELF AND MR WILD WHICH MR WILD HAD SAID HE DID NOT WANT TO SEND. 24

BULLYING PART ONE: MALICIOUS AND BULLYING COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CLERK AND DEPUTY CLERK 32

BULLYING PART TWO: BULLYING MR WILD, THE CLERK AND DEPUTY CLERK 39

The Deputy Clerk ...... 39

The Clerk ...... 41

Mr Wild ...... 42

Mr Houghton’s Response...... 43

The Speaker...... 44

UNWARRANTED INTERFERENCE IN STAFF MATTERS PART ONE: PERSONAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF ONE MEMBER OF STAFF 46

UNWARRANTED INTERFERENCE IN STAFF MATTERS PART TWO: PRECIPITATED THE RESIGNATION OF A MEMBER OF STAFF 51

VIII. CONDUCT OF MR HOUGHTON ...... 55

IX. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 56

ANNEX...... 59

ORAL EVIDENCE ...... 69

23RD NOVEMBER 2015...... 71

EVIDENCE OF HON SC RODAN SHK 2ND DECEMBER 2015 ...... 87

EVIDENCE OF MR RIS PHILLIPS, CLERK OF TYNWALD AND

EVIDENCE OF DR JDC KING, DEPUTY CLERK OF TYNWALD

3RD DECEMBER 2015...... 111

EVIDENCE OF MR TP WILD MLC

9TH DECEMBER 2015...... 129

EVIDENCE OF MRS EM LAMBDEN, FORMER THIRD CLERK OF TYNWALD

18TH DECEMBER 2015...... 141

EVIDENCE OF MR JR HOUGHTON MHK

WRITTEN EVIDENCE ...... 193

APPENDIX 1 ...... 195

LETTER DATED 20TH JULY 2015 REFERRING THE CONDUCT OF MR JR HOUGHTON MHK TO THE TYNWALD STANDARDS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS COMMITTEE

APPENDIX 2 ...... 199

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE INVESTIGATION

APPENDIX 3 ...... 203

EVIDENCE BUNDLE

APPENDIX 3A...... 285

ADDITIONS TO THE EVIDENCE BUNDLE

APPENDIX 4 ...... 299

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MR JR HOUGHTON MHK AND THE TYNWALD STANDARDS & MEMBERS’ INTERESTS COMMITTEE

APPENDIX 5 ...... 385

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN (MEMBER OF STAFF A) AND THE TYNWALD STANDARDS & MEMBERS’ INTERESTS COMMITTEE

APPENDIX 6 ...... 399

ADVICE PROVIDED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHAMBERS TO THE TYNWALD STANDARDS & MEMBERS’ INTERESTS COMMITTEE To: The Hon Clare M Christian, President of Tynwald,

and the Hon Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled

STANDARDS AND MEMBERS INTERESTS’ COMMITTEE SECOND REPORT FOR THE SESSION 2015-2016

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report details the investigation this Committee has undertaken into the conduct of Mr JR Houghton MHK which was referred by Mr Speaker on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee in July 20151.

2. It is alleged that Mr Houghton lied, bullied and engaged in unwarranted interference in a staff matter. These are the very serious allegations which this Committee has investigated.

3. This referral came about as a result of Mr Houghton’s actions in relation to a Clerk of Tynwald’s Office staffing matter, which took place between the end of October and December 2014, and his subsequent complaints about the Clerk of Tynwald and Deputy Clerk of Tynwald made in January 2015.

4. The Committee was very clear that this investigation should not revisit the original staffing matter or the subsequent complaints and has taken care to ensure that, as far as possible, these matters have been referred to only when necessary in relation to the allegations regarding the conduct of Mr Houghton.

1 Appendix 1

1 5. At an early stage the Committee decided that Mr Houghton and Mr Wild had been correct to bring their concerns about a member of staff to the attention of the Clerk of Tynwald and that the allegation of ‘unwarranted interference in a staff matter’ should only be considered in relation to events which happened after 5th November 2014.

6. This was because the Committee noted that until both Mr Houghton and Mr Wild received a letter from the Speaker, dated 5th November 20142, informing them that ‘any continued involvement in this case by a Member of Tynwald is inappropriate’, they may have been unaware of the fact that they should no longer be involved.

7. This has been a complex investigation, some of the evidence presented is contradictory, and Mr Houghton strongly refutes the allegations and has presented a significant challenge about almost every process followed, almost all of the people involved with the original staff matter, the subsequent complaints and the investigation undertaken by this Committee.

8. A timeline of events since 30th October 2014 is provided in the Annex to this report. Members may wish to refer to this whilst reading the report as it sets out the matters of fact, distinct from the various opinions and challenges which may be seen in the oral and written evidence set out in the Appendices.

9. This report begins by setting out how this matter was referred, the evidence used and the process followed. Mr Houghton has challenged a number of aspects of these procedures and the Committee has responded to these challenges.

10. The report then sets out each allegation, the evidence of those involved and the conclusions drawn by the Committee. Members will need to consider whether they agree with these conclusions before deciding whether they can support the recommendation contained in this report.

2 P214-215

2 II. REFERRAL

11. This section of the report sets out how this matter came to be referred to the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee, the issues which arose due to some Members and staff being conflicted and when the remaining Committee members came to the decision to undertake an investigation.

12. On the 20th July 2015 the Hon SC Rodan SHK, Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee referred, on behalf of that Committee, the conduct of Mr JR Houghton MHK to this Committee. The referral letter may be found at Appendix 1.

13. In that letter he advised that as both he and Mr TP Wild MLC, members of this Committee, may be witnesses in connection with events related to the referral they would be conflicted and that this Committee should meet to consider the matter without them.

14. He also advised that the Clerk of Tynwald, Mr RIS Phillips; the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald, Dr JDC King; and the then Third Clerk of Tynwald, Mrs EM Lambden would be similarly conflicted and so Mrs J Corkish, who had been seconded to the Cabinet Office for the period during which the alleged matters occurred, would act as Clerk to the Committee.

15. The remaining members of this Committee met on the 22nd July 2015 to consider the referral. Mr DC Cretney MLC advised that, as Vice-Chair of the Tynwald Management Committee, who oversaw the investigation into the complaints about the Clerk of Tynwald and the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald, he may also be conflicted. The Committee agreed to request supporting evidence from the Tynwald Management Committee to first consider whether Mr Cretney was conflicted, then for the purposes of considering whether an investigation should take place.

16. On the 27th August 2015 the Tynwald Management Committee consented to the evidence being supplied. This was circulated to Members in advance of a meeting on 16th September 2015.

17. At that meeting, after reviewing the evidence, it became clear that Mr Cretney may be conflicted and he withdrew.

18. As a result the Committee became inquorate. The Clerk of the Committee advised that the Committee may make a motion to Tynwald requesting that,

3 for the purposes of this matter, the quorum be reduced to three. This proposal was agreed; the motion was tabled and subsequently carried in Tynwald Court on 21st October 2015.

19. The Committee met on 27th October 2015 and having reviewed the evidence provided by the Tynwald Management Committee resolved to investigate the matter referred to it. A terms of reference was drawn up, this can be found at Appendix 2.

III. INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE

20. This section of the report sets out the sources of evidence used by this Committee during its investigation and explains why some of the information in the papers is redacted.

21. The evidence provided by the Tynwald Management Committee related to a series of events, connected to a staff matter, in the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office beginning at the end of October 2014.

22. At an early stage in their deliberations the Committee decided that some of the evidence provided to it related only to the staff matter, it was not all relevant to this investigation about the conduct of Mr Houghton.

23. The Committee subsequently provided a copy of all the evidence it used during the investigation to all witnesses who gave oral evidence and this may be found at Appendix 3.

24. The Committee decided that it would take oral evidence in private, but that it would be recorded and transcribed so that it may be published in any report. All invited witnesses were advised of this.

25. Oral evidence sessions were held between 23rd November 2015 and 18th December 2015 with the following witnesses:

• Hon SC Rodan SHK • The Clerk of Tynwald, Mr RIS Phillips • The Deputy Clerk of Tynwald, Dr JDC King • Mr TP Wild MLC • The former Third Clerk of Tynwald, Mrs EM Lambden • Mr JR Houghton MHK

4 The oral evidence transcripts can be found in the Oral Evidence Appendix.

26. After oral evidence had been heard the Committee agreed that two further documents may be relevant and these were again provided to all witnesses and can be found in Appendix 3A.

27. In addition to the oral and written evidence a copy of all the correspondence this committee exchanged with Mr Houghton may be found in Appendix 4.

28. The Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to redact evidence to ensure that anyone who did not have the opportunity to provide oral evidence would not be identified. The following descriptions have therefore been used where necessary and redactions/replacements are indicated by [ ].

• Member of staff A or MSA: Member of staff supported by Mr Houghton and Mr Wild. • Member of staff B or MSB: Member of staff accused of betraying a confidence by staff member A. • Independent Investigating Officer or IIO: Officer who conducted the investigation into the complaints from Mr Houghton about the Clerk and Deputy Clerk. 29. The Committee did not feel that it was necessary to take oral evidence from member of staff A, because this investigation was not about the staff matter, but accepted that there were some points where Mr Houghton had indicated that member of staff A could provide evidence to support his recollection of events. We therefore wrote to member of staff A to enquire about the particular points and this correspondence may be found in Appendix 5.

30. There were a number of legal and procedural matters raised during this investigation and the Committee took advice from the Attorney General’s Chambers. This evidence is provided in Appendix 6.

IV. INVESTIGATION PROCESS

31. This section of the report explains the process which the Committee followed, once it had decided that it would investigate, before deciding whether it needed to report on the matter referred to it.

5 32. This remit of this Committee, set out at the beginning of this report, provides us with the authority to conduct an investigation.

33. This is not a legal trial; it is not a public service process. It is, in essence, a process of peer review in which the responsibility for investigating allegations of misconduct is delegated to a committee.

34. Once the Committee has investigated they may report to Tynwald and it is for Honourable Members to debate the findings and vote on any recommendations made.

35. This is ultimately a very public process which is appropriate for Members of Tynwald who must observe the highest standards in their public life and as representatives of the people.

36. Mr Houghton challenged the authority of this Committee to conduct this investigation and called into question the process being followed and the legality of the process on a number of occasions.

37. On 3rd November 2015, in reply to the Committee’s letter of the 29th October 2015 advising him of the referral and decision to investigate, Mr Houghton challenged the procedure being followed, suggesting that this Committee should note Civil Service Regulations:

you should however note that under Civil Service regulations (as recently amended by the PSC) that a person subject to complaint must be advised of an official complaint against him as soon as possible. It is noted that some 3 months had elapsed before I received your letter.3

38. This is an investigation being conducted by a Tynwald Committee not a Civil Service procedure. The Committee had explained the steps which had to be taken to ensure a quorum, before the Committee was able to consider the matter and make a decision to investigate, in our letter of the 29th October 2015 to Mr Houghton.4

39. On the 8th December 2015 Mr Houghton suggested that the effect of the motion requesting a reduced quorum for the Tynwald Standards and

3 P303 4 P301-302

6 Members’ Interests Committee for the purposes of this matter, which was approved by Tynwald, was ultra vires because:

it has altered the Standing Orders of Tynwald Court provided for in paragraph 4.2 of the Schedule to the Standing Orders, which provides for a membership and, therefore, a quorum of the Committee of six Members, which Tynwald did not agree to, and because any alterations to Standing Orders is a matter for the Standing Orders Committee to seek formal approval of Tynwald, under the provisions of paragraph 5.1 of the Schedule to the Standing Orders.5

And further that:

Because the effect of the Tynwald Motion is ultra vires, it may be unlawful for the Committee to conduct a Hearing without full membership of the Committee provided for in paragraph 4.2 of the Schedule being present.6

40. The Committee notes that under Tynwald Standing Order ‘5.14 (1) Unless Tynwald otherwise resolves, the majority of Members of the committee shall be the quorum’. So there is specific provision within the Tynwald Standing Orders to allow Tynwald to resolve to change a quorum. The effect is not therefore ultra vires.

41. Also in his letter of the 8th December 2015, Mr Houghton stated:

Because the Speaker may be conflicted in this matter, his evidence viz his letter to the Committee of 29th July 2015 may be deemed inadmissible.7

42. The Committee noted that Mr Speaker said in oral evidence:

I just want to reinforce that it is a very serious matter to refer anybody for whatever reason to the Tynwald Standards Committee.

I did so on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee, which did not take that decision lightly, but so serious were the concerns about the behaviour of Mr Houghton that it was absolutely the correct thing to do.8

43. The Committee notes that the remit of this Committee requires that a referral be made by ‘the Court, or by a Member’. The Speaker, as a Member, simply referred this matter on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee. It is

5 P317 – Point (i) 6 P317 – Point (ii) 7 P318 – Point (iii) 8 Oral Evidence Mr Speaker lines 57-61

7 this Committee which decided, first to investigate, and later to make this report. Mr Houghton was advised of this in a letter from the Committee dated 9th December 2015.9

44. In his letter of 14th December 2015 Mr Houghton states:

Finally, with the greatest respect to the Committee, I would formally protest that the procedure in which the Tynwald Standards & Members' Interests Committee intends to follow, in that the accused person is being denied his fundamental right to be properly heard, which means that any decision made by the Committee will have to be discounted.

Under the rules of natural justice and under the Human Rights Act, a person has the right to have a fair trial. A fair trial means the ability to call witnesses to hear all the evidence before the Committee, cross examine witnesses and sum up at the end.

I have pleasure in enclosing a copy of a Public Service Commission document relating to the Civil Service Disciplinary Procedures (Annex B2) Section 23, which explains the process at a Disciplinary Hearing.

The Tynwald Standards & Members' Interests Committee should be operating as a shining example of any modern process in operation at that time. I have to say to you the process you are currently adopting will be made a laughing stock if and when this matter reports to Tynwald.10

45. This Committee has followed the process set down by Tynwald Court. This investigation is neither a trial nor a public service procedure. This Committee could find no evidence that the process followed contravenes the rules of natural justice or the Human Rights Act.

46. In his oral evidence, given on 18th December 2015, Mr Houghton states:

the four charges that are against me. At no time, Mr Robertshaw, have you set those out in the way that you have detailed them now, this morning. I have asked you and asked you; and on 30th November you mentioned two, and I referred back to you in subsequent correspondence, which was ‘unwarranted interference in staff matters’ and that, two, I ‘engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against the senior members’ – which was against the advice of the Speaker.

9 P338 – Point (iii) 10 P343-344

8 Now, you have set four charges out here that you have not given me prior notice of. I am going to be quite happy to deal with them today, because I have actually dealt with them in my submission and so on. So the first point, I have an issue with the Committee on this – and I do regret having to put it this way – but as I have said to you time and time again, this Committee is operating rather like in the format of a Select Committee, rather than a disciplinary format, whereby I should have had each of these – can I word them as ‘charges’? (The Chairman: Allegations.) Allegations, charges – whichever – that have now been set out before me. This is the first time you have done that and I see that as unfair.11

47. The Committee provided Mr Houghton with a copy of the referral letter12 when we wrote to him on the 29th October 2015 advising him of the allegations of misconduct13. The referral letter set out all of the points to be considered and is what the Chairman quotes from during each oral evidence session. Mr Houghton responded to each of the points in his letter and written submission to this Committee dated 8th December 2015.14

48. This Committee does not accept that Mr Houghton did not have prior notice of the allegations that would be discussed during oral evidence.

49. Later in oral evidence Mr Houghton said:

I am appearing in front of the Committee today by precept, following my withdrawal last week due to the Committee's refusal to allow my witness, [member of staff A], to give evidence. I note since, Mr Robertshaw, the precept has been signed by you and I question as to whether you have the legal right to sign that precept because you are the investigating Chairman, if you like, and if I can word it this way, of a subcommittee of the Tynwald Standards Committee that was approved by Tynwald.

And why I say that is the only person who is able to issue a precept – and it is set out in Standing Orders – is the Chairman of a Committee. The Chairman of the Committee in this particular case is the Speaker – he is the Chairman of the Standards Committee.

11 Oral Evidence of Mr Houghton lines 169-183 12 Appendix 1 13 P301-302 14 P317-319

9 Of course, he is conflicted and therefore we understand that you were appointed as the investigation chairman, but you are the investigation chairman, not the Chairman of the Standards Committee; and therefore my legal advice is that that precept is unlawful. That is the first point.15

50. The Committee can advise that Mr Houghton was not issued with a precept he was given notice under Tynwald Standing Order 10.13 (2) by Mr Robertshaw, as Chairman of the Committee for the purpose of this investigation, that he was ordered to attend on the 18th December 2015.

51. This order was issued after he refused to stay to give evidence on the 11th December 2015 because the Committee would not agree to hear evidence from a witness who accompanied him.

52. Mr Houghton also said during oral evidence:

I also would like to state that Mr Rodan's letter of 20th July that he has written to the Committee, that he is conflicted because of his pre-dealings. And there has been no other complaint that I have had receipt of from any of the management of this organisation. So that is why I wondered whether we were actually here in the first place.16

53. This point had already been clarified in our letter to Mr Houghton, dated 9th December 2015.17 The complaint was written by Mr Speaker, as the Standing Order requires that the complaint comes from the Court or a Member, but was on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee.

54. In summing up during oral evidence Mr Houghton said:

The way this Committee is operating is as if you are Select Committee – like in the mode of a Select Committee. The Tynwald Standards Committee is a disciplinary committee. You are going to make – you will have to make – you will either decide or otherwise, you have made that clear – you have the ability to make a report to Tynwald about this matter and deliver that report to Tynwald. Tynwald gives the sanction that you would recommend, of course, in that regard. So that is the way the Committee is set up.

Where there has been absolutely no thought in this – and I really am shocked at a person like yourself, Mr Robertshaw, with the integrity you have, because I

15 Oral Evidence of Mr Houghton lines 192-204 16 Oral Evidence of Mr Houghton lines 230-233 17 P338 – Point (iii)

10 know if I was sitting in your seat, I would not have run an inquiry like this, in this way, in the way that you have. I have sent you something that I think that was one of the most appropriate methods, which was that of the Civil Service disciplinary procedure, whereby you have a whole-day hearing or longer if that is necessary, whereby the person who is accused sits through the whole of the case – like in a court or like in a disciplinary hearing with the Civil Service and any other Employment Act disciplinary circumstances with any other company in the Isle of Man.

Then, if I can use it in this way, there is a prosecutor – someone puts the case against the accused person. You as the Committee hear the case, ask any questions that you may wish for clarification and fact. The prosecution side puts the case and proper charges – because remember, we have been surprised here where there have not even been a proper list of allegations that you were to provide me with before we begin in order for me to prepare. We have covered that point, but I am just covering it again.

The precept was not even right. I am saying that, and therefore when it comes to trial, the prosecutor puts the case. He calls however many appropriate witnesses as he sees fit. The defence – because if this was a very serious matter, I would have come here today represented.

So then, either you are represented or you represent yourself, that is fine – in this case, I have represented myself. I would wish then to be able to cross- examine all those witnesses, as well as you. So I could do it on the defence side, and of course the Committee could do it, because you are the adjudicators in this matter.

From that, the matter goes then to the witness giving his evidence. Anybody calling the accused, bringing his witness to give evidence, and the ability for that witness to be cross examined by, could I call it, the prosecutor in front of you and both sides, for clarification and fact.

Then the opportunity after that then, for both sides to sum up and any further clarification required at that time from you three gentlemen. That has not happened at all. And you know, that the way that you have operated here – you know in your heart of hearts – the way that you have operated here has been improper. Therefore it cannot carry any weight.18

18 Oral Evidence of Mr Houghton lines 2001-2035

11 55. The Committee notes that Mr Houghton does accept that this is a Tynwald Committee, although it is not a select committee, but has still found it necessary to make consistent and repetitive challenges to the process.

56. The Committee is confident that it has operated according to its remit, set out in the Standing Orders of Tynwald Court. This Committee does not operate a public service or legal process but one which applies equally to all Honourable Members.

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton understands, but has failed to accept, the rules or authority of this Honourable Court.

V. ORAL EVIDENCE – THE ADDITIONAL WITNESS

57. In this section we explain the position of the Committee in relation to Mr Houghton’s request, and then insistence, that the Committee should hear from an additional witness, member of staff A.

58. On 29th October 201519 the Committee wrote to Mr Houghton advising him that we would be investing the matter referred to us, enclosing a copy of the letter of the 20th July 201520, which set out in full the allegations made, and our terms of reference21.

59. The Committee received a response dated 3rd November 201522 in which Mr Houghton advised that member of staff A ‘wishes to give evidence to the Committee in writing and at any future oral hearing‘.

60. The Committee discussed hearing from member of staff A and agreed that as this investigation was about Mr Houghton’s conduct, not about the substance of the staff matter, that based on the evidence they had received (the papers in Appendices 3 and 3A) they did not initially have any questions for member of staff A.

19 P301-302 20 Appendix 1 21 Appendix 2 22 P303

12 61. The Committee responded to Mr Houghton on 17th November 2015 advising that they did ‘not, at present, intend to call member of staff A’23.

62. At that time invitations to give oral evidence were issued to all witnesses, along with a copy of the evidence related to Mr Houghton’s conduct, the ‘evidence bundle’, this is at Appendix 3.

63. Each witness confirmed they would attend.

64. On the 25th November 2015 Mr Houghton wrote to confirm that he would attend and asked if he may be permitted to bring member of staff A24.

65. The Committee had agreed that reporting an initial concern about a distressed member of staff was not wrong. They felt that any Member concerned about a member of staff would do this.

66. The Committee had decided that the ‘unwarranted interference in staff matters’ took place after a letter from the Speaker, dated 5th November 2014, in which he advised Mr Houghton and Mr Wild that that ‘any continued involvement in this case by any member of Tynwald is inappropriate’.25

67. The Committee was very clear that its duty was to investigate the complaint and allegations about Mr Houghton’s conduct in relation to the staff matter, and that it must not be drawn into the detail of the original staff matter which was concluded.

68. So on the 30th November 2015 the Committee declined this request in writing and explained to Mr Houghton why they did not wish to hear from member of staff A at that time. They wrote:

The position of the Committee, at present, is that the Committee has seen sufficient evidence to agree that this is a matter about which you raised a genuine concern. The allegation however is one of 'unwarranted interference in staff matters' and that you 'engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against … senior managers' against the direct advice of the

23 P308 24 P309 25 P214-215

13 Speaker.’. This advice was given in a letter from the Speaker dated 5th November 2014.26

69. On the 2nd December 2015 Mr Houghton wrote thanking the Committee for acknowledging that he was right to raise his initial concerns about member of staff A and he went on to say:

I will therefore be attending the Oral Hearing in the company of [member of staff A] who will provide evidence to support my defence of all the allegations and provide the Committee with the background information which will be beneficial in relation to this matter.27

70. The Committee replied to Mr Houghton on 7th December 2015 stating ‘we do not consider it appropriate for you to be accompanied at the oral hearing’28.

71. On 8th December 2015 Mr Houghton sent a submission to the Committee in which he responded in full to the allegations. In the covering letter he wrote:

In relation to my request to call [member of staff A] as my witness, I hear what you say in your letter of 30th November 2015, but in this regard I have been advised that I have an absolute right to call [member of staff A] to give evidence in support of my defence under Article 6(3)(d) on the Human Rights Act 2001, and I will therefore, be calling [member of staff A] to give evidence.29

72. The Committee replied on the 9th December 2015 advising ‘Article 6(3)(d) on the European Convention on Human Rights applies in the Isle of Man under the Human Rights Act 2001 however that particular section applies only to criminal trials.’30

73. The Committee then explained in more detail why it had decided not to call member of staff A:

The Committee advised you in its letter dated 17th November 2015 that it 'does not, at present, intend to call [member of staff A] to give oral evidence'. It might be helpful if it explained why it reached this decision. The Committee does not think that you and Mr Wild were wrong to bring the staff matter to the Clerks attention. The matter being investigated is not that you brought a

26 P311-312 27 P313 28 P315 29 P318 30 P339

14 staff matter to the Clerk's attention, it is the allegations relating to your conduct. In this regard therefore the Committee does not consider the specifics of the staff matter to be of relevance.

The Committee went on to say:

For the reasons stated, only you are required to attend the oral evidence session at 9.30am on Friday 11th December 2015. I am sure you would not wish [member of staff A] to be embarrassed, by the Committee having to ask [them to leave if they attend].31

74. Notwithstanding Mr Houghton brought member of staff A to the oral evidence session on 11th December 2015 and, when member of staff A was asked to leave, Mr Houghton politely refused to remain and said that for him to attend without member of staff A a precept would need to be issued.

75. Later that day Mr Robertshaw issued a notice, not a precept, under Standing Order 10.13 (2) ordering Mr Houghton to attend to give oral evidence on the 18th December 2015.

76. Mr Houghton attended on 18th December 2015 and gave oral evidence.

77. After the Committee had heard all of the oral evidence they did write to member of staff A to ask about two specific occasions where Mr Houghton indicated that they could substantiate his evidence because these points were specifically related to his conduct.

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton’s repeated attempts to involve member of staff A demonstrates that he has failed to accept that this investigation is only about his conduct, and that the substance of the original staff matter is immaterial.

VI. SUMMARY OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE REFERRAL

78. The events leading to the referral letter of the 20th July 2015 can be understood from the evidence but for ease of reference a summary is provided in the Annex.

31 P339

15 VII. CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE

79. In this part of the report each of the allegations about Mr Houghton’s conduct: lying, bullying and unwarranted interference in staff matters, has been taken separately and the evidence relating to each one has been set out in sub- sections. The Committee has provided their view on how far the available evidence goes towards supporting each allegation made.

LYING PART ONE: Information about the referral of the Third Clerk to Dr McAndry

80. It is alleged that Mr Houghton lied when he said, on subsequent occasions and in writing, that during a meeting between himself, Mr Wild and the Clerk on the 30th October 2014, that the Clerk had said that Mrs Lambden had been referred to Dr McAndry, the occupational health doctor used by the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office, for depression.

81. The Clerk said that he did tell Mr Houghton and Mr Wild that Mrs Lambden had been referred to Dr McAndry, to illustrate to them that such a referral was a supportive not threatening measure, but ‘I did not at any time tell them why Mrs Lambden had been referred to Dr McAndry and, as far as I am aware, they would not know’32.

82. Mr Houghton was firm in his view that the Clerk had said that depression was the reason for the referral and that this was discussed at a meeting between him, Mr Wild and member of staff A after the meeting with the Clerk, He wrote:

Immediately after our meeting with Mr Phillips on 30th October 2014, Mr Wild and I met with [member of staff A] in the Douglas North office to brief [them] on our discussions with Mr Phillips, when Mr Wild expressed his surprise that Mr Phillips had told us that Mrs Lambden had been referred to occupational health for depression. Mr Phillips stated this in defence to our concerns about [member of staff A]’s referral to the occupational health Doctor.33

83. The Committee wrote to member of staff A to ask whether they recalled this conversation. They replied:

32 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 259-260 33 P323

16 I was so upset and shocked after Tony Wild’s disclosure to me that he had told Roger Phillips I was being bullied that I did not hear everything John Houghton and Tony Wild were telling me that Roger Phillips had said about other members of staff. However, I clearly and most definitely recall this at our meeting on the 12th November34

84. Mr Houghton subsequently made this matter point 2 in his formal complaint about the Clerk35. The conclusion of that investigation was that the Clerk had disclosed personal data, that Mrs Lambden had been referred to Dr McAndry, but that this was not sensitive personal data i.e. that no reason was given.

85. Mr Wild confirmed to the investigating officer that the Clerk did not give the reason for the referral and in oral evidence said:

The Chairman: So, for absolute clarity: do you recall at any time the Clerk of Tynwald saying that the referral in this instance was for depression?

Mr Wild: To be quite honest, no. I would have said the referral was for wellbeing, if that is the right way of summarising it.36

86. In her oral evidence Mrs Lambden confirmed that she had indeed been referred to Dr McAndry but that it was not for depression, she said:

The reason for my referral was a hyperactive thyroid, and the referral was helpful because within Dr McAndry’s report he is able to say how somebody might feel with the thyroid and whether it would impact on work.37

She also said:

It is ironic that Mr Houghton accuses officers of incorrect disclosure of accurate confidential information, necessary for management to exercise judgement and perform their duties, yet as part of his evidence into the investigation of my colleagues he disclosed inaccurate confidential information about myself. He claimed that I had suffered depression. This is untrue.38

And:

34 P394 35 P259 36 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 164-168 37 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden lines 187-189 38 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden lines 117-120

17 The documents containing Mr Houghton’s statements were circulated to the executive director of the Isle of Man Civil Service as part of the investigation into my fellow Clerks. The Civil Service has been in possession of an untrue statement about me from a Member of Tynwald, with the potential to stigmatise my health issues and to jeopardise my future employment prospects. It was distributed to further senior civil servants as part of the investigation. I was unable to defend that statement.

Mr Houghton was happy to damage my reputation with his false statement about my health, and yet he was oblivious to the potential damage to my health of his cause. Eight months after he breached procedure and made false allegations against me, which he withdrew without apology, only to act as distastefully towards my colleagues, I was placed by my GP on beta blockers for hypertension.39

87. The Committee notes that the Clerk and Mr Wild do not agree with Mr Houghton’s and member of staff A’s recollection about the mention of depression. Mr Houghton and member of staff A agree they recall depression being discussed when they met with Mr Wild but Mr Houghton says this was on the 30th October 2014 and member of staff A says this was on 12th November 2014.

88. However setting aside the inconsistencies, because more than a year has passed since these events took place, the Committee was influenced by the oral evidence of Mrs Lambden in which she stated that she had never suffered from depression.40

The Committee concludes that if the Clerk had given a medical reason for Mrs Lamden’s referral to Dr McAndry he would have given the actual reason, which was an overactive thyroid problem41.

LYING PART TWO: Mr Houghton claimed that the discussion on the 30th October 2014 was confidential save for the Speaker

89. It is alleged that Mr Houghton lied when he said that it was agreed that the initial complaint about bullying and breach of confidence, made by Mr

39 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden lines 125-135 40 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden line 120 41 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden line 121

18 Houghton and Mr Wild to the Clerk on 30th October 2014, was confidential and should not have been shared with the members of staff complained of; but only with the Speaker.

90. In his summary of his meeting of the 30th October 2014 with Mr Houghton and Mr Wild, which he sent to them both on the 31st October 2014, the Clerk wrote:

I promised to have the matter investigated and to inform Mr Speaker;

I have informed both Marie Lambden and [member of staff B] of the allegations against them; and

I intend to ask the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald to investigate these allegations.42

91. The Committee noted that Mr Houghton made several amendments to this document, and returned it to the Clerk on 4th November 2014, but he did not correct any of the specific points where the Clerk stated that the information was being given to others. We asked about this during oral evidence:

The Chairman: ……………..can you explain why you did not correct the note regarding the terms of confidentiality on 31st October, the day after the meeting?

Mr Houghton: On the first document that you have just been talking about? (The Chairman: Yes.) Yes, I did it. I manuscripted it at the top of the letter.

The purpose of that initial letter, Mr Robertshaw, in such an early day was that, if you can see, going back to page 1, I wrote ‘In strict confidence’ up above it and sent it back. And I actually manuscripted this, I think, in one of the sittings. I am not sure now. I think it was actually while we were in Tynwald when I got the letter, when everything at that particular time appeared to be hunky-dory.

So I simply dealt with this as a draft and sent it back to Mr Phillips.43

Mr Quayle asked later:

Mr Houghton, if I could just clarify this (Mr Houghton: Go ahead, yes.) because I think this is an incredibly important issue and I do not feel as if in my head I have got the clear understanding I suppose, trying to paraphrase everything – and I am referring to reference 1, the letter on page 1 – where the Clerk of

42 P207 43 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 351-61

19 Tynwald has written to you and said this is my memory of everything as it happened. You have gone back and amended various words because you were not happy with it. (Mr Houghton: Yes.) I suppose the allegation is that because you said absolutely nothing regarding the Clerk of Tynwald’s actions on going to the …

‘I have informed both Marie Lambden and [member of staff B] of the allegations against them and I have advised them to consult their union as soon as possible.’

– because that paragraph has not been altered in any way, shape or form, therefore that was your understanding. Can you see where I am coming from?

Mr Houghton: Absolutely. I can see where you are coming from and that was corrected by myself and Mr Wild later, as you know. What –

Mr Quayle: But it was not corrected at this time.

Mr Houghton: And the reason why is because he was not asking us that … ‘I will go and inform both Marie Lambden and [member of staff B]’; he said, ‘I have informed them’. So there was very little point in correcting anything when he had already stated that he had informed them. Do you see where I am coming from? Does that help the Committee?

The Chairman: I understand what you are saying.

Mr Quayle: But at the last line, the letter says:

I intend to ask the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald to investigate these allegations. He returns on Monday when I shall speak to him.

That is on the very bottom of page 1. Would that not have been the opportunity to say, ‘No, that is not what we want to happen. Do not go ahead with this’?

Mr Houghton: Yes, that would have been an ideal opportunity but of course, depending on the time that the letter was written, the time it took for me to receive it and return it back …time has gone on of course. The 31st October will have been a Friday, so you are into Monday; I possibly might not have even read it and I cannot remember that bit on timing that I responded back on that. But that is the reason why that letter was not altered.

And I have to say to the Committee that does not alter one iota of what was said and promised by Mr Phillips. So just because I had not re-manuscripted that document does not for one moment give any implication that I, as one of

20 the Members supportive of [member of staff A], was any way at all concurring with what was happening.44

92. The Committee also asked Mr Wild about this:

The Chairman: What was your understanding of what the Clerk had agreed to do after the original meeting on 30th October 2014, at which you raised your concerns about a staff member to the Clerk of Tynwald?

Mr Wild: The Clerk was entitled to handle, I will say a ‘staff’ issue – I prefer ‘colleague’ – in whatever manner the Clerk determined fit. And, from my banking perspective, you have these confidential meetings but they are not confidential because if they were confidential you cannot actually engage and take action.

The Chairman: Did this understanding change – the understanding that you have just indicated there – after you received the written summary of the meeting of 30th October that the Clerk wrote and sent to you and Mr Houghton on 31st October?

Mr Wild: No, I felt that the Clerk’s written summary was fair and reflected our meeting, and I had no issues with it whatsoever.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. Were you surprised to read that the Clerk had ‘informed both Marie Lambden and [member of staff B] of the allegations’; or that he intended ‘to ask the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald to investigate these allegations’?

Mr Wild: No, looking at it from my previous professional history I would probably have done the same. And on the basis that the Clerk is the – pardon the pun – ‘lender of last resort’, it seemed perfectly sensible to me for the Clerk to delegate the investigation to his Deputy.45

93. The Committee also asked the Clerk about this:

The Chairman: Can you please explain why you would not have been able to keep the matter discussed at the meeting on 30th October confidential, apart from Mr Speaker?

Mr Phillips: ….if you are going to investigate something you have to hear more than one side of the story, and you certainly cannot … As I was instructed to do – quite fairly, I do not quarrel with this – I was instructed from the start to

44 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 417-453 45 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 50-73

21 inform Mr Speaker of this allegation. Fair enough. It is very serious. He is Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee; he has a right to know what is going on. I have no quarrel with that. But, by the same token, you cannot insist that that be done without telling the people whose conduct is complained of, that their conduct has been complained of. It is part of standard fairness in procedure. You will not be surprised to know that it is in the staff rules that if any complaint is made, people are entitled to be told of it.46

94. When the Committee asked the Clerk who else he had told he said:

Clearly, this is a confidential issue. It is a staff issue. It is not quite as confidential in the way that Mr Houghton thought. I told people who have a need to know.

So I told Mr Speaker, as everybody agreed I should; I told my Deputy, because he was going to be the inquiry officer; and I told the three staff members who were involved.47

95. In a letter from Mr Houghton and Mr Wild, dated 10th November 2014, they wrote that:

Although we stand by what we told you, we clearly advised you that what was discussed was in the strictest confidence.48

96. When the Committee asked about this Mr Wild said:

With hindsight, which is a wonderful thing, I realise it was inappropriate to have put that in the letter. I will say, the letter was not written by me. 49

97. The Clerk responded to the letter of the 10th November 2014 from Mr Houghton and Mr Wild on the 12th November 2014. In it he wrote:

it would be impossible to investigate the matter properly without hearing from the two officers whom you criticised so forcefully. Indeed, if the matters alleged against them were found to be true, then their conduct might well have been taken to merit dismissal. It is not possible to refer matters to me, and also insist that Mr Speaker be informed, without telling the persons who are being criticised what is being said about them.50

46 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 148-163 47 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 182-185 48 P217 – Point (i) 49 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 90-1 50 P219

22 The Clerk then wrote:

As far as keeping your letter and other statements confidential is concerned, I regret that I cannot do so for the reasons which I have explained. It is not easy for me to refuse the request of two Members, so I have consulted Mr Speaker, who has agreed the terms on which I am responding to you and that your last letter should be communicated to all the officers concerned.51

98. Mr Houghton subsequently made this matter of confidentiality point 1 in his formal complaint about the Clerk. He wrote:

During Mr Wild's involvement in this matter he was firmly of the opinion that our correspondence with Mr Phillips was to be held in absolute and strictest confidence.

It is my opinion, as it was during Mr Wild's involvement, that our correspondence should NOT have been copied to anyone else with the exception of the Speaker without specific consent. I note in Mr Phillips's letter dated 12th November 2014 that he attempts to mitigate his reasoning for copying this correspondence to third parties, by attempting to conflict the Speaker. In fact on each occasion he copied this correspondence he failed to firstly consult with me or Mr Wild respectively to gain our consent to lift the confidential cover therefrom before he circulated our respective correspondence to others.

I firmly believe that by doing this, Mr Phillips has breached my trust as a Member of Tynwald to properly deal with correspondence received by him under confidential cover and is therefore potentially guilty of misconduct by betraying that trust.52

99. The Committee notes that the subsequent investigation into Mr Houghton’s complaint about the Clerk concluded that:

There is no evidence to substantiate a breach of discipline under the relevant code of conduct.

There is no evidence that the discussions at the meeting on the 30th October were agreed to be confidential. Despite the contents of the letter from Mr Houghton and Mr Wild dated 10th November; Mr Wild confirmed in his statement that confidentiality was not discussed at the meeting.

51 P220 52 P258-259

23 I consider that there may have been some misunderstanding of the next steps to be taken between the participants of the meeting but that Mr Phillips considered the allegations and decided to follow a more formal route to ask for the allegations to be investigated.53

100. The Committee agree with the view of the independent investigating officer. The Clerk, as the Chief Officer of the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office, is responsible to the Tynwald Management Committee for management of the office. That he should listen to the concerns of Members of Tynwald and form an opinion that the allegations were so serious that an investigation was necessary is, in the view of the Committee, the correct course of action, whether Mr Houghton and Mr Wild fully appreciated this at the time or not.

101. For Mr Houghton to continue to pursue this, to the point where it became part of a formal complaint about the Clerk, after the Clerk had explained the reasons for the steps he took, was not a course of action the Committee could find any justification for.

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton has failed to accept the Clerk of Tynwald’s authority in this matter.

LYING PART THREE: Mr Houghton gave the Clerk a letter from himself and Mr Wild which Mr Wild had said he did not want to send.

102. It is alleged that Mr Houghton gave a letter dated 11th November 2014, written and signed by him and Mr Wild, to the Clerk on the 13th November 2014 after Mr Wild had said that he no longer wished to send the letter.

103. Mr Houghton and Mr Wild wrote a letter dated 11th November 2014 which stated that they withdrew the allegations they had made to the Clerk on 30th October 2014. They both signed the letter and initially agreed that Mr Wild would take the original to the Clerk and that Mr Houghton would deliver a copy of the letter to the Speaker.

104. In his submission to this Committee dated 8th December 2015 Mr Houghton wrote:

53 P289 - Evaluation

24 The purpose of this letter was to attempt to halt a formal investigation initiated by Mr Phillips against [member of staff A]. [Member of staff A] had not made any formal complaint and did not authorise Mr Wild or Mr Houghton to complain on [their] behalf.54

105. During oral evidence the Committee asked Mr Wild why the letter had been written, he said:

A lot was said between the individuals who were trying to care for the member of staff who was clearly feeling that the individual’s words were bullying and picked upon – or whatever. And at a certain point in time I … ‘panic’ is the wrong word. I became very uncomfortable and wished to pull the whole case back, because I felt it was becoming out of control – not from the Clerk’s Office but from, I guess, the Members’ office.

That is when we wrote the letter to withdraw the, I suppose, allegations, or information.55

Mr Wild went on to say:

It was agreed that I would give the letter to the Clerk and that the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, would give a copy of the letter to Mr Speaker. At the same time the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, asked me if I could get professional advice, which I agreed to do;56

106. On the same day Mr Houghton delivered the copy, as agreed, to the Speaker, which Mr Speaker confirmed during Oral Evidence, he said:

late on the 11th, Mr Houghton handed me a copy of the letter without comment; I still have it and I recorded the fact he gave it to me late on the afternoon of the 11th – the letter to Mr Phillips.57

107. On the same day Mr Wild showed the letter to the Clerk who advised him to think carefully before sending it and Mr Wild did not give the letter to the Clerk.

11 Nov 2014 Mr Wild shows Roger Phillips a letter from himself and Mr Houghton saying they withdraw their comments ("the withdrawal letter").

54 P326 - Point 10.1 55 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 194-199 56 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 200-203 57 Oral Evidence Speaker of the House of Keys lines 95-97

25 Roger Phillips asks Mr Wild to think about it before sending it. Mr Speaker tells Roger Phillips he has received from Mr Houghton a copy of the same letter.58

108. Mr Houghton commented on this during his oral evidence, he said

So it was only afterwards that I read in the timeline of events …… that Mr Wild had actually gone and shown Mr Phillips this letter that was meant to have been delivered to him, to see whether Mr Phillips agreed he should receive it. Mr Phillips – and you have got it in your timeline information there, and it is in my submission there, clearly directing you to that – said words to the effect that he should think again sending that letter; because the purpose of that was if we had withdrawn all we said then proceedings against [member of staff A] would have had to have been stayed, and that is not what Mr Phillips wanted to do. He wanted that [person] out of here. That was quite clear – very, abundantly clear59

109. On the evening of the 11th November 2014 Mr Wild rang the helpline of his former banking union, of which he is still a member, for some advice. During oral evidence he said:

I went home, phoned the [Company] union helpline and went through generically – without explaining too much detail – the series of events. I was told that I had done the right thing to report my concerns to the Clerk. I was told that the letter from the Speaker telling me to disengage was compelling, and I should adhere to it and I should leave things alone. And I should tell the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, that we are at risk of possibly being accused of harassment, disruption, if we continue in this course of action.

I therefore took the decision to not give the letter to the Clerk.60

110. On the 12th November 2014 in a meeting with Mr Houghton, observed by the Speaker Mr Wild told Mr Houghton that he had changed his mind about sending the letter and shared the advice that he had received. He said:

We went to see Mr Speaker and it is not documented, but I can swear that in front of Mr Speaker and the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, I explained I had not given the Clerk the letter; and the union helpline advice was to walk away and leave it to the supervision and the actions of the Clerk,

58 P274 59 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 752-760 60 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 207-213

26 because the individual was a member of that office, his staff. And we had done our bit by alerting the Clerk to the fact that we had some concerns.

I had the letter in my hand. 61

111. In his oral evidence Mr Speaker confirmed this recollection, he said:

This meeting with Mr Wild and Mr Houghton was originally at Mr Wild's request, and at the meeting Mr Wild did state that he had not given the Clerk the letter dated 11th November which he had previously signed. He said that at the meeting and Mr Houghton was taken by surprise at that.62

Mr Speaker also said

He (Mr Wild) said he withdrew his support for the letter and words to the effect that they both had to ‘stand back now’.63

The Committee asked whether Mr Houghton responded and Mr Speaker said:

Yes, in his body language, he half rose in his seat and he looked greatly surprised. He turned to Mr Wild in astonishment, in a very accusing manner and he was clearly surprised by the withdrawal of support of Mr Wild.64

112. In his oral evidence Mr Houghton said that Mr Wild changed his mind about not sending the letter after the meeting with the Speaker, he told the Committee:

When we came out of the meeting with the Speaker – myself and Mr Wild – we immediately met [member of staff A] – again it is in my submission – and Mr Wild had jumped back on another horse. He said, ‘I have thought again about this, John.’ He said, ‘I think we really do need to send this letter,’ and he said that to [member of staff A].65

Mr Houghton repeated that member of staff A would be able to corroborate this saying:

when he joins in with myself and [member of staff A] afterwards in this follow- up meeting after the meeting with the Speaker, which was immediately for

61 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 221-226 62 Oral Evidence Speaker of the House of Keys lines 91-94 63 Oral Evidence Speaker of the House of Keys lines 102-103 64 Oral Evidence Speaker of the House of Keys lines 110-112 65 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 763-766

27 debriefing, he is fully intent on sending the letter and he says, ‘Yes, [member of staff A], I will give Mr Phillips that letter tomorrow.’66

113. The Committee wrote to member of staff A and asked about the meeting with Mr Houghton and Mr Wild on the 12th November 2014, we wrote:

On the 12th November 2014 Mr Houghton and Mr Wild met with Mr Speaker. After that meeting with the Speaker, Mr Houghton and Mr Wild came to speak to you. Please can you advise us of your recollection of what was discussed at that meeting. We are particularly concerned with any information you may have relating to:

• what was discussed regarding possible mediation; and.

• what was discussed regarding a letter written by Mr Houghton and Mr Wild about withdrawing what had been said to the Clerk on 30th October.

114. Member of staff A, replied:

John Houghton and Tony Wild realised that I was very concerned as to the actions of Roger Phillips and Jonathan King despite there being no complaint so they both agreed that they would immediately send a letter to Roger Phillips withdrawing all that they had said to him at the meeting on the 30th October 2014 and that this would stop any action being against me. They told me that I was an excellent member of staff and they did not want to lose me and that Roger Phillips should be looking after all members of staff equally. Tony Wild agreed personally to get the withdrawal letter done immediately. He would type it up on his laptop. John Houghton agreed with him that this was the best course of action as I was a valuable member of staff and he likewise did not want me losing my job just because they tried to alert Roger Phillips of my upset caused by [other staff].

Tony Wild advised me to get my union on board quickly, since although they were going to do the withdrawal letter, it was acutely obvious that Jonathan King was on a mission to carry out the disciplinary action referred to, Tony Wild advised me also that he and John Houghton would continue to try and stop this unnecessary action against me.67

115. The Committee notes that staff member A does not appear to recollect this clearly as by the time of this meeting on the 12th November 2014 the letter

66 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 771-774 67 P396-397

28 from Mr Houghton and Mr Wild, dated 11th November 2014, withdrawing what they had said on 30th October 2014 had already been written.

116. On the 13th Nov 2014 Mr Houghton delivered a copy of the letter to the Clerk. In his submission to the Committee dated 8th December 2014 Mr Houghton wrote:

I subsequently learned that Mr Phillips had not received this letter during a meeting with Mr Wild and the Speaker on 12th November 2014 where the contents of the letter were discussed. I received Mr Wild's agreement that it be delivered due to the fact that the Speaker was already in possession of a copy.

This was discussed with Mr Wild at the de-brief meeting with [member of staff A] immediately after the meeting with the Speaker. So for completeness, I delivered a copy of that letter to Mr Phillips on the next day as Mr Wild was not present in the Members' rooms.68

117. In Oral Evidence Mr Houghton spoke about delivering the letter, he said:

But basically Mr Wild, it is now quite clear, was losing track of what he was saying to whom, because he was saying one thing to one party and another to another. So the point I am saying is that his evidence was becoming more and more unreliable, and that is the reason that within a couple of days of that … This was dated 11th November, delivered by me on 13th because it was agreed it would go. As I say, it was done, signed and drafted by Mr Wild, agreed. So I thought, ‘This letter needs to be put’, because the Speaker had a live copy of the letter and had seen it and we had discussed it.

But the letter itself – the original – Mr Wild had, so all I could do, only for propriety in this matter – and it was with the agreement, the last time I had spoken to Mr Wild – was his full agreement in front of [member of staff A] that that letter be delivered to Mr Phillips. So, for that, and as I have explained in great detail in my submission to support this, I then took that letter as a copy and gave it to Mr Phillips. And if he had two – if you understand what I mean; if he had already had the original one from Mr Wild, then of course the letter that I am giving him … he has got two copies of the same letter, if you will. Because it was quite improper for a letter that had been given to the Speaker, which was a copy of this letter of course … that the recipient of the letter had not received his.69

68 P324-325 – Point 7.6 69 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 803-818

29 118. The Committee noted that in his written submission Mr Houghton says that he delivers the letter to the Clerk on the 13th November 2014 because Mr Wild is not in the Members room. In his oral evidence he says that he delivered it because Mr Wild had become inconsistent, that Mr Wild had said in front of member of staff A that he would deliver it and because it was improper that the Speaker should have had a copy of a letter that the Clerk, the recipient, had not had.

119. The Committee asked the Clerk during oral evidence who had given him the letter dated 11th November 2014, he said

You will see that there is a handwritten note, initialled by me and in my handwriting, which says, ‘Received by hand from Mr Houghton’, and it has got a time which is, 14.50 and ‘13 Nov 14,’ so that was the time and date he gave this to me. He walked into my office, put it on my desk and left.70

120. The Clerk replied to the letter dated the 11th November 2014 when he received it on the 13th November 2014. In his letter he wrote:

I have considered your letter dated 11th November which Mr Houghton handed to me today, in which you withdraw all that you said to me on 30th October. As suggested in your letter, I have consulted Mr Speaker71

121. In Oral Evidence the Clerk said that after writing the reply on the 13th November 2014 he had bumped into Mr Wild and talked to him about the letter dated the 11th November 2014, he said:

So when I bumped into Tony Wild and said, ‘I’m surprised to get your letter. What did you mean?’ – as it were, I cannot quite now remember, we went into my office and he did not quite understand what I was talking about and I said, ‘Well, you know, you gave me this,’ and he then realised what had happened and told me that it was not with his authority.72

122. The Committee asked the Clerk what Mr Wild’s reaction had been, he said:

My memory was that he was pretty aghast and, clearly, I hardly need to spell out to you, and I did not need to spell out to him either, the seriousness of one Member handing what is essentially a forgery to me in order to stop me from

70 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 351-354 71 P224 72 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 378-381

30 proceeding with my duties. So I mean it is a very, very serious thing to have done. So I think we were both quite shocked actually.73

123. Following this conversation on the 13th November 2014 the Clerk emailed Mr Wild in order to record what they had discussed, he wrote:

We have just spoken about the letter dated 11th November in which you and Mr Houghton wish to withdraw your remarks (which Mr Houghton had given me this afternoon in an envelope marked “In Strictest Confidence”). You told me that Mr Houghton had given me this letter without your permission and that you did not withdraw your remarks, but stood by what you had said to me on 30th October. (You said that you still had your copy of the letter in your briefcase, which had been intended for me, but that on consideration you did not wish to send it as it did not reflect your views).74

124. Mr Wild replied to the email explaining his position, and how he had advised Mr Houghton that, following independent professional advice, he had decided not to send the letter dated 11th November 2014:

The Speaker very kindly agreed to broker a discussion (of which I took no notes but Mr Houghton did) between Mr Houghton and I yesterday, as AN OBSERVER not a Chairperson, in which I made it perfectly clear, having taken independent professional advice, I had been professional with Mr Houghton in bringing our concerns to you. I had signed a letter on 11th November in terms of withdrawing my comments in our meeting but was advised that it was inappropriate and therefore withdrew that letter which remains within my briefcase.75

125. The Committee is of the view that it is very unlikely that Mr Wild, a professional banker for many years, would ignore the independent advice of his union and change his mind about sending the letter.

126. The Committee has noted that, apart from in Mr Houghton’s report of the meeting with member of staff A, whose recollection of the meeting on the 12th November 2014 does not seem to be clear, Mr Wild is definite that he did not wish to send the letter dated 11th November 2014 and that Mr Speaker has confirmed this.

73 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 397-401 74 P225 75 P227

31 The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton acted against the wishes of Mr Wild which is a very serious matter.

The Committee concludes that the three parts of the allegation that Mr Houghton lied, when taken together, indicate a clear pattern of behaviour which it does not think is consistent with that expected of an Honourable Member.

BULLYING PART ONE: Malicious and Bullying Complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk

127. This section deals with the allegation that Mr Houghton made malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk of Tynwald in January 2015 relating to their conduct in the staff matter which began on 30th October 2014.

128. The complaints made by Mr Houghton against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, set out in the two letters dated 22nd Jan 201576, have already been investigated by an independent investigating officer. The reports can be found in Appendix 3A.77

129. The Committee did not initially supply the full investigation reports as part of the evidence bundle to witnesses as they were advised in the referral letter of the 20th July 2015 from the Speaker that ‘TMC determined that no further action was to be taken within the terms of the TMC disciplinary procedures78.’ The Committee took this as sufficient evidence that the complaints were not upheld.

130. However when the Committee asked Mr Houghton during Oral Evidence, about the outcome of the investigation into the complaints he made, we said:

following an independent investigation, it was concluded that the only breach of discipline was one point of a minor nature to be addressed by education; do you still, in light of that information, feel that the complaints you made on 22nd January were acceptable; in other words, they were not malicious and bullying?79

76 P257-268 77 P287-298 78 P282 79 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 1084-1088

32 131. Mr Houghton replied:

I absolutely so believe. I have a right to make a complaint, as any other person does anywhere, and of course as long as it is not malicious, insulting and intimidating and so on – and it is before the Committee. The wording of everything that I have used is before the Committee.

I pick up, Mr Chairman, where you mentioned that the result of the inquiry was that of education and so on. I have not got that information that you are referring to.80

Mr Houghton also said:

You are referring to information there that I do not have. You have mentioned something about an investigation report – the conclusion of the investigation report – which I have asked you more than once for and you have made a reference to it … that one of it was to do with an education function. I have not seen the reasoning behind that –

The Chairman: That does not refer to you, Mr Houghton.

132. The Committee asked whether Mr Houghton had received a ‘letter after the investigation was concluded’ and Mr Houghton replied:

Mr Houghton: I got a letter after the investigation was concluded, yes.

The Chairman: Okay, that is fine.

Mr Houghton: No, I am sorry –

Mr Quayle: And the letter advised you that there had been no case?

80 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 1090-1095 81 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 1100-1114

33 Mr Houghton: No, I am sorry. That is not before me today. That should have been resubmitted to me. Whatever is said in that letter – everything that Mr Robertshaw … I am sorry, it is a very strong point that I make. That is where … because I think you … and I can see where this matter is going to go, and what it will bring about is a change in the way that people are investigated when they are before the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee. You have referred to a document that I gave not been copied in on. Now, unless it is within this bundle that you have given me and you will have my apologies if it is, can you refer me to where you made that … because a letter that I received months ago that I have discarded – that I may have discarded and certainly not brought it to the meeting here to answer any questions … because I think the nature of the questioning, Mr Robertshaw, on this is, ‘You put a big complaint in and it only came out with the fact that these people only had minor educational functions.’82

133. As a result of this representation the Committee felt that it would be appropriate to provide copies of the investigation reports as part of the evidence and these were supplied to all witnesses who received the original evidence bundle.

134. Mr Houghton went on to say that the investigation into his complaints about the Clerk and Deputy Clerk had failed and that it was as a result of this failure that the allegations about his conduct had been made by the Speaker on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee.

the reason why that investigation failed – the main reason why it failed – was the investigation officer, [Independent Investigating Officer], who was advised that there was a witness to this who he must see, he did not see. So that investigation was concluded without it being fully undertaken and because of that, Mr Robertshaw, the whole thing went awry and now revengeful people, not sitting before us today, have set forth on all of this matter here quite improperly – and I am referring to the Speaker in this case. He quite improperly went behind my back to the Tynwald Management Committee without informing me. I did not know until you first wrote to me that there was a complaint against me. You explained why, and I thank you for that; I am not holding you responsible for that, but all of these things have been done in a revengeful way.83

82 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 1122-1141 83 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 1142-1150

34 135. The Committee considers that the suggestion that Mr Speaker has in some way conducted himself improperly was both incorrect and unacceptable.

136. Mr Houghton had suggested in his written submission that the independent investigation, into the complaints he made about the Clerk and Deputy Clerk, was flawed, he wrote:

[Independent Investigating Officer] has failed to collect all the evidence from parties concerned relevant to the allegations made. At my interview with [Independent Investigating Officer] I clearly indicated that he would need to interview [member of staff A], as I believed at that time it was likely there would be inconsistencies in Mr Wild's, Mr Phillip's and Mr King's evidence, whereby my evidence as set out in my formal complaints would need to be corroborated. Because [Independent Investigating Officer] did not interview [member of staff A] his investigation is incomplete and therefore his findings do not have any integrity84

137. The Committee examined the complaints made about the Clerk and Deputy Clerk. All of the points raised by Mr Houghton were complaints about their actions in relation to process or rules. The complaints did not relate to the substance of the staff matter neither were they about any bias in the way an individual was treated. The Committee therefore agrees that there was no requirement for the independent investigating officer to interview any other witnesses.

138. The Committee can find no evidence to suggest that the independent investigating officer’s conclusions were incorrect.

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton has been unable to accept the findings of the investigation conducted by an independent investigating officer.

139. Having reached this conclusion the Committee considered whether the act of making the complaints could be considered as malicious and bullying.

140. In their oral evidence, when asked, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk took a slightly different view of the how they felt about these complaints.

141. The Clerk said:

84 P381

35 Yes. I think that it is part of his behaviour from the start of raising this.85

The Clerk went on to say:

That, I think, gives you a tone of the sheer relentless aggression which I found very wearing and so did my colleagues. In fact, as I was re-reading this bundle to prepare for this evidence session, I was quite surprised – I will not conceal this from you – at the level of emotion it generated again. I mean it has really been extremely difficult and I think that all of the allegations he made, which were independently scrutinised, led to nothing. He essentially made it all up and I think he was just trying to get my colleague and my Deputy and me into trouble.86

142. The Deputy Clerk said:

the complaints against me were particularly strange because in every case the things that were complained of had already been endorsed by Mr Speaker. To be specific, the letters that I wrote to Mr Houghton, explaining to him why I was not going to give him information about the staff investigation, in every case said: ‘Dear Mr Houghton, thank you for your letter. Mr Speaker has approved the contents of this reply.’ I did it that way because it was an important piece of work and one with political ramifications, and it was perfectly natural for me to make sure the Speaker was aware of what I was doing and I would not have done it if the Speaker had told me not to.87

I certainly feel that it was malicious. The Tynwald Management Committee says it was bullying and I am happy to accept that.88

But he also said:

To be perfectly honest with you, when this was going on I did not say, ‘I feel bullied’. Roger said, ‘We are being bullied’ and I said, ‘Are you sure this is bullying, because here is the definition of bullying which we have used, which says it has got to be, “repeated action which is designed to undermine a person's sense of dignity in the workplace”. Is this a repeated action?’ So that is why I am a bit cautious about using the word ‘bullying’ – because it really was one incident.89

85 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 450 86 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 460-465 87 Oral Evidence Deputy Clerk of Tynwald lines 685-692 88 Oral Evidence Deputy Clerk of Tynwald lines 676-677 89 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 730-735

36 143. During oral evidence, when asked about these complaints, Mr Houghton took us through the definition of bullying he had quoted in his written submission. This was:

Bullying is defined as: "Any repeated, offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, abuse of power or unfair penal sanctions, which make the recipient feel upset, threatened, humiliated or vulnerable and thereby undermines an individual's self-confidence." 90

Mr Houghton went on to say:

‘Bullying: the definition’ which is from the Fairness at Work Policy of this year – so it is a Government document … because there are various definitions that are around for bullying. So all I can do is refer the Committee fairly to the Government’s most up-to-date one, of course, which is a Fairness at Work Policy.

Now where it defines bullying as:

Any repeated offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour with abuse of power …

And it goes on. So ‘any repeated offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious’. So now, can I just help the … and then I will help to answer your questions by referring to what I have just said …

‘Repeated offensive’ – so I wrote one complaint about each of those – and it was a detailed, comprehensive complaint and I mean every word of that complaint, even now. Now, in respect of each of those complaints – perhaps if we can treat them together in some ways, although they were separate matters – they are not a repeated matter, Mr Chairman. I am not writing in complaints every week about someone who I think is doing wrong, or what have you; this is one single complaint, with sections of it in a comprehensive manner. So it is not repeated.

‘Offensive’ – I will leave that to the Committee to decide whether any language I am using in that was indeed offensive. And remember it has got to be ‘repeated offensive’. I want to paint a little picture in a moment. I do hope this helps because it is my evidence to the Committee.

‘Abusive’ – I will leave it to the Committee to decide whether they think that what I have written, indeed, is abusive.

90 P325

37 ‘Intimidating’ – these were formal complaints about my findings. I do not think they can be taken as intimidating, but I will have to leave that to the Committee to draw upon that.

Now, ‘malicious’, okay. A malicious complaint is something where someone decides that they are going to act in a malicious manner. All of the detail in both of those complaints, as you can see, they are comprehensive complaints where I have done my best to spell out the purpose, the meaning and reasoning for my complaints. Indeed, Mr Robertshaw, I have seen writings of yours in such comprehensive manners in other walks of life and you go to similar detail.

‘Insulting’ – I do not think so, but I will leave that to the Committee in that regard.

‘Abuse of power’ – I do not think so. I do not think I am abusing power.

So if you take all those very strong and powerful words, separate them each way, but weigh up the complaint and the nature of it – it is a single complaint, it is not repeated and if you look here, ‘repeated’! So repeated offensive remarks, insults, this, that and the other; that is bullying, Mr Robertshaw.

There is too much use these days – and I am sure the Committee will agree with me – that immediately someone raises their voice at someone … I mean perhaps now, while I am just speaking clearly now, Mr Quirk might think that, ‘Mr Houghton is raising his voice’; Mr Robertshaw may think, ‘No, he is just speaking as he ordinarily does’; Mr Quayle might have a different view. I think it would be quite unfair for anyone to deduct that, ‘Mr Houghton was trying to bully the Committee or bully whomsoever’.

Bullying is clearly set out here and it has got a number of issues to it. Rather than one on its own, there has to be repeated either offensive, abusive, repeated intimidating, repeated malicious, repeated insulting. I do not think that writing the complaint and handing both of those complaints in – and who I submitted them to at the time was the President of Tynwald – was in any way bullying. I think that is a gross distortion of the facts and a gross distortion of fairness from the Speaker in writing that.91

144. The Committee noted that once again Mr Houghton has accused the Speaker of improper behaviour, which it again felt was both incorrect and unacceptable.

91 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 1033-1079

38 The Committee concludes that the complaint letters were in themselves individual items but takes the view that they were written at the end of a chain of connected events which is how they could be considered to be part of a repeated pattern of behaviour.

BULLYING PART TWO: Bullying Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk

145. It is alleged that Mr Houghton bullied the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and Mr Wild. The Committee was extremely concerned about this allegation. We understand that bullying is a very emotive term that can be defined in a number of ways and, no matter how carefully it is defined, to some extent the perception is always personal. In investigating this the Committee decided to consider the evidence of each individual in turn.

The Deputy Clerk

146. The Committee has noted that the Deputy Clerk said that he did not feel bullied but that he did feel the complaint against him was malicious.

147. Examination of the evidence relating solely to his interactions with Mr Houghton shows that these were all in writing.

148. There were four letters: 20th November 201492, 1st December 201493; 2nd December 201494 and 5th December 201495. The Deputy Clerk replied to the first letter on 25th November 201496 stating he was unable to provide the information requested, explaining why and advising the Speaker had seen his reply.

149. Mr Houghton’s reply on the 1st December 2014 requested the information again and ended with the following paragraph:

TAKE NOTICE that if you fail to produce the information and documentation requested in my letter to you of the 20th November 2014 and in this letter, to me before the 3rd December 2014, I will regard this as a wilful refusal on your part to comply with my requests which have been made under [member of staff

92 P242-244 93 P249-250 94 P251 95 P255 96 P245

39 A]’s authorisation and I will make a formal complaint against you to the Tynwald Management Committee under paragraph 11 of the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office Disciplinary Procedures.97

150. Mr Houghton referred to this course of action again in the letter of 5th December 2014, he wrote:

In view of your obvious misunderstanding of the purpose of my letter to you of the 2nd December 2014, which was to advise you only that I was standing down as [member of staff A]’s representative at the meeting the next day, I will allow you until close of business on the 11th December 2014, to produce the information required by me in the letters referred to, or I will take the action referred to in the final paragraph of my letter to you of the 1st December 2014.98

151. The Deputy Clerk replied on the 11th December 201499 restating his previous response about being unable to provide the requested information.

152. The Committee noted from the independent investigation report into Mr Houghton’s complaint about the Deputy Clerk that:

Dr King states that the information was not provided to Mr Houghton but was provided to the staff member directly between the 19th November 2014 and the 12th December 2014100

153. Having reviewed the evidence, the Committee notes that it shows that Mr Houghton threatened the Deputy Clerk on two occasions and then made a formal complaint about him. This is a repeated pattern of behaviour.

154. The Committee considered whether the threat of making a formal complaint was reasonable after a single refusal to provide information, supported by the Speaker.

The Committee concludes that, whether the Deputy Clerk had felt bullied or not, Mr Houghton’s behaviour was not acceptable.

97 P250 98 P255 99 P256 100 P295

40 The Clerk

155. During Oral Evidence the Clerk said:

this is I think, the most difficult thing I have been involved in in my career. Clerks work for Members –

The Chairman: Your entire career?

Mr Phillips: Yes, I think so actually. I mean there are other sensitive issues that I have dealt with politically that I will not go into, but this is, I think, the most difficult and challenging, because Clerks, as I say, work for Members; we cannot be at loggerheads with individual Members in a very serious way. You all know that from time to time I have to say the rules prevent you from having what you want, but that is a very different exercise.

Where somebody – and you will have picked this up from the tone of the letters – is quite so single-mindedly aggressive both to me and to my colleagues and also to another Member, this is particularly difficult for a Clerk to handle.

It is worth saying that one of my main concerns was the wellbeing of Mr Wild, and also my Deputy and the Third Clerk and [member of staff B]. Culturally, men do not like to admit to having been bullied – it is quite difficult. So I would like to say, on behalf of myself and Mr Wild and my Deputy, that all three of us were bullied by Mr Houghton in the extraordinarily aggressive way in which he took up the cudgels on behalf of one particular member of staff.101

The Clerk went on to say later:

Earlier I mentioned the context in which Clerks work and people have to explain that we do work for you, so you are our bosses. So the impact of what Members say to Clerks is quite profound sometimes, and what we are not able to do is be at loggerheads with you in a serious personal way. It just does not work. So the fact that he adopted this particular posture was very difficult in itself.

I have been a Clerk for over 30 years. I am used to things. Not every Member has been equally easy to deal with and some Members are harder than others, so I am fairly robust, actually. But I have not come across somebody who has so consistently produced written – primarily in this case, written – work which is very, very aggressive in tone. The bundle is in front of you; you will see the answer to your own question simply by reading the letters, which are very

101 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 54-73

41 threatening and which are in complete disregard of any propriety whatsoever. 102

The Committee notes that the Clerk felt that the unrelenting, aggressive nature of Mr Houghton’s behaviour was unprecedented in his 30 year career as a Clerk and that this was very difficult to deal with.

Mr Wild

156. On two separate occasions towards the end of November 2014 Mr Wild commented to the Deputy Clerk that he was working at home or in his departments as he didn’t feel able to work in Legislative Buildings. The Speaker confirmed Mr Wild had also said this to him.

157. The Committee asked Mr Wild how he felt bullied by Mr Houghton, he replied:

Mr Chairman, as a professional of 32 years I have not ever come across this experience and it is difficult to explain.

I took a conscious decision after I had been a Member of the Legislative Council for 12 months ... well, the Hon. Member, [MHK], said I could use his desk on the fourth floor so I could sit with [MHK], because I preferred interaction with the MHKs – I was a bit lonely upstairs at times.

You can sense the way an individual looks at you, does not talk to you, ignores you, or says things to you such as, ‘Call yourself an Island director, when you are a worthless individual’? I cannot recollect the correct words ... and it became very uncomfortable in the terms of my interaction with the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton.

I was sad that this had happened, because I acknowledge all the support that has been given to me and I was only trying to help that individual because of the advice I had been given. We have probably spoken in terms of ‘Good morning’ – well, from me – on three or four occasions since, and I felt uncomfortable and I have relocated to the Legislative Council Chambers.

It is difficult to describe bullying, but it is the way an individual looks at you, ignores you.103

102 Oral Evidence Clerk of Tynwald lines 483-493 103 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 387-401

42 158. The Committee asked specifically about the meeting on 12th November 2014 when Mr Wild had told Mr Houghton he was stepping back from this matter, he said:

He was not happy. He questioned my professionalism, my career, my attitude – and cowardice.

The Chairman: He used the word ‘cowardice’?

Mr Wild: I believe he did, yes.

He was … in total fairness to the Hon. Member for North Douglas, I do not recollect him ever using what I would call bad language but he has questioned my professionalism, resolve, backbone – that type of thing104.

The Committee notes that Mr Wild said to the Clerk that he felt bullied by Mr Houghton105 and concluded that that there is sufficient evidence to support this.

Mr Houghton’s Response

159. In addition to the detailed breakdown of the Civil Service106 definition of bullying given above, Mr Houghton had responded to the allegation of bullying in his written submission of the 8th December 2015, he wrote:

Dealing with the Clerk and Deputy Clerk first, with the exception of the discussion in company with Mr Wild at the meeting of 30th October with Mr Phillips, all of the remaining activity was through a correspondence channel. I never met or discussed anything with Mr King during this disgraceful episode. All of the correspondence is before the Committee and although my style, when defending a vulnerable and innocent person may sometimes be robust, I think it would be well beyond 'Wednesbury Reasonableness' to consider it to be bullying

In relation to Mr Rodan's allegation that I bullied Mr Wild; I am at a loss here, Mr Wild has never made it known to me that he thought I was bullying him. Most of my discussions with Mr Wild were in company with others and when he began to act rather strangely (see heading - Mr Wild's departure in this submission) he departed from his support of [member of staff A] in an email dated 15th November 2014.

104 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 423-431 105 P277 106 Now Public Service

43 If Mr Wild could be asked by the Committee to provide any evidence to verify that I may have bullied him I will be pleased to address it.107

The Speaker

160. There is no allegation that the Speaker was bullied but the committee felt that some of the comments made by him during oral evidence do provide further information about the behaviour of Mr Houghton.

161. The Committee asked Mr Speaker why, on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee, he had alleged that the complaints about the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk were malicious and bullying. He said:

when one considered the letters of November written to the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk by Mr Houghton demanding actions to be taken – these are the letters headed ‘Without Prejudice’ – they, in fact, were threatening an official complaint.

The tone of the letters was very overbearing and demanding and inappropriate for a Member to use of management staff.108

when you go through the bundle of papers – the tone and aggressive nature of the demands that were being made which are totally unreasonable; and, in my experience, unprecedented in the way Members of Tynwald engage with staff in the Clerk of Tynwald's Office.109

162. The Committee noted that in the written evidence there is a copy of an email from the Deputy Clerk to the Clerk advising him that the Speaker had just said that:

John Houghton had collared him again, this time in the canteen. Mr Houghton had said he was recruiting other Members. Mr Speaker had said "you'd better not" and "the process has to run its course". Mr Houghton had said "when it does, I'll be waiting for you"110

163. The Committee asked the Speaker about this during oral evidence and he said:

I took some handwritten notes of events in early November, after I had been originally briefed by the Clerk when all this had started. I have a note here that

107 P326 108 Oral Evidence Speaker of the House of Keys lines 137-141 109 Oral Evidence Speaker of the House of Keys lines 154-157 110 P216

44 on 4th November Mr Houghton engaged me in conversation and I told him that as Chair of the TMC I had a specific role, and was not able to discuss the matter in detail or at all – but he continued to press the matter.

At approximately 12 o'clock on 5th November, John Houghton approached me again to engage in discussion about handling by management of the complaint he made in the name of [member of staff A] about [their] alleged treatment by Marie and [member of staff B]. I again explained I could not discuss this in detail as internal staff processes had already begun – in other words, since the matter was reported, perfectly properly to the Clerk, internal processes of investigation of allegations of bullying had commenced.

He warned me of the consequences of not getting this, quote, ‘sorted’ and said that we may all have to account to an inquest over [member of staff A], such was the state of [their] mental stress from [a personal matter]. I reported this to Roger afterwards, because clearly a matter of concern expressed in that way about a member of staff had to be passed on.

On Friday lunchtime in the canteen, Mr Houghton –

The Chairman: That is 6th November?

The Speaker: On 6th November, again I was sitting with him at lunch and he again continued to press me about the handling of the matters surrounding [member of staff A], by management.

The Speaker went on to describe a meeting on the 11th Nov which was initially about an unrelated matter, and he said:

At this meeting he again raised the issue of [member of staff A] and said that I was to get it, quote, ‘sorted with the Clerk’ and said he might make a formal complaint about him otherwise.

Again I repeated that there was a proper management process that had to take place, but he would not accept this and he threatened to involve other Members who he said, allegedly, were dissatisfied with Tynwald management – meaning the Clerk of Tynwald's Office.

Mr Quayle: Mr Speaker, for clarification, if I could just go back to the meeting on 6th November, when you were in the canteen and Mr Houghton came to discuss the issue with you. You said he raised it.

Are there any more specifics on the exact way he put it over to you and the tone ... was it just a general chat, was it an aggressive chat?

45 The Speaker: No, it was not through general chitchat; it was to the effect of, ‘Mr Speaker, when are you going to get this sorted?’ It was a fairly belligerent tone.

As we were both eating – there was nobody else present at the time, as it happens – it was not a particularly comfortable discussion.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

The Speaker: But he was very forceful again on the consequences – as he put it – of not getting this sorted.

Mr Quirk: Can I ask, then, through you, Chair: were there any threats? Did you feel threatened?

The Speaker: Did I feel threatened?

No more than I usually do when Mr Houghton decides to be in one of his aggressive phases. But, clearly, it was not particularly comfortable; and other people would certainly find his behaviour aggressive and threatening. And indeed, the veiled threat of making an official complaint – if you can call that a threat – he reiterated at that time.111

The Committee notes that Mr Speaker’s evidence, about Mr Houghton’s behaviour being such that others would find it aggressive and threatening, is compelling.

The Committee concludes that the complaints made by Mr Houghton against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk were malicious and Mr Houghton’s behaviour could be described as bullying. There is a pattern of repeated, intimidating and malicious behaviour which certainly made one or more of the recipients feel upset and threatened and undermined their self-confidence.

UNWARRANTED INTERFERENCE IN STAFF MATTERS PART ONE: Personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff

164. The Committee decided at the beginning of this investigation that we were content that Mr Houghton and Mr Wild did the right thing when they reported their concerns about member of staff A to the Clerk. We think that anyone would consider this a reasonable thing to do.

111 Oral Evidence Speaker of the House of Keys lines 195-267

46 165. The Committee reviewed the 21st May 2012 minutes of the Tynwald Management Committee, which the Deputy Clerk sent to staff member A on 19th November 2014, saying:

The policy with regard to staff members not being accompanied by Members of Tynwald was established by the Tynwald Management Committee on 21 May 2012. The relevant Committee minute reads: "the Committee agreed that it was not acceptable for a Member to attend disciplinary or capability meetings or other management meetings on behalf of a staff member and that in future staff should not be allowed this option“112

166. The Committee agreed that this was not intended to prevent a Member from reporting concerns, it was quite specifically intended to make it clear that Members should not involve themselves as a next friend in staff capability, disciplinary or grievance processes.

167. The Committee noted that there is an error in the Section Head minutes from 18th June 2012 through which the staff were advised of this decision which said:

Staff - There had been a change to the Discipline and Grievance policy to say that no Tynwald Member would be allowed to involve themselves in a disciplinary meeting as a 'next friend'.113

168. The capability process was omitted from the minute but the Committee accepts the intent was clearand considers that , even if it had not been clear to staff member A before, it was made clear on the 19th November 2014 because the Deputy Clerk wrote and confirmed that a Member of Tynwald may not accompany a member of staff to a disciplinary or capability meeting.114 The Committee notes that, in spite of this, on 20th November 2014 staff member A wrote an email to Mr Houghton which said:

I hereby authorise you to represent me or obtain information on my behalf in connection with my employment at the Clerk of Tynwald's Office.115

169. The Committee could find no evidence that the Tynwald Management Committee’s decision was communicated to Members in 2012.

112 P235 113 P237 114 P235 115 P244

47 170. The Committee says this because we noted that on 5th November 2014 Mr Wild felt he needed to ask the Deputy Clerk ‘if he can have a letter from the Standards Committee instructing him to have no further involvement’116.

171. Following Mr Wild’s request Mr Speaker wrote to Mr Wild and Mr Houghton in a letter dated 5th November 2014, in it he wrote:

I understand that you and Mr John Houghton MHK last week approached the Clerk of Tynwald on a staff matter.

The matter is being investigated by the Deputy Clerk under the formal disciplinary and capability procedures applicable to staff in the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, it is possible that the Tynwald Management Committee may ultimately have a role to play under one or other of those procedures.

In these circumstances any continued involvement in this case by any Member of Tynwald is inappropriate.117

172. At this point the Committee believes that Members should not have involved themselves any further in this matter.

173. The Committee asked Mr Wild about this letter in oral evidence, he said:

The Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, was fully aware of the letter and said it was irrelevant…..

I made the point that after I had taken professional advice that letter was binding, in terms of the parliamentary procedures. And the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, did not believe that to be the case.118

174. In his written submission of the 8th December 2015 Mr Houghton wrote about the letter of 5th November 2014 from the Speaker, he wrote, in bold:

This was purely advice given by the Speaker. He is entitled to have an opinion, as am I.119

175. When the Committee asked Mr Houghton about this in Oral Evidence he said:

Right, that letter from Mr Speaker was … All he was doing was advising. It was only advice. It was not an instruction. He did not say, ‘I instruct you to

116 P273 117 P214-215 118 Oral Evidence Mr TP Wild MLC lines 369-377 119 P332 – Point 17.3

48 withdraw.’ He is saying, ‘I advise you’. That was all he was doing, was giving the benefit of his advice……..This was purely advice given by the Speaker, and what I say in my submission – and I stand by what I am saying here – it was advice. He was trying to advise me to back off, but I was representing a [person] who was frightened – frightened of [their] job and frightened of being intimidated – and I was not likely to back off in that regard, if I was not going against any rules or regulations. Obviously, we can only do what we do lawfully.

So, he was purely giving advice, which he is entitled to have his opinion – but so am I. And then I continued. I noted what he said, and I continued.

……

And I would continue today. If that [person] over there was looking for help – or this [person] over here was looking for any assistance from me – I am just like that, Mr Robertshaw. I defend a lot of people in lots of ways who have been downtrodden. It is our job to do that, and without being suitably satisfied that Mr Speaker would say, ‘Look, we’ll drop all of this, you can back off, Mr Houghton’ and all the rest of it … All he was saying is: ‘Get out of the way while the army bashes on and crushes that person’ – and I am absolutely disgusted that he allowed it to …that he continued to allow a proper person to be crushed in the way that [member of staff A] was.120

176. The Committee asked Mr Speaker about the letter of the 5th November 2014, he said:

It was very clear from my verbal encounters with Mr Houghton that he was blatantly disregarding my instruction in the letter, which was perfectly plain, where it said any continuing involvement in this case by any Member of Tynwald is inappropriate. He paid no heed to that whatsoever and it was perfectly clear at future discussions when he raised the matter that he was going to continue, regardless.

Mr Wild, on the other hand, was absolutely clear that that letter was appropriate; and I think to have that letter was of some comfort to Mr Wild in him being able to cleanly break from any thought of being involved inappropriately in advocacy on behalf of a member of staff. And that was certainly part of the purpose of the letter, to make clear to Mr Wild who, by that point as I recall, was very uncomfortable at the chain of events that had

120 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 1625-1645

49 started, and his continuing involvement in it. That letter, I think, was of some value to him.

But, as for Mr Houghton, the letter may as well not have been written.121

177. The Committee went on to ask Mr Speaker whether he thought his letter could have been any clearer, he said:

the wording of the letters where it said ‘any continued involvement is inappropriate’, of course reference is made to the role of the TMC, possibly having a role under any disciplinary or capability procedures – that ought to be perfectly clear as a warning not to be involved.

But as for the advocacy on behalf of a member of staff, there were changes to the rules on this made in 2012, I think, by the TMC. It might have been more helpful and added to the clarity, to have made reference in that letter to the absolute rules that Members of Tynwald are not allowed to act on behalf of members of staff in disciplinary matters.

The letter was couched in fairly general terms; whether it would have made any difference is debatable, but in retrospect some reference to the 2012 decision of TMC that was communicated to members of staff that they should not involve Members of Tynwald in advocacy matters, I think might have been of some value.122

178. It is apparent from the evidence that Mr Houghton was firm in his support of member of staff A and he continued to represent them apart from ultimately at the meeting with the Deputy Clerk on 3rd December 2014123 when member of staff A was accompanied by a union representative.

179. The Committee has already dealt with the objections around the manner in which this representation was conducted, the behaviour of Mr Houghton, in our commentary on the allegations of lying and bullying above.

180. The Committee thinks therefore that the remaining question here is whether Mr Houghton had received clear advice about stepping back.

121 Oral Evidence Speaker of the House of Keys lines 299-310 122 Oral Evidence Speaker of the House of Keys lines 327-338 123 P277

50 The Committee concludes that the letter from the Speaker on the 5th November 2014 was clear and unequivocal and that Honourable Members would have followed this advice given by their Presiding Officer.

UNWARRANTED INTERFERENCE IN STAFF MATTERS PART TWO: Precipitated the Resignation of a Member of Staff

181. In this section the allegation that Mr Houghton’s conduct precipitated the resignation of a member of staff is considered.

182. Mr Houghton absolutely refutes this point, in his written submission of the 8th December 2014 he wrote:

8.1 regarding the letter of resignation by Mrs Lambden, citing me as her reason for leaving her employment with the Clerk of Tynwald's office. This is rather incredible.

8.2 It would have been highly unprofessional to have approached Mrs Lambden and at no time have I ever entered into any discussions in this matter with Mrs Lambden during the course of events from the 30th October 2014 to this day.

8.3 I have met her on many occasions within the Tynwald Precincts where we exchanged pleasantries, and indeed I offered to assist her to move some heavy objects, such was my innocent and considerate approach to her up until she left her employment.

8.4 Indeed, I recall some years ago assisting Mrs Lambden and her family with an important domestic matter involving a utility company, to which she was grateful for my help.

8.5 I have since read the documentation set out in the bundle, whereby Mrs Lambden was unnecessarily included in exchanges of correspondence, so I can well understand why she innocently believed I may have been against her when that was simply not the case.

8.6 Had Mr Phillips handled this delicate matter in a more considerate and professional way, Mrs Lambden would not have been affected, and more especially so if he had carried out his promises to Mr Wild and myself at the meeting on 30th October 2014.

8.7 I believe Mr Phillips should be asked to apologise to Mrs Lambden due to her being misled throughout this matter.

51 8.8 For the record, I deny any wilful allegation that I may have bullied Mrs Lambden.124

183. The Committee asked Mr Houghton during oral evidence if he had been aware that Mrs Lambden had cited his involvement in this matter as the reason for her resignation, before he had been advised of his referral to this Committee. He replied:

No, I was not aware of that at all. I had no knowledge whatsoever. I think I have said all I can possibly say in that section about this matter. It came as an absolute surprise and a shock to me, and I had no knowledge about it, but I think your Clerk might have had knowledge, because the Clerk and Mrs Lambden are very close friends, aren’t you, and meet and have lunch an awful lot? I have seen you out having lunch, so you would be aware of this.

The fact is that she never made me aware. I reiterate that I have never spoken to Mrs Lambden at all about this matter – not at all, in any way shape or form. And in that, I completely deny – and you can tell your friend this when you see her – that I completely deny any allegation that I had anything to do with Mrs Lambden’s resignation.125

184. Mr Houghton went on to accuse Mrs Lambden of colluding with the Clerk and Deputy Clerk in preparing the memorandum to the Tynwald Management Committee dated 23rd February 2015, he said:

This matter, Mr Robertshaw, once this Standards Committee matter is over, will be subject of a further investigation, where I am afraid Mrs Lambden will have to come back and give evidence to a proper thing, and be allowed to be cross- examined because if I had done something wrong against that lady, I would be the first to go and apologise to her. I thought the world of her. And I do not think that she had any reason or right to blame me and resign her post, because of me. Never spoken to the lady, never harmed her once, never communicated other than pleasantries in passing. Not ever.126

185. During her oral evidence Mrs Lambden references a staffing matter, prior to this instance in 2014, in which member of staff A had previously made a false accusation against her, she said:

124 P325 125 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 1848-1856 126 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines-1880-1886

52 I was subjected to a full disciplinary investigation before all the allegations against me were proven to be false.

Mr Houghton would have been fully aware of this investigation, as he was on Tynwald Management Committee at that time, and they are kept fully appraised of such matters127

She went on to explain that:

Mr Houghton, who has also held office as the Chairman of the Isle of Man Civil Service Commission, was better placed than any Member to follow procedure and to exercise discretion when accusations of bullying by me were made to him by the same person whose serious and damaging false allegations had been made against me in 2010. And these were not a single incident.

You will note, however, from the written evidence before you have that on 30th October 2014, Mr Houghton and Mr Wild represented the once again false view of this employee, as a demand to the Clerk of Tynwald that action should be taken against me and [member of staff B].

You may also note that Mr Wild apologised unreservedly and quickly, which was very much appreciated. I recognise the position in which he had been placed and accepted his apology without reservation.

By contrast, after Mr Phillips had commenced a second disciplinary investigation procedure against myself and [member of staff B], Mr Houghton withdrew the allegation without any acceptance that he had breached procedure. He claimed to be fighting for an injustice and yet did not feel it necessary to apologise to either of us for the injustice against us, which was both hurtful and disruptive to the work we were paid by the taxpayer to perform.

I felt I was losing the confidence of the Members of Tynwald based upon a false, and subsequently withdrawn, claim of inappropriate behaviour for which I had no recourse.128

186. Mrs Lambden then said:

Members of Tynwald are rightfully powerful people, but when that power is being abused and staff are unable to respond as the rumours are set in motion by a mischievous Member, the result is a highly destructive impingement on

127 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden lines 69-72 128 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden lines 86-104

53 working relationships and personal and family life for the staff member who is the object of the rumours. It impacts on everything at work and at home.

I withstood the atmosphere and the general unease for eight months, during which time I could only watch as two of my colleagues were externally investigated in connection with the same allegations – at a huge cost to the taxpayer.129

And later she said:

Eight months after he breached procedure and made false allegations against me, which he withdrew without apology, only to act as distastefully towards my colleagues, I was placed by my GP on beta blockers for hypertension.

With no opportunity for me to defend the allegations which had been made against me, I chose to resign rather than take sick leave and to avoid further delay with a problem that requires urgent attention. My letter of resignation of 26th June 2015 records precisely the reasons for my resignation. My resignation was caused entirely by Mr Houghton’s behaviour and the inability of the system to withstand such inappropriate interference with internal procedures.130

187. During oral evidence when the matter of Mrs Lambden’s resignation was being discussed Mr Houghton said:

Mrs Lambden always looked to get out of here. She never liked working in Tynwald.131

188. Yet in her oral evidence Mrs Lambden had said:

As a member of staff, I feel – and I still do feel – a huge loyalty to Tynwald – this is the Isle of Man parliament! – and if outside heard exactly what had happened, how it could look … Yet I was not aware of any procedure in place to assist me. I could not complain of an allegation which had been subsequently withdrawn. I had absolutely no recourse and I felt everything was happening above my head. I knew Roger and Jonathan were being investigated. I could not do anything about it. It was beyond my remit completely.132

189. In her final comment during oral evidence Mrs Lambden said:

129 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden lines 108-115 130 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden lines 132-141 131 Oral Evidence Mr JR Houghton MHK lines 1953-1954 132 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden lines 198-204

54 I would just like to say that I feel that Mr Houghton would have been better placed than anybody to understand correct procedure. He is an MHK of vast experience – we have mentioned, former Chairman of Isle of Man Civil Service, former Member of Tynwald Management Committee and Whitley Council employer representative.

It is clearly not appropriate for an MHK to interfere with the work of trusted, diligent, professional staff and to incur costs involving hundreds of hours of wasted time, paid for by the taxpayer.

He failed to apologise, but continued to involve the most senior members of the staff of the Office of Clerk of Tynwald who have never had their integrity questioned before. He showed a total disregard for the professional staff performing their duties in a proper manner.133

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton was unaware of the effect his conduct had on others and, when made aware, refused to accept the fact.

VIII. CONDUCT OF MR HOUGHTON

190. The letter of the 20th July 2015 referring Mr Houghton to this Committee states ‘The Committee considers that Mr Houghton’s conduct has been disgraceful, has fallen well below the standard expected of Members of Tynwald, and therefore warrants referral to the Standards Committee.’134

191. During this investigation this Committee has found that Mr Houghton’s challenge of process, legality, authority and indeed personal attack on individuals involved has been extensive and unrelenting.

192. That a committed senior member of staff has resigned from the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office giving her reasons for leaving as being the effects of the conduct of one Member is something which must not be allowed to happen again.

193. This Committee, with the agreement of this Honourable Court, has already introduced a code of conduct for Members to ensure that members of staff, and Members themselves, are protected in the future.

133 Oral Evidence Mrs EM Lambden lines 333-342 134 Appendix 1

55 194. With regard to the conduct of Mr Houghton the Committee can see that Mr Houghton clearly believed that member of staff A needed his support. But based on the evidence, and indeed the experience we have had of dealing with Mr Houghton during the course of this investigation, the Committee concludes that he has not conducted himself in the manner expected of an Honourable Member.

195. The Committee therefore takes the only course of action open to us and that is to make a recommendation that Mr Houghton should apologise for his actions.

Recommendation

This Committee recommends that, under Schedule 1, 4.3A of the Standing Orders of Tynwald Court, Mr Houghton is required to apologise.

IX. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton understands, but has failed to accept, the rules or authority of this Honourable Court.

Lying

The Committee concludes that if the Clerk had given a medical reason for Mrs Lamden’s referral to Dr McAndry he would have given the actual reason, which was an overactive thyroid problem.

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton has failed to accept the Clerk of Tynwald’s authority in this matter.

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton acted against the wishes of Mr Wild which is a very serious matter.

56 Bullying

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton has been unable to accept the findings of the investigation conducted by an independent investigating officer.

The Committee concludes that the complaint letters were in themselves individual items but takes the view that they were written at the end of a chain of connected events which is how they could be considered to be part of a repeated pattern of behaviour.

The Committee concludes that, whether the Deputy Clerk had felt bullied or not, Mr Houghton’s behaviour was not acceptable.

The Committee notes that Mr Wild said to the Clerk that he felt bullied by Mr Houghton and concluded that that there is sufficient evidence to support this.

The Committee notes that Mr Speaker’s evidence, about Mr Houghton’s behaviour being such that others would find it aggressive and threatening, is compelling.

Unwarranted Interference in Staff Matters

The Committee concludes that the letter from the Speaker on the 5th November 2014 was clear and unequivocal and that Honourable Members would have followed this advice given by their Presiding Officer.

The Committee concludes that Mr Houghton was unaware of the effect his conduct had on others and, when made aware, refused to accept the fact.

57 Recommendation

This Committee recommends that under Schedule 1, 4.3A of the Standing Orders of Tynwald Court that Mr Houghton is required to apologise.

C R Robertshaw (Chairman)

R H Quayle

D J Quirk

May 2016

58 ANNEX

59 60 Timeline

30th Oct 14

Mr Houghton and Mr Wild meet the Clerk of Tynwald to advise that they have concerns about member of staff A who they have found upset.

Following the meeting with the Clerk, Mr Houghton and Mr Wild speak to member of staff A.

31st Oct 14

The Clerk of Tynwald drafts a note of the meeting with Mr Houghton and Mr Wild and sends this to them both with a copy to Mr Speaker. The Clerk states he will investigate an allegation of bullying and breach of confidence. Mr Houghton provides corrections on 4th Nov 14.

3rd Nov 14

The Clerk of Tynwald writes to the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald asking him to investigate allegations under the disciplinary and capability procedures.

The Deputy Clerk writes to the three members of staff (A, B and Mrs Lambden) to advise them.

4th Nov 14

Member of staff A replies to say that they did not ask the Members to approach the Clerk, that they have not made any complaint/allegation and asks that the matter be discontinued immediately.

Member of staff B and Mrs Lambden meet with their Union representative before they are advised by the Deputy Clerk that the complaint has been withdrawn and they will not therefore need to be represented when they meet him.

5th Nov 14

The Clerk provides an expanded note of the 30th Oct 14 meeting, including reference to member of staff A now stating that they have not made any complaint/allegation and appending Mr Houghton’s corrections of 4th Nov 14.

61 The Speaker writes to Mr Houghton and Mr Wild advising them that this matter is being investigated under the formal disciplinary and capability procedures applicable to staff and that continued involvement by any Member of Tynwald is inappropriate.

The Deputy Clerk replies to member of staff A acknowledging that no complaint has been made but advising that they still need to meet.

6th Nov 14

Member of staff B and Mrs Lambden are advised by the Deputy Clerk that they do not need to be represented when they meet him but can be accompanied.

The Deputy Clerk advises member of staff A that the immediate concern is under the capability procedure.

The Speaker advises the Deputy Clerk that Mr Houghton has spoken to him about this in the canteen, the Deputy Clerk advises the Clerk.

7th Nov 14

The union rep advises thatthey do not think it is necessary for member of staff B and Mrs Lambden to be accompanied at the capability meeting.

10th Nov 14

Mr Houghton and Mr Wild reply to the Clerk’s letter of 5th Nov 14, querying some points, confirming that staff member A made it clear all along that they did not wish Members to approach the Clerk, also that this matter should be confidential save for the Speaker.

11th Nov 14

Member of staff A emails the Deputy Clerk to advise that they will not attend a meeting as they feel under too much stress.

12th Nov 14

The Clerk replies to the letter of 12th Nov from Mr Houghton and Mr Wild explaining why the matter cannot be confidential in the way they requested and that the Speaker has approved circulation to the other members of staff involved.

62 Mr Wild replies to the Clerk’s letter by email, asking if it would be possible to meet with the Deputy Clerk to discuss a possible way forward.

The Deputy Clerk takes advice from OHR.

Mr Houghton and Mr Wild meet in the presence of the Speaker; sending the letter withdrawing their comments to the Clerk is discussed, Mr Wild explains that he has taken advice from his union who have advised him not to send that letter. That raising his concerns was correct but to step back now.

13th Nov 14

13.52 - The Clerk sends a holding reply to Mr Wild’s email of 12th Nov 14.

Later - The Clerk replies to the letter dated 11th Nov 14 advising that Mr Speaker has given permission for Mr Wild to speak to the Deputy Clerk.

14.10 - The Clerk receives a letter dated 11th Nov 14 from Mr Houghton and Mr Wild saying they wish to withdraw their comments of 30th Oct 14.

14.30 - The Deputy Clerk meets with member of staff B.

15.30 - The Deputy Clerk meets with Mrs Lambden.

16.21 - The Clerk emails Mr Wild to confirm a conversation they have just had regarding the letter dated the 11th Nov 14 in which Mr Wild had confirmed that he did not want to send that letter and that Mr Houghton had passed a copy to the Clerk without his permission.

23.19 - Mr Wild emails the Clerk to confirm that the 16.21 email is a correct summary of their conversation. There is more detail of the earlier conversation, the meeting on the 12th Nov 14 between himself and Mr Houghton, observed by Mr Speaker, and his conversation with his union.

14th Nov 14

11.00 - The Deputy Clerk meets with Mr Wild

Member of staff A does not attend a scheduled meeting with Deputy Clerk but emails to request more time to find someone to accompany them.

19.47 - Mr Wild resends his email of 13th Nov 14 23.19, correcting typos, confirming the Clerks email of 13th Nov 14.

63 15th Nov 14

Mr Wild emailed Mr Houghton to confirm that he had put his proposal to the Deputy Clerk and would not engage any further.

18-19th Nov 14

Email exchange between member of staff A and the Deputy Clerk about staff codes in which the Deputy Clerk confirms that there was a TMC decision in 2012 re Members not accompanying staff to disciplinary or capability meetings.

19th Nov 14

Mr Houghton replies to the Clerks letter of 12th Nov 14 noting a number of points on which he disagrees.

20th Nov 14

Mr Houghton writes to the Deputy Clerk, enclosing an email from member of staff A authorising him to act on their behalf, requesting information relating to the staff matter and staff codes.

Member of staff A does not attend a scheduled meeting with Deputy Clerk and does not email.

21st Nov 14

Mr Houghton emails Mr Wild asking for a copy of the note of his meeting with the Deputy Clerk.

25th Nov 14

The Deputy Clerk replies to Mr Houghton’s letter of 20th Nov 14 declining to provide the information because of the TMC decision that Members may not represent staff.

The Deputy Clerk provides member of staff A with a draft report.

26th Nov 14

Mr Wild sends a holding reply to Mr Houghton’s email of 21st Nov 14 and advises the Deputy Clerk he has some alterations to the transcript of their meeting of the 14th Nov 14 which he will forward.

64 28th Nov 14

Mr Wild agrees the transcript of his meeting with the Deputy Clerk.

1st Dec 14

Mr Houghton emails Mr Wild again asking for a copy of the note of his meeting with the Deputy Clerk. Mr Wild forwards the email to the Clerk, Deputy Clerk and The Speaker advising he has not replied.

Mr Houghton replies to the Deputy Clerk’s letter of 25th Nov 14 stating that he does not agree that he cannot have the information, asking for it again along with additional items, then stating that if the information is not provided he will make a formal complaint against the Deputy Clerk to the Tynwald Management Committee.

The Deputy Clerk takes advice from the Industrial Relations Officer.

2nd Dec 14

Mr Houghton writes to the Deputy Clerk saying he will stand down pending clarity and a union representative will accompany member of staff A at the meeting scheduled for the next day.

3rd Dec 14

The Deputy Clerk acknowledges Mr Houghton’s letters of the 1st and 2ndDec 14, and states that he is assuming the second supersedes the first.

10.00 The Deputy Clerk meets with member of staff A accompanied by a representative of their union.

4th Dec 14

Mr Houghton writes to the Clerk asking if he will be replying to the letter of the 19th Nov 14.

5th Dec 14

The union confirms they will now represent staff member A in personal cases. They had stopped representing them in 2010.

65 The Deputy Clerk sends member of staff A a transcript of their meeting with some questions.

The Clerk replies to Mr Houghton saying he does not think it appropriate that he reply in detail to the letter of the 19th Nov 14 and that he stands by his letter of the 12th Nov 14.

Mr Houghton writes to the Deputy Clerk stating that his assumption was incorrect and that he still expects a response to his letter of 1st Dec 14.

9th Dec 14

Member of staff A sends emails to the Deputy Clerk commenting on the transcript.

11th Dec 14

The Deputy Clerk replies to Mr Houghton and says that for reasons previously stated he is unable to provide the requested information.

12th Dec 14

The Deputy Clerk sends member of staff A a revised transcript.

15th Dec 14

Member of staff A sends transcript typos to the Deputy Clerk.

16th Dec 14

The Deputy Clerk sends member of staff A a final copy of the transcript to sign.

19th Dec 14

The Deputy Clerk completes his report and submits it to the Clerk, copies are provided to members of staff A, B and Mrs Lambden.

22nd Jan 15

Mr Houghton sends formal complaints to the Hon CM Christian as Vice Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee, (Mr DC Cretney MLC is Vice Chair) about the Clerk of Tynwald and the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald.

66 27th Jan 15

The Clerk and Deputy Clerk are advised by the President of the complaints against them.

6th Feb 15

Tynwald Management Committee meets without the Speaker or Clerk.

23rd Feb 15

The Clerk of Tynwald, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald and Third Clerk of Tynwald present a report about the conduct of Mr Houghton to the Tynwald Management Committee.

26th May 15

Independent Investigating Officer provides his reports into the complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

25th Jun 15

The Third Clerk resigns.

Letters written to the Clerk and Deputy Clerk setting out the findings of the investigations into the complaints against them.

20th Jul 15

Mr Houghton’s conduct is referred to the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee.

67 68 ORAL EVIDENCE

69 70 23RD NOVEMBER 2015

Evidence of Hon SC Rodan SHK

71 72 STANDINGCOMMITTEE OF TYNWALDCOURT OFFICIALREPORT

RECORTYSOIKOIL BINGVEAYNTINVAAL

PROCEEDINGS DAALTYN

TYNWALD STANDARDS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS COMMITTEE

PRIVATE TRANSCRIPT

Douglas, Monday, 23rd November 2015

TSMI-A No. 1/15-16

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2015 73 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

Members Present:

Chairman: Mr C R Robertshaw MHK Hon. R H Quayle MHK Mr D J Quirk MHK

Clerk: Mrs J Corkish

Contents Procedural...... 3 EVIDENCE OF Hon. S C Rodan SHK...... 4 The Committee adjourned at 4.14 p.m...... 13

______2 TSMI-A/15-16 74 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

Standing Committee of Tynwald on Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests

The Committee sat in private at 3.30 p.m. in the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Douglas

[MR ROBERTSHAW in the Chair]

Procedural

The Chairman (Mr Robertshaw): Good afternoon, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for attending to give evidence today. I am Chris Robertshaw MHK and I will be chairing this session. With me are my colleagues the Hon. Howard Quayle MHK and Mr David Quirk MHK; our Clerk is Mrs Corkish. 5 As you will know this evidence is being taken in private but it is being recorded and a verbatim transcript will be produced for the Committee. In view of this can I please ask that mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched to silent. I will also be making sure that two people are not speaking at once. The evidence recorded today may be published as part of a report, if one is made to Tynwald 10 following this investigation. In the course of our conversation today we may well refer to individuals who are neither the subject of this investigation nor being called as witnesses. I can confirm that their names will not be published in a report, if one is made. All witnesses have been provided with the same pack of written evidence in advance of attending to give oral evidence. 15 Mr Speaker, do you have yours with you?

The Speaker: Quite happy, thank you.

The Chairman: This is the evidence which the Committee has decided may be relevant to the 20 specific allegations which have been made. You will be aware that the conduct of Mr John Houghton MHK was referred to the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee in July 2015. The referral letter is number 33 in your evidence pack. Because of the nature of the circumstances which led to the referral being made, a number 25 of Members and Officers may have been conflicted and so, to ensure the matter is investigated in a fair and objective way, the Committee had to ask for the permission of Tynwald Court to be quorate with three members instead of the usual four. The motion requesting this was approved on Wednesday, 21st October 2015. The reduced Committee met on Tuesday, 27th October 2015 and at that meeting resolved to investigate the matter referred to it. 30 Three specific allegations have been made regarding the conduct of Mr Houghton. These are that he lied, specifically; and here I quote:

______3 TSMI-A/15-16 75 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

communicated to the persons complained of; the other was that the Clerk had told him and Mr Wild that the Third Clerk had been referred to Dr McAndry for depression. Neither of these claims is true;

And – and here I quote again:

He gave the Clerk of Tynwald a letter which purported to be from him and Mr Wild (both of whom had previously drawn to the Clerk’s attention matters involving allegations on the part of the staff member of bullying and breach of confidence) knowing he had no right to do so, in order to create a false impression that the allegations were withdrawn.

The next allegation is that he bullied, specifically that – here again I quote:

After the inquiries into the staff issue were concluded Mr Houghton made what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk;

And, that:

Mr Houghton has adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

35 The third allegation is that he engaged in unwarranted interference in staff matters, specifically that – and here, again, I quote from the letter:

Mr Houghton has engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against[their] senior managers, against my direct advice;

And that was the advice, Mr Speaker, that was given in writing on 5th November 2014, in your letter. So for the purpose of this third allegation evidence from that date only will be considered – from the date of your letter, from the date that you advised Mr Houghton. 40 Finally we will also consider that statement, that:

His conduct has precipitated the resignation of a member of staff.

Mr Speaker, we will be referring to the bundle in front of you from time to time, and on one or two occasions we will be referring to two different letters in the same question. So if you have a pen and paper that would be helpful for your own convenience. Also, because these matters now before us relate to alleged incidents which occurred some time ago, we are 45 perfectly happy to stop and give you chance to reappraise yourself of a particular letter. If you choose to do this and I see you reading, we will stop, and then when you are satisfied that you have read the document before you, would you please look up again at me and then we can continue, (The Speaker: Right.) because we have got all the time in the world and we do not want to rush this. We want you to be sure you are content with what is before you.

EVIDENCE OF Hon. S C Rodan SHK

50 Q1. The Chairman: Before we begin to ask specific questions, is there anything you would like to say? Having said that, I would also say that we will give you an opportunity at the end to offer us any concluding remarks that you would like to make which you feel may have been omitted in our questions. So you have the choice of speaking at the beginning and at the end, if you wish to do so. 55 Do you have any comments at the beginning?

______4 TSMI-A/15-16 76 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

The Speaker: I just want to reinforce that it is a very serious matter to refer anybody for whatever reason to the Tynwald Standards Committee. I did so on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee, which did not take that decision 60 lightly, but so serious were the concerns about the behaviour of Mr Houghton that it was absolutely the correct thing to do. I will leave it at that just now.

Q2. The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 65 We are dealing with the questions in groups, on the basis of the three allegations that we have just touched on there. The first set of questions relate to ‘Lying’ and the withdrawal of the letter of 11th November. In the first group of questions we are going to consider the allegation that Mr Houghton gave the Clerk of Tynwald a letter dated 11th November 2014, on 13th November 2014 – that is 70 number 10 in the bundle before you – which Mr Wild had told you he no longer wished to send, although he had signed it. We also wish to consider a letter dated 19th November 2014 – that it is at number 17 in your bundle – in which Mr Houghton wrote, and I quote:

... that the evidence in this letter has been corroborated by Mr Wild and given under his hand.

Could you indicate, Mr Speaker, when you are ready to start answering questions once you 75 have numbers 10 and 17 before you, and that you recall the contents?

The Speaker: Okay.

The Chairman: Are you happy to commence? 80 The Speaker: Yes, I have the letters.

Q3. The Chairman: Mr Speaker, on 12th November 2014 were you present at a meeting between Mr Houghton and Mr Wild as an observer? 85 The Speaker: Yes, this took place at 4.15 p.m. on the afternoon of the 12th.

Q4. The Chairman: At that meeting, was the letter dated 11th November 2014 discussed? And, if it was, can you please tell us what was said? 90 The Speaker: Yes. This meeting with Mr Wild and Mr Houghton was originally at Mr Wild's request, and at the meeting Mr Wild did state that he had not given the Clerk the letter dated 11th November which he had previously signed. He said that at the meeting and Mr Houghton was taken by surprise at that. 95 I would add that late on the 11th, Mr Houghton handed me a copy of the letter without comment; I still have it and I recorded the fact he gave it to me late on the afternoon of the 11th – the letter to Mr Phillips.

Q5. The Chairman: So can I confirm then, with you: did Mr Wild confirm to Mr Houghton that 100 he no longer wanted to send the letter dated 11th November?

The Speaker: Yes, he did. He said he withdrew his support for the letter and words to the effect that they both had to ‘stand back now’.

105 Q6. The Chairman: That was Mr Wild’s comment?

______5 TSMI-A/15-16 77 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

The Speaker: That was Mr Wild, to me and to Mr Houghton.

Q7. The Chairman: Did Mr Houghton respond, Mr Speaker?

110 The Speaker: Yes, in his body language, he half rose in his seat and he looked greatly surprised. He turned to Mr Wild in astonishment, in a very accusing manner and he was clearly surprised by the withdrawal of support of Mr Wild.

Q8. The Chairman: Can you recall, did he say anything at that stage? 115 The Speaker: I cannot exactly recall what was said. But Mr Houghton was clearly very surprised at being told that he had not given Roger the copy of the letter.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 120 Turning now to ‘Bullying’, the second of the allegations. In the following questions are going to consider the allegation that Mr Houghton made, and here I quote:

… what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

These were made in letters written on 22nd January 2015, and they are in your bundle at numbers 29 and 30.

125 The Speaker: Yes.

The Chairman: Also that Mr Houghton, and I quote again here:

… has adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

Mr Speaker, are you content that I now ask you the questions?

130 The Speaker: Yes.

Q9. The Chairman: Thank you. Mr Speaker, you referred Mr Houghton on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee. Can you explain why the Tynwald Management Committee thought the complaints 135 Mr Houghton made against the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk were malicious and bullying?

The Speaker: Because when one considered the letters of November written to the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk by Mr Houghton demanding actions to be taken – these are the letters headed ‘Without Prejudice’ – they, in fact, were threatening an official complaint. 140 The tone of the letters was very overbearing and demanding and inappropriate for a Member to use of management staff. In my own view, during that period Mr Houghton would have conversations with me which clearly indicated the very forceful manner he was adopting. I am willing to refer to such conversations –

145 The Chairman: We will be asking you that question in a moment, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Right.

Q10. The Chairman: Thank you. 150 Did that conclude your answer to that question?

______6 TSMI-A/15-16 78 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

Have you any more comments at this stage?

The Speaker: I think it is very clear from the evidence available to the Committee following the investigation of the allegations of misconduct, when you go through the bundle of papers – 155 the tone and aggressive nature of the demands that were being made which are totally unreasonable; and, in my experience, unprecedented in the way Members of Tynwald engage with staff in the Clerk of Tynwald's Office.

Q11. The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 160 Next question: and also why the Tynwald Management Committee concluded that Mr Houghton had bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk?

The Speaker: Because again you will see in the written evidence, that at one point Mr Wild felt so intimidated and uncomfortable that he was not able actually to work in the Legislative 165 Buildings for fear of encountering Mr Houghton and the very unpleasant atmosphere that was building up.

Q12. The Chairman: Did he tell you that himself, personally?

170 The Speaker: He did at one point, yes. He did mention to me that he was going to take his work and do it in Department offices, he could not work in the same vicinity with any comfort.

Q13. The Chairman: With Mr Houghton?

175 The Speaker: With Mr Houghton.

Q14. The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. Next question: what did he call Mr Wild at the meeting you observed on 12th November 2014? 180 The Speaker: What did he call him?

The Chairman: What did he call Mr Wild? Yes.

185 The Speaker: I am not aware that he called him anything at that meeting. I think there is something to the effect from Mr Wild that he was called something unmentionable, but if so that was not in my presence – but that would have been after the meeting. I did not hear any specific word, no.

190 Q15. The Chairman: Okay. On 6th November Mr Houghton made some comments to you about this matter in the canteen. (The Speaker: Yes.) Can you tell us what was said and what the tone was?

The Speaker: Yes, I certainly will. 195 I took some handwritten notes of events in early November, after I had been originally briefed by the Clerk when all this had started. I have a note here that on 4th November Mr Houghton engaged me in conversation and I told him that as Chair of the TMC I had a specific role, and was not able to discuss the matter in detail or at all – but he continued to press the matter. 200 At approximately 12 o'clock on 5th November, John Houghton approached me again to engage in discussion about handling by management of the complaint he made in the name of [MSA] about[their] alleged treatment by Marie and[MSB] . I again explained I could not discuss this in

______7 TSMI-A/15-16 79 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

detail as internal staff processes had already begun – in other words, since the matter was reported, perfectly properly to the Clerk, internal processes of investigation of allegations of 205 bullying had commenced. He warned me of the consequences of not getting this, quote, ‘sorted’ and said that we may all have to account to an inquest over[MSA] , such was the state of[their] mental stress from [a personal matter]. I reported this to Roger afterwards, because clearly a matter of concern expressed in that way about a member of staff had to be passed on. 210 On Friday lunchtime in the canteen, Mr Houghton –

Q16. The Chairman: That is 6th November?

The Speaker: On 6th November, again I was sitting with him at lunch and he again continued 215 to press me about the handling of the matters surrounding[MSA] , by management. I can tell you about a further encounter if you wish, at a later date?

Q17. The Chairman: If you could tell us that now. Yes, please.

220 The Speaker: Yes, I can tell you about it now; so that was on 6th November. On the 11th, which was the day before the meeting in my room with him and Mr Wild, John Houghton came to my room at my request to discuss his behaviour in the House of Keys that morning when, as Speaker, I had asked him to withdraw. This was on an entirely unrelated matter. 225 I discussed his behaviour and asked for an undertaking that this would not be repeated. He gave no undertaking that he would apologise, he was completely unrepentant and would be prepared to repeat what he had said.

Q18. The Chairman: Was this related to this? 230 The Speaker: It was not related to this, this was a matter of his behaviour and language used during Question Time that morning – quite a separate matter.

The Chairman: Right, thank you, Mr Speaker. 235 The Speaker: That was the purpose of me calling him to my room, to tackle him about his failure to apologise and withdraw his remarks. At this meeting he again raised the issue of[MSA] and said that I was to get it, quote, ‘sorted with the Clerk’ and said he might make a formal complaint about him otherwise. 240 Again I repeated that there was a proper management process that had to take place, but he would not accept this and he threatened to involve other Members who he said, allegedly, were dissatisfied with Tynwald management – meaning the Clerk of Tynwald's Office.

Q19. Mr Quayle: Mr Speaker, for clarification, if I could just go back to the meeting on 245 6th November, when you were in the canteen and Mr Houghton came to discuss the issue with you. You said he raised it. Are there any more specifics on the exact way he put it over to you and the tone ... was it just a general chat, was it an aggressive chat?

250 The Speaker: No, it was not through general chitchat; it was to the effect of, ‘Mr Speaker, when are you going to get this sorted?’ It was a fairly belligerent tone. As we were both eating – there was nobody else present at the time, as it happens – it was not a particularly comfortable discussion.

______8 TSMI-A/15-16 80 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

255 The Chairman: Thank you very much.

The Speaker: But he was very forceful again on the consequences – as he put it – of not getting this sorted.

260 Q20. Mr Quirk: Can I ask, then, through you, Chair: were there any threats? Did you feel threatened?

The Speaker: Did I feel threatened? No more than I usually do when Mr Houghton decides to be in one of his aggressive phases. 265 But, clearly, it was not particularly comfortable; and other people would certainly find his behaviour aggressive and threatening. And indeed, the veiled threat of making an official complaint – if you can call that a threat – he reiterated at that time.

Q21. The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. 270 We now go on the third matter, which is the ‘Unwarranted Interference in Staff Matters’, after 5th November – in other words, after your letter. (The Speaker: Yes.) In the following questions we will consider the allegation that, and I quote:

Mr Houghton has engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against[their] senior managers, against my direct advice ...

That is your advice, Mr Speaker, in other words. (The Speaker: Yes.) In considering this allegation the Committee felt that Mr Houghton and Mr Wild were not 275 wrong to bring their concerns for a member of staff to the attention of the Clerk, and that until the letters of 5th November 2014 from the Speaker – that are at number 4 in your bundle – they would not necessarily have been aware that continued involvement was inappropriate. It is noted that after this date – after the letter – Mr Wild sought the permission of the Speaker to be interviewed as part of the investigation, then being conducted by the Deputy 280 Clerk into a related capability matter, which was given. The Committee are not aware that Mr Houghton sought advice or permission from you, Mr Speaker, regarding his continued involvement. So, are you happy to accept the questions now? Have you got the particular letter before you – number 4 in your bundle? 285 The Speaker: Is this my letter of 5th November?

The Chairman: Yes – number 4.

290 The Speaker: Number 4, yes.

The Chairman: Are you happy to continue?

The Speaker: Yes, I have the letter. 295 Q22. The Chairman: Can you tell us what you know about the continued involvement of Mr Houghton and Mr Wild after you wrote to them on 5th November 2014?

The Speaker: It was very clear from my verbal encounters with Mr Houghton that he was 300 blatantly disregarding my instruction in the letter, which was perfectly plain, where it said any continuing involvement in this case by any Member of Tynwald is inappropriate. He paid no

______9 TSMI-A/15-16 81 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

heed to that whatsoever and it was perfectly clear at future discussions when he raised the matter that he was going to continue, regardless. Mr Wild, on the other hand, was absolutely clear that that letter was appropriate; and I think 305 to have that letter was of some comfort to Mr Wild in him being able to cleanly break from any thought of being involved inappropriately in advocacy on behalf of a member of staff. And that was certainly part of the purpose of the letter, to make clear to Mr Wild who, by that point as I recall, was very uncomfortable at the chain of events that had started, and his continuing involvement in it. That letter, I think, was of some value to him. 310 But, as for Mr Houghton, the letter may as well not have been written.

The Chairman: Thank you. The next question: Howard?

315 Q23. Mr Quayle: Thank you, Mr Chair. Just for clarification, Mr Speaker, if I may, on this letter because I think it is a key element of the evidence (Mr Speaker: Yes.) and you have already stressed this. But I would just like to clarify: are you confident that your letter of 5th November advising – you wrote one to Mr Houghton and one to Mr Wild – was clear enough in the explanation that 320 Members must not involve themselves with staffing issues in the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office? And, if you did, are you confident that Mr Houghton received your letter and read it ... that he had actually received it and was aware of it?

The Speaker: I cannot answer positively to that, no. I would not know when he would have 325 actually either received or read the letter of that date; but it was quite clear later on that he was aware of my instruction. But to return to your first point, the wording of the letters where it said ‘any continued involvement is inappropriate’, of course reference is made to the role of the TMC, possibly having a role under any disciplinary or capability procedures – that ought to be perfectly clear as 330 a warning not to be involved. But as for the advocacy on behalf of a member of staff, there were changes to the rules on this made in 2012, I think, by the TMC. It might have been more helpful and added to the clarity, to have made reference in that letter to the absolute rules that Members of Tynwald are not allowed to act on behalf of members of staff in disciplinary matters. 335 The letter was couched in fairly general terms; whether it would have made any difference is debatable, but in retrospect some reference to the 2012 decision of TMC that was communicated to members of staff that they should not involve Members of Tynwald in advocacy matters, I think might have been of some value.

340 Q24. Mr Quayle: Right, if I could again … I am sorry, but I just think it is important that we establish, although we have not asked the witness yet, that the letter was actually received. You have just said that you felt that in comments made to you later from Mr Houghton that he had received the letter. Are you able to expand on that, or is it just from when you felt he sort of admitted that he 345 had received your letter dated 5th November, and therefore was aware that he had been told it was inappropriate?

The Speaker: Yes, I do not recall a discussion centring on the letter, other than me saying ‘I have already said to you, you cannot get involved, management has to continue’. 350 And I assume that he would have read the letter. I had certainly told him verbally what I had put in the letter, but that was ignored.

______10 TSMI-A/15-16 82 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

Q25. The Chairman: Would you actually like to guess at how many times you think you said the same thing to Mr Houghton, that he should not be involved, orally? Was it on more than one 355 occasion?

The Speaker: Yes, what I said in the letter, I had said to him on the 4th and on the 5th, that I could not discuss it – because he was trying to engage me to put pressure, I think, on the Clerk of Tynwald. I told him I could not discuss what was a staff matter with him and Members of 360 Tynwald had to let management get on with their job.

Q26. The Chairman: Was there any possibility that you reiterated similar thoughts on 6th November in the canteen?

365 The Speaker: Yes, certainly on the 6th at that lunchtime meeting, I told him that there were internal staff processes going on and I could not talk to him about it. Unfortunately, if I said ‘I am sorry I cannot discuss this with you’ he went on regardless to discuss it – and of course I was reluctant to engage in any discussion about the substance.

370 Q27. Mr Quirk: Can I just ask, Chair, to the Speaker: was the same attitude taken by Mr Wild, or did Mr Wild – ?

The Speaker: I beg your pardon?

375 Mr Quirk: Was the same attitude taken by Mr Wild?

The Speaker: Mr Wild was absolutely clear when I spoke to him about where the boundaries lay. He was absolutely clear; and having very deep and extensive experience in management and staffing matters in the bank, knew exactly the difference between managerial and professional 380 roles and other roles, and who was responsible in each case.

Q28. Mr Quirk: Just finally, did either Mr Wild or Mr Houghton acknowledge your letter?

The Speaker: I have nothing on file by way of written acknowledgement. No. 385 The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We now go on to the final matter, which is the ‘Resignation of the Third Clerk’. In the following questions we will be considering the resignation letter of the Third Clerk, Mrs Marie Lambden – that is number 32 in your bundle. 390 The Speaker: Yes. Yes.

Q29. The Chairman: Okay. Mr Speaker, can you tell us what you felt about the resignation of Mrs Lambden? 395 The Speaker: I was very, very sorry and very concerned that, with the passage of time and the fact that the situation had settled, in terms of the allegations of misconduct against the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk, and the completion of the investigation of that, and that matters would have to continue in terms of process as to what was to be done about Mr Houghton's behaviour, 400 I was saddened, but understood Mrs Lambden's sense of frustration that nothing seemed to be happening. I was disappointed that her perception was that this had been in some way brushed under the carpet, and I sensed from her letter and the discussion when I went to see her – clearly, when I heard the news about her resigning, I wanted to assure her that her concerns

______11 TSMI-A/15-16 83 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

about bullying within the office by Mr Houghton would be dealt with, and did give her a chance 405 to reconsider on that basis. Unfortunately, she felt she had to carry through. So we were losing a first-class member of staff of great integrity who, for a number of months, had been put in an impossible position; and the discomfort that she obviously felt during that time I had hoped would have dissipated a bit, particularly in the knowledge that a lot of these things take time and the process of following through the complaints procedure took 410 time. What was to happen thereafter was going to take time –

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr Speaker ...

The Speaker: – and I think she just felt like it was all taking too long. 415 Mr Quirk: Shall we just continue here?

The Chairman: Please continue, Mr Speaker, if you have any more comments. Had you concluded? 420 The Speaker: Yes, thank you.

Q30. The Chairman: So therefore in conclusion, Mr Speaker, have you any final remarks that you would like to make that you may feel we have somehow omitted, that you think are 425 pertinent?

The Speaker: Only that I am confident that the Committee will treat this matter with the utmost seriousness, because if every Member of Tynwald was to conduct themselves in the manner that Mr Houghton has, again, approached his dealings with staff in the Clerk of 430 Tynwald’s Office ... if every Member was to do that, the situation would be absolutely impossible – we would not be able to retain staff. Fortunately, most Members of Tynwald act in a respectful manner. I must say Mr Houghton is not one of those people who abides by established processes, and will take great pleasure in overriding people doing their jobs in order to get something done in 435 the way he thinks it should be done.

The Chairman: Mr Speaker, we are most grateful to you this afternoon for your comments. Thank you very much.

440 The Speaker: Thank you for your time.

The Chairman: Oh, just one moment, I have –

Q31. Mr Quayle: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, just to clarify for a general feeling. 445 You mentioned in earlier evidence ‘aggressive phases’ from Mr Houghton. Would you say that this aggression in dealing with him was unusual compared with other Members, or would you get it from time to time in a normal day when Members get upset? Or does this level of behaviour go beyond how other Members conduct themselves?

450 The Speaker: Yes, it goes beyond the normal sort of banter that one would expect, and even where it is conducted in not a light-hearted manner it can certainly come over as extremely aggressive – the body language and the overbearing manner. When it is used to colleagues, those of us who know him will often give a bit of leeway, we know the way this behaviour comes across. But for anybody witnessing it, it would look 455 extremely disrespectful. I have had finger-pointing into my face and forceful requests that things

______12 TSMI-A/15-16 84 STANDING COMMITTEE, MONDAY, 23rd NOVEMBER 2015

should be done, to me as Speaker. Nobody, whoever it is, should be spoken to in that manner at all, but when it is to a member of staff by a Member of Tynwald, whether in writing or face-to- face – and I am making no claims of it having been done face-to-face – but certainly the intimidating manner that comes over in writing is certainly very, very obvious and should be of 460 concern.

Q32. Mr Quirk: Can I just ask, Mr Speaker, regarding when Members attend your office for a chat or a talk, do most of the Members accept your word, your judgement, your ruling?

465 The Speaker: It has not been required very often, I can only think of three or four occasions where I have had to have a serious talk with a Member; invariably there is a meeting of minds and we leave with mutual respect. The occasion I am referring to when I asked Mr Houghton to my room on another matter, the behaviour in the Keys matter, it was clear he was completely unrepentant; and indeed, said he 470 would do it again – to my face, he would do it again. So that speaks for itself.

The Chairman: Mr Speaker, that draws us to a close, thank you so much.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. 475 The Committee adjourned at 4.14 p.m.

______13 TSMI-A/15-16 85 86 2ND DECEMBER 2015

Evidence of Mr RIS Phillips, Clerk of Tynwald and

Evidence of Dr JDC King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald

87 88 STANDINGCOMMITTEE OF TYNWALDCOURT OFFICIALREPORT

RECORTYSOIKOIL BINGVEAYNTINVAAL

PROCEEDINGS DAALTYN

TYNWALD STANDARDS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS COMMITTEE

PRIVATE TRANSCRIPT

Douglas, Wednesday, 2nd December 2015

TSMI-A No. 2/15-16

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2015 89 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

Members Present:

Chairman: Mr C R Robertshaw MHK Hon. R H Quayle MHK Mr D J Quirk MHK

Clerk: Mrs J Corkish

Contents Procedural...... 17 EVIDENCE OF Mr R I S Phillips, Clerk of Tynwald ...... 18 Mr King was called at 4.50 p.m...... 30 Procedural...... 30 EVIDENCE OF Mr J D C King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald ...... 31 The Committee adjourned at 5.20 p.m...... 36

______16 TSMI-A/15-16 90 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

Standing Committee of Tynwald on Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests

The Committee sat in private at 4 p.m. in the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Douglas

[MR ROBERTSHAW in the Chair]

Procedural

The Chairman (Mr Robertshaw): Good afternoon, Mr Phillips. Thank you very much for attending to give evidence today. I am Chris Robertshaw MHK and I will be chairing this session. With me are my colleagues, the Hon. Howard Quayle MHK and Mr David Quirk MHK; our Clerk is Mrs Corkish. 5 As you will know this evidence is being taken in private but it is being recorded and a verbatim transcript will be produced for the Committee. In view of this, can I please ask that mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched to silent. I will also be making sure that two people are not speaking at once. The evidence recorded today may be published as part of a report, if one is made to Tynwald 10 following this investigation. In the course of our conversation today we may well refer to individuals who are neither the subject of this investigation nor being called as witnesses. I can confirm that their names will not be published in the report, if one is made. All witnesses have been provided with the same pack of written evidence in advance of attending to give oral evidence. This is the evidence which the Committee has decided may be 15 relevant to the specific allegations which have been made. Do you have your pack with you?

Mr Phillips: Yes, I do.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. 20 You will be aware that the conduct of Mr John Houghton MHK was referred to the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee in July 2015. The referral letter is number 33 in your evidence pack. Because of the nature of the circumstances which led to the referral being made, a number of Members and Officers may have been conflicted and so, to ensure the matter is investigated 25 in a fair and objective way, the Committee had to ask for the permission of Tynwald Court to be quorate with three members instead of the usual four. The motion requesting this was approved on Wednesday, 21st October 2015. The reduced Committee met on Tuesday, 27th October 2015 and at that meeting resolved to investigate the matter referred to it. Three specific allegations have been made regarding the conduct of Mr Houghton. These are 30 that he lied, specifically; and here I quote:

To support his complaints against the Clerk Mr Houghton invented two matters: one was that the initial complaints by him on behalf of the staff member were confidential and therefore should not have been communicated to the persons complained of; the other was that the Clerk had told him and Mr Wild that the Third Clerk had been referred to Dr McAndry for depression. Neither of these claims is true;

______17 TSMI-A/15-16 91 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

And:

The next allegation is that he bullied, specifically – and here again I quote:

After the inquiries into the staff issue were concluded Mr Houghton made what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk;

And, that:

Mr Houghton has adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

The third allegation being that he engaged in unwarranted interference in staff matters, 35 specifically that – and again, I quote:

Mr Houghton has engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against[their] senior managers, against my direct advice;

That was the advice of Mr Speaker which was given in writing on 5th November 2014. So for the purpose of this third allegation, evidence from that date only will be considered. Finally we will also consider that statement, that – again, I quote:

His conduct has precipitated the resignation of a member of staff.

Mr Phillips, we will also be referring to the bundle in front of you from time to time, and on 40 one or two occasions we will be referring to two different letters in the same question. Because these matters now before us relate to alleged incidents which occurred some time ago, we are perfectly happy to stop and give you chance to reappraise yourself of any particular letter you may choose. If you choose to do this and I see you reading, we will stop and then when you are satisfied 45 that you have read the document before you, would you please look up again so that we can continue? We have got all the time that you need and we do not wish to rush this. We want you to be sure you are content with what is before you.

EVIDENCE OF Mr R I S Phillips, Clerk of Tynwald

Q33. The Chairman: Before we begin to ask specific questions, we would like to give you the opportunity to make any comments you wish. But we will also ask you at the end if there is 50 anything further you would like to add. Is there anything you would like to say at the start?

Mr Phillips: You have read the written evidence. It is quite astonishing, I am sure, for you. I do not wish to provoke you into any comment prematurely, but if I say to you that this is, I think, 55 the most difficult thing I have been involved in in my career. Clerks work for Members –

Q34. The Chairman: Your entire career?

______18 TSMI-A/15-16 92 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

60 Mr Phillips: Yes, I think so actually. I mean there are other sensitive issues that I have dealt with politically that I will not go into, but this is, I think, the most difficult and challenging, because Clerks, as I say, work for Members; we cannot be at loggerheads with individual Members in a very serious way. You all know that from time to time I have to say the rules prevent you from having what you want, but that is a very different exercise. 65 Where somebody – and you will have picked this up from the tone of the letters – is quite so single-mindedly aggressive both to me and to my colleagues and also to another Member, this is particularly difficult for a Clerk to handle. It is worth saying that one of my main concerns was the wellbeing of Mr Wild, and also my Deputy and the Third Clerk and[member of staff B] . Culturally, men 70 do not like to admit to having been bullied – it is quite difficult. So I would like to say, on behalf of myself and Mr Wild and my Deputy, that all three of us were bullied by Mr Houghton in the extraordinarily aggressive way in which he took up the cudgels on behalf of one particular member of staff.

75 Q35. The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. So, referring back to the allegations, we will start first with the allegation of lying as it relates to confidentiality. In the following questions, we are going to consider the allegation that in his complaints against the Clerk, Mr Houghton invented the fact that the initial complaints by him on behalf of 80 the staff member were confidential, (Mr Phillips: Yes.) and therefore should not have been communicated to the persons complained of. We will at some point refer to letter number 1 in your bundle. The first question is what was your understanding of what you had agreed to do after the meeting on 30th October 2014 at which Mr Wild and Mr Houghton raised their concerns about a staff member to you, the Clerk of 85 Tynwald?

Mr Phillips: I am not surprised you are referring to letter number 1 because before you mentioned it that is where I went as well and this was something which, at a very early stage in my legal training, I was told that you should do – which is to make a note of the conversation if it 90 is important at the earliest opportunity and make sure that anyone who needed to had access to it so that you could, in case of dispute later, point to this and say whatever was said, this is what we agreed was said. It is also of course, to some extent, in the nature of a charge sheet because this is a summary of a conversation which took place almost exactly over the course of an hour. So necessarily 95 there was quite a lot of toing and froing about people saying different things and a year later I cannot promise to recall with total accuracy who said what to whom and when. I think, if memory serves correctly, I wrote this on the morning after the conversation. The two Members came to speak to me last thing in the afternoon, I then wrote it first thing the next morning. I had slept on it and this was my recollection. It was a recollection which was 100 immediately agreed to by Mr Wild as being correct and it was a recollection which Mr Houghton, as you see from paper number 1, referred to me with his own corrections on the following Tuesday, which was the sitting of the Keys. Whatever he subsequently said, he did not demur from what I took from the meeting, which is that it was going to be my top management priority – which I think probably he never 105 quarrelled with that at all – and that I was going to see that the matter was investigated properly. In fact, the proper way of doing this of course is for my Deputy to investigate it and make a report to me. There is a process, as everything ... Two of you have significant business experience and one of you has had significant union experience, so you all know what I am 110 talking about when I say that, external to whatever process we adopt, there is an employment tribunal in the waiting, and if I do not get the process right as the chief manager, I will, quite

______19 TSMI-A/15-16 93 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

rightly, be open to serious criticism, and the reputational damage for Tynwald and the financial damage ... I do not need to labour the point but it is very significant. But, most of all, as the legislature, we are supposed to obey the law; and the law is quite 115 clear that you follow due process. So this document here is the first step in following due process in what was always going to be a very difficult staff issue. So, whatever was said, I stand by what is in this letter, which was corrected to some extent by Mr Houghton – I do not agree with his corrections – but also it was agreed to entirely without correction by Mr Wild. 120 Subsequently, you will see in your bundle that that weekend on Sunday, 2nd November I prepared a slightly longer note, still while the events were fresh in my mind, because I wanted to make a record for myself and for other interested parties of what had been said. This was an extremely serious situation from the outset. The allegations made of bullying have to be investigated, they have to be taken seriously and it has to be done in a proper way 125 with due process in a fair way, so that a proper outcome can be sought. It may be – and at that stage we did not know this yet – that it would be possible for an informal settlement to be reached, as long as all parties were happy and they felt it was just. But I could see that, given the nature of the allegations, it was a very strong probability that it would not be sorted out in an informal way, as many staff issues are. 130 Q36. The Chairman: Were the corrections that we have just been discussing the only ones received from Mr Houghton on 31st October; and did you have any subsequent corrections from Mr Wild at all?

135 Mr Phillips: Not to this piece of paper, no. No, not to this document. Mr Houghton was in … We were sitting in the Keys at the time and he had written on this paper, and he just handed it via a messenger to me, as his comment on that particular note. Subsequently, his story developed in a way that you have described, where he changed his position, I think, in relation to what he was willing to accept this note as saying. But I do not 140 think anybody actually went back to this note and corrected it.

Q37. The Chairman: Did the understanding of what you had agreed to do change after you received the written annotations from Mr Houghton?

145 Mr Phillips: No, not at all.

Q38. The Chairman: Okay. Can you please explain why you would not have been able to keep the matter discussed at the meeting on 30th October confidential, apart from Mr Speaker? In some respects, you have 150 covered that but if you want to –

Mr Phillips: Yes, thank you very much. I think this probably does need to be spelt out a little bit, because although the answer is one you will readily expect me to give, it still needs to be said – which is that, clearly, if you are going 155 to investigate something you have to hear more than one side of the story, and you certainly cannot … As I was instructed to do – quite fairly, I do not quarrel with this – I was instructed from the start to inform Mr Speaker of this allegation. Fair enough. It is very serious. He is Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee; he has a right to know what is going on. I have no quarrel with that. 160 But, by the same token, you cannot insist that that be done without telling the people whose conduct is complained of, that their conduct has been complained of. It is part of standard fairness in procedure. You will not be surprised to know that it is in the staff rules that if any

______20 TSMI-A/15-16 94 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

complaint is made, people are entitled to be told of it. It is in the Civil Service rules, I understand. It is in every organisation’s rules. It is pretty basic, as procedure. 165 The idea that Mr Houghton seems to have had – that he had, as it were, control and could switch the information on and off – is completely misconceived. It is illegal, actually.

Q39. The Chairman: The next question, again, to some extent, you have covered. Can you please explain why you would not have been able to keep the matter discussed at the meeting 170 on 30th – Oh, I have asked you that already. I do apologise. Can you confirm who told you about the matter discussed on 30th October, and when?

Mr Phillips: Who told me about the matter?

175 Mr Quayle: Who you told.

Mr Phillips: Sorry, who I told?

The Chairman: I beg your pardon. Can you confirm who you told about the matter discussed? 180 So who did you speak to?

Mr Phillips: Clearly, this is a confidential issue. It is a staff issue. It is not quite as confidential in the way that Mr Houghton thought. I told people who have a need to know. So I told Mr Speaker, as everybody agreed I should; I told my Deputy, because he was going 185 to be the inquiry officer; and I told the three staff members who were involved – the one in whose favour Mr Houghton was trying to act and the other two staff members about whom the complaints had been made. I did also say to them that they would be very well advised to go to their union to seek advice, because that is, again, pretty standard. This is the sort of thing that unions are extremely 190 good at helping with and, as a manager, I have to say I have always found the union here – particularly Mrs Moffatt – to be extremely useful as a source of general and particular advice.

The Chairman: Thank you.

195 Q40. Mr Quirk: Chairman, could I just ask when did you make a decision then, or was it just a subsequence afterwards, that the Second Clerk was the inquiry officer? You said you told him because he was going to be the inquiry officer. (Mr Phillips: Yes.) Did you just tell him because he was potentially involved or had you made your mind up there had to be an inquiry?

200 Mr Phillips: I think I told him the next day, after I had thought it through and written the note which is in reference number 1. It is pretty obvious – we are a very small outfit, there is nobody else who could do it, because you have got to be senior to the people who are being inquired into and there is only him senior between the then Third Clerk and me, so it did not really take any time at all to decide who was going to have to do the inquiry. 205 As a matter of fact, he was quite experienced about doing inquiries. He had done inquiries before – staff inquiries on other matters. So it was a very easy decision to make. It was pretty obvious actually. (The Chairman: Thank you.) I suppose I could add one refinement, which is that it was not immediately clear whether we were going to go down the disciplinary route or the capability route, and this was an initial 210 inquiry into finding facts; because, as I mentioned earlier in my evidence, you always travel hopefully and if you can sort things out informally then you do, because it is almost invariably better, actually. But that is not always an option and it was not in this case. If it had been a disciplinary inquiry then I would have had to rethink things – and I am grateful to the union actually for pointing this

______21 TSMI-A/15-16 95 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

215 out to me – I would quite possibly have had to go outside the office because I would have been conflicted potentially, as would Jonathan King.

Q41. The Chairman: Thank you. So, staying with the lying allegations, we now turn to the Third Clerk referral issue. In the 220 following questions we are going to consider the allegations that, in his complaint against the Clerk, Mr Houghton invented the fact that the Clerk had told him and Mr Wild that the Third Clerk had been referred to Dr McAndry for depression. (Mr Phillips: Yes.) So the first question: at the meeting on 30th October what did you tell Mr Houghton and Mr Wild about Mrs Lambden’s referral to Dr McAndry, the third-party occupational health adviser 225 used by your Office?

Mr Phillips: This is the one element of this that – without wishing to sound an arrogant note – I wish I had done differently, because at that stage I was still – and I now realise this was a mistake – trying to persuade Mr Houghton that he was wrong, because he was very clear in his 230 own mind that people were only referred to the medical adviser as a prelude to dismissal, and this just is not true. It is not true at all. Quite a number of people in the office who have excellent records have been referred to the medical adviser. Why is this? It is because I need to know that it is safe for them to return to work. It is a precautionary measure. Again, I am grateful to Angela Moffatt for having, at an early stage in my time here, pointed 235 this out to me as being a reasonable thing to do. I did say, even ... because he was complaining so vociferously about the Third Clerk, I did say, ‘Even Marie Lambden has been to see Dr McAndry,’ and I wish I had not said that because that was something which he blew up into something that I was criticised for by him. I told Marie about this and she was not at all concerned. 240 What Mr Houghton has completely invented, and which of course I would never have said had it been true, is I said that she was referred to the medical adviser for depression. I am authorised, I think ... I do not think Marie, if she were sitting here, would mind if I said that she has never suffered from depression, to my knowledge, and that that was certainly not the reason for her being referred to Dr McAndry; and I think that this was something that 245 Mr Houghton has simply invented in order to beef up his complaint.

Q42. The Chairman: Did you discuss the referral with Mr Houghton and Mr Wild at any other time apart from that occasion?

250 Mr Phillips: No.

Q43. The Chairman: Did you tell them the reason for the referral at any time – you have answered that, but I think this is very important to get this on the record –

255 Mr Phillips: Absolutely. I see why you are going through this.

The Chairman: – and if you did, what was that reason?

Mr Phillips: I did not at any time tell them why Mrs Lambden had been referred to 260 Dr McAndry and, as far as I am aware, they would not know.

The Chairman: That is clear.

Q44. Mr Quirk: Can I just ask – through you, Chairman – the Clerk: I presume there is a 265 standard procedure for somebody who is returning to work – returning to work interviews and

______22 TSMI-A/15-16 96 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

the capability route ... There will be a document that members of staff will have, like a memorandum of understanding or a contract of employment, which will indicate –

Mr Phillips: There are published rules and procedures which recently have been updated and 270 which are available. They are circulated to all staff members, and when they were recently updated we consulted all the staff members and the union, and of course TMC gave its imprimatur and then it was put into effect. That was after these events, but at all times there is a set of procedures which were adopted. Grafted onto that is my own practice, which is now expressed in the procedures, of referring 275 people to Dr McAndry. It is something which I introduced, for which I am happy to take full responsibility because I think it is part of a caring approach to staff. People can sometimes do themselves an injury by returning to work too quickly, for whatever reasons. They may be insecure, they may be just a bit tense about staying at home, but it happens more often than you might think, that people say they are ready to come back to work and they are not; and I 280 think that as a conscientious employer I need to know from Dr McAndry that they are ready to come back.

Q45. Mr Quirk: Can I just ask on what rough date did you implement that procedure? I mean it is not crucial but – 285 Mr Phillips: Some years ago.

Mr Quirk: Oh right.

290 Mr Phillips: It has been –

The Chairman: Embedded.

Mr Phillips: – with us for some time. I think your Clerk might be able to advise you. I cannot 295 now remember the date, but certainly a number of years. I would say five years. More?

Q46. Mr Quirk: The final one from me, Chairman, would be: do you use the mechanism that is used elsewhere in the Civil Service – I think it is called the Bradford Scale?

300 Mr Phillips: Yes, we do. That is a very useful tool. Like all tools, it is only a tool – it is not a magic wand, it does not tell you everything – but it is a very useful way of bringing to people’s attention that they have perhaps been absent more than they thought.

305 The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

Q47. Mr Quayle: I am sorry to raise this but I think it is a key point, Mr Phillips. Just for total clarification, would it be fair to say that the only reason you mentioned Mrs Lambden going to see said doctor was to reassure Mr Houghton that it was not a one-off event; this was a regular 310 occurrence in your office for staff who were off sick from time to time, to ensure their wellbeing and it was fit for them to return to work; and nothing should be read in to the request by you for one of the staff to be sent to visit the doctor?

Mr Phillips: You have put it entirely correctly, Mr Quayle. Yes. 315 The Chairman: So we will move on –

______23 TSMI-A/15-16 97 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

Q48. Mr Quirk: Sorry, just to clarify a little issue, if I can, to the Clerk: when a person is referred to Dr McAndry, the details that come back – from my life in a trade union anyway – 320 would be confidential to the person who went; so you would not have sight of any issues, like medical reasons or –

Mr Phillips: Well, when somebody wants to have sick pay, they do tell me why they are ill and so I do need to know why somebody – After all I am authorising the payment of sick pay 325 which is not my money, it is taxpayers’ money, and I need to know that the person is ill, I need to know that it is something which they will recover from, because clearly if they are very, very ill then we have to go down another route. So, although they are entitled to confidentiality, I am entitled not to pay them sick pay. So there is a bit of a trade-off. In fact, we never get to that point because, clearly, common sense 330 applies. They tell me why they are off – and I always believe people, because they are ill, that is why they are not there. It is an exercise in finding out from an independent commentator whether they are fit to come back and whether we need to do anything to help them come back and, crucially, whether we have done anything to exacerbate or create their illness in the first place. For example, if they had some sort of repetitive stress injury I would really need to know a 335 lot about that, for their own safety and also for the safety of other people doing similar jobs.

Mr Quirk: That is fine.

Q49. The Chairman: Okay, so moving on then, Mr Phillips, addressing the third allegation 340 under the heading of ‘Lying’, which is the withdrawal letter of 11th November. In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that Mr Houghton gave the Clerk of Tynwald a letter dated 11th November 2014 on 13th November 2014 – that is at number 10 in your bundle – which Mr Wild had told you he no longer wished to send, although he had signed it. (Mr Phillips: Yes.) 345 We also wish to consider a letter dated 19th November 2014 – that is at number 17 in your bundle – (Mr Phillips: Yes.) in which Mr Houghton wrote, and I quote:

... that the evidence in this letter has been corroborated by Mr Wild and given under his hand.

Are you content that I move to the questions or would you like to –? (Mr Phillips: Yes, please.) Can you advise who gave you the letter dated 11th November – that is at number 10 in your bundle – and when? 350 Mr Phillips: You will see that there is a handwritten note, initialled by me and in my handwriting, which says, ‘Received by hand from Mr Houghton’, and it has got a time which is, 14.50 and ‘13 Nov 14,’ so that was the time and date he gave this to me. He walked into my office, put it on my desk and left. 355 The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr Phillips: So he handed it to me. I, necessarily, believed what he had given me and that both Members were doing what the 360 letter said, which is withdrawing all that they had said to me at the meeting on 30th October – whatever ‘withdrawing’ in this context meant; it itself needs some explanation, I suppose.

Q50. The Chairman: So how and when were you made aware that Mr Wild had not wanted that letter to be delivered? 365

______24 TSMI-A/15-16 98 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

Mr Phillips: You will see, I think over page, I responded to both of them in letter number 11. Then in reference document number 12, this is an email to Mr Wild, copied into the Speaker and to the President and to the Deputy Clerk, which really describes ... Again, it is a summary, it is a note of things that were said to get it on the record so that people could remember what they 370 had said at the time and it is something which I think Mr Wild would agree to. I bumped into him, as it happens, and I mentioned that he had ... I was a bit surprised to receive the letter withdrawing the remarks because, as I indicated to you, it was not clear what they actually meant. They had spent an hour with me complaining that somebody was being bullied – largely Mr Houghton; Mr Wild did not say nearly as much as Mr Houghton – and so for 375 them to withdraw this was a bit mystifying really, because are they saying what they said to me is not true; am I supposed not to worry any more about this problem? It raises more questions than answers, to put it mildly. So when I bumped into Tony Wild and said, ‘I’m surprised to get your letter. What did you mean?’ – as it were, I cannot quite now remember, we went into my office and he did not quite 380 understand what I was talking about and I said, ‘Well, you know, you gave me this,’ and he then realised what had happened and told me that it was not with his authority.

Q51. The Chairman: So you got the letter on the 13th. Can you remember when it was that you spoke to Mr Wild in the manner you have just described? Approximately. 385 Mr Phillips: The email to Mr Wild is 13th November at 4.21 p.m. so I think it must have been the same day, a matter of ... yes, I think it must have been a matter of hours – a matter of two hours or so, an hour and a half – after getting it that I bumped into him, just by chance. As I now remember, it all happened rather quickly on the same day. 390 Q52. The Chairman: You say he at first did not understand what you were talking about. When you had apprised him of what it was, could you expand a little bit on his manner and the comments that he made, as you can recall? What lasting impressions have you got of that conversation? 395 Mr Phillips: I understand you are going to take evidence from him in due course. (The Chairman: Yes.) My memory was that he was pretty aghast and, clearly, I hardly need to spell out to you, and I did not need to spell out to him either, the seriousness of one Member handing what is essentially a forgery to me in order to stop me from proceeding with my duties. So I 400 mean it is a very, very serious thing to have done. So I think we were both quite shocked actually.

Q53. Mr Quirk: Could I ask the Clerk, through the Chair, was that why you then subsequently included the President in this correspondence? 405 Mr Phillips: Yes, I did. I mean this is (Mr Quirk: Serious.) very, very serious. I thought that the two Presiding Officers needed to know about what was going on, and Mr Wild is a Member of the Legislative Council. I have not ever come across any Member in my career doing this and this was done ... My 410 automatic reaction was to let the Presiding Officers know, because I work for Members and primarily for the Presiding Officers; they are the Members’ elected representatives. So I was very shocked, actually, about the turn of events.

Q54. Mr Quirk: Could I just ask the Clerk, in previous years a certain number of Members 415 have signed a document and then maybe delivered it to yourselves or the Speaker, usually on an issue that there is a shortage of resource or whatever; did you see this in a similar light – Mr Houghton – or was this totally different?

______25 TSMI-A/15-16 99 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

Mr Phillips: I am not sure that I have received that many documents from Members. Are you referring to documents about[a management issue] , for example? I mean that was subsequent 420 to all of this – these events – (Mr Quirk: Yes.) so, without wishing to go too far off the course, that was ... You have got a flavour from the written evidence of the sheer level of aggression with which we had to deal. I mean that was, indeed, part of the same scenario really; it was quite difficult. But it is very unlikely that you would get that normally. 425 Q55. Mr Quirk: I was going to ask you ... I am not leading you but I will just say to you that when that particular letter which was countersigned by about six Members ... did you have the level of visits to your office to demand to have something done? Were there Members forceful to you? Did you feel threatened? 430 Mr Phillips: That was very different because, in fact, I think Mr Speaker was more in the firing line, personally, actually. I think he took much of the heat of that. I mean, I was not present when Mr Speaker, Mr Houghton and Mr Wild met up and there were a number of ... I do know from Mr Speaker that a number of meetings occurred between him and Mr Houghton which 435 were uncomfortable, to put it mildly, but I really cannot comment on those because they are not in my personal knowledge.

Q56. The Chairman: I think it is important not to stray too far. That closes our questions on that matter. We now want to move on to the matter you just 440 raised there and that is the degree of aggression and, therefore, we want to look at the allegation of bullying. The allegation that Mr Houghton made – and I quote here:

... what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be, malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

These were made in letters written on 22nd January 2015 and they are numbers 29 and 30 in your bundle. (Mr Phillips: Yes.) Okay. 445 Also that Mr Houghton – and I quote again here:

... has adopted a manner in interfering in their staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk.

Are you happy that I continue with the questions? (Mr Phillips: Yes.) Okay. Do you feel that the complaint made against you on 22nd January 2015 – that is at number 29 in your bundle – was malicious and bullying and can you tell us why?

450 Mr Phillips: Yes. I think that it is part of his behaviour from the start of raising this. I think it was malicious because he was cross that the staff member whose advocate he had appointed himself – whether[they] had appointed him or not, who knows – had left the office, by agreement. And I do not want to go too far into that because it was by agreement. It is confidential. It was negotiated with[their] union representative and through the relevant Industrial Relations Service. 455 So let’s stop there. But I think that he was extremely angry with me personally for not allowing him to get his own way in deflecting the investigation. It is interesting that in the letter of complaint he refers to me ‘turning the tables on us’. That is on page 54 of the bundle – page 4 of document number 29. Using some explanation, he says that is why:

… Mr Wild and I were later forced by Mr Phillips’ subsequent actions to withdraw everything we said to him at the meeting, as Mr Phillips subsequently (and very improperly) turned the tables on us and decided to instruct his second clerk to launch an investigation…

______26 TSMI-A/15-16 100 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

460 That, I think, gives you a tone of the sheer relentless aggression which I found very wearing and so did my colleagues. In fact, as I was re-reading this bundle to prepare for this evidence session, I was quite surprised – I will not conceal this from you – at the level of emotion it generated again. I mean it has really been extremely difficult and I think that all of the allegations he made, which were independently scrutinised, led to nothing. He essentially made 465 it all up and I think he was just trying to get my colleague and my Deputy and me into trouble.

Q57. The Chairman: Following the investigation of this complaint by an independent officer, can you confirm what, if any, action was, or needed to be, taken?

470 Mr Phillips: In the case of my Deputy, he was completely exonerated. In the case of me, I was completely exonerated, save for the one point we have discussed, which is that I made a mistake – which I accept – which is that in trying to persuade Mr Houghton that we were treating everybody fairly, I let him know that Mrs Lambden had been to see Dr McAndry. I did not, as I have said before, explain why. 475 The investigation concluded that perhaps I needed some training about handling information, which I received from the Information Commissioner, who was – I do not wish to put words into his mouth – very, very unexcited by that particular peccadillo of mine.

Q58. The Chairman: Can you please explain how you were bullied by Mr Houghton? Could 480 you describe in a little bit more detail how that feeling that you now express as being even now revisiting a degree of emotion ... (Mr Phillips: Yes.) how did it express itself?

Mr Phillips: Earlier I mentioned the context in which Clerks work and people have to explain that we do work for you, so you are our bosses. So the impact of what Members say to Clerks is 485 quite profound sometimes, and what we are not able to do is be at loggerheads with you in a serious personal way. It just does not work. So the fact that he adopted this particular posture was very difficult in itself. I have been a Clerk for over 30 years. I am used to things. Not every Member has been equally easy to deal with and some Members are harder than others, so I am fairly robust, 490 actually. But I have not come across somebody who has so consistently produced written – primarily in this case, written – work which is very, very aggressive in tone. The bundle is in front of you; you will see the answer to your own question simply by reading the letters, which are very threatening and which are in complete disregard of any propriety whatsoever. You did mention the communication from the Speaker of 5th November. It was in flagrant 495 disregard of what the Speaker had indicated. So it was an extremely difficult and emotionally highly-charged situation. At the same time, I was trying to ensure that there was a fair inquiry into a very serious allegation, which ultimately has led to two people leaving the office – one of them, resignation – Marie Lambden; and one of them , by agreement.

500 Q59. The Chairman: This is a question aside. Perhaps the relevance of it will not be apparent initially, but were you ever made aware at any stage by Mr Houghton that he was aware of the letter he had received from the Speaker on 5th November? Were you ever aware of that, that you can recall?

505 Mr Phillips: What, that he might not have received it?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Phillips: I am pretty sure ... Well, the copy is in the bundle. I will just have a look and see – 510 if I may refresh my mind for a moment?

______27 TSMI-A/15-16 101 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

The Chairman: By all means. Can I ask the Clerk at this stage – our Clerk – if Mr Phillips subsequently reminds himself of where he might be able to answer the question, is he allowed to write to us? 515 The Clerk: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. On that basis, Mr Phillips, would you like to give that some thought?

520 Mr Phillips: I certainly will. I think that the answer probably is that I will not be able to demonstrate, from my own recollection, certainly, or from my records, that Mr Houghton is known to have received the letter.

The Chairman: Thank you. That closes that – I beg your pardon. 525 Q60. Mr Quirk: Sorry, through the Chair, I just wanted to go back on a little one. You did, in the earlier question, say it had ‘turned the tables on us’, (Mr Phillips: Yes.) which you were referring to Mr Houghton and somebody else; (Mr Phillips: Yes.) was that other person, do you think, he was acting on his behalf or had the separation taken place? 530 Mr Phillips: I read that as meaning him and the staff member he was –

Mr Quirk: Oh, the staff member.

535 Mr Phillips: Yes, I think so, but it is his document, not mine, and I think you are going to have to ask him what he meant by it.

Q61. Mr Quirk: Yes. The only other one I thought was – and I do not know the issue – if the Speaker then sends a 540 letter to a Member regarding a particular issue, is it not shared then – I do not know whether it is shared – with the President?

Mr Phillips: The Speaker is Chairman of (Mr Quirk: Keys.) the Tynwald Management Committee. The President, of course, is ex-officio a member of the Tynwald Management 545 Committee. But the Tynwald Management Committee is in a difficult place in this particular story, because of course it is an appeal body and, just as you are rather fewer than you normally are because half of you are conflicted, so the Tynwald Management Committee has to make sure that it is not conflicted. Mr Houghton took the point that the Speaker was conflicted. It is difficult. The two Presiding 550 Officers are entitled to know what Presiding Officers should know, but in fact the President did distance herself from almost all of this, aside from knowing about the – if I can call it the fake letter you know what I mean – because she was aware of the danger of conflict.

Q62. The Chairman: Thank you. 555 Before we go on to the matter of the resignation of the Third Clerk, we do not have any specific questions but I would like to give the opportunity for you to comment on what you might consider the effects to have been with regard to the allegation of interference in staff matters. Is there any comment that you would like to offer us to be recorded?

560 Mr Phillips: I did earlier mention that the ideal is for an informal resolution of differences within the staff and we will never know whether that would have been impossible or not, but I think I can, reasonably confidently, say that Mr Houghton certainly made it impossible – as a

______28 TSMI-A/15-16 102 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

direct result of which, somebody is no longer working here. If he is an advocate he is a very poor one. I think I have no more to say than that. 565 The Chairman: Thank you.

Q63. Mr Quirk: When you say ‘one’ – earlier you said ‘two’ ...?

570 Mr Phillips: I was referring to the staff member he was defending. There are, of course, two departures from that and what can I say about the former Third Clerk? Well, I am very sorry about that.

The Chairman: Turning to the resignation of the Third Clerk, in the following question we will 575 be considering the resignation letter of the Third Clerk, Mrs Marie Lambden – that is number 32 in your bundle.

Mr Phillips: Yes. Can I declare an interest here and say that Marie Lambden is a personal friend and she became a personal friend after she joined the staff, because we get on very well 580 and she is a very good personal friend, particularly, of my wife. So that may colour the evidence I give.

Q64. The Chairman: We just have one question in that regard. It just simply is: can you tell us what you felt about the resignation of Mrs Lambden? 585 Mr Phillips: No disrespect to our current Third Clerk, who is in every way excellent of course, it was a tremendous disappointment to see somebody who had given such good service over seven years leave in these circumstances.

590 Q65. Mr Quirk: Could I just ask one thing? Just regarding that, were you aware that it was imminent, or was it ...? Because normally a member of staff does not take a conscious decision to leave her employment that she likes or enjoys, or has been there a while.

Mr Phillips: I think if Marie says herself what her feelings are, it is probably more accurate 595 than I can ... but yes of course we are a very close-knit office and I knew before she resigned that she was thinking of doing so, but she told me she was thinking of doing so fairly shortly before she did so. I think she went away and – this is a sign perhaps of how deep her feelings were – that she did not talk to me sooner than that, actually. 600 Q66. The Chairman: Thank you very much. Having regard to all the questions that we have asked you and your opening remarks included, are there any closing remarks that you would like to add, Mr Phillips?

605 Mr Phillips: Thank you very much, Chairman. I do not think so. I think the story, for whatever it is, is pretty clearly spelt out in front of you and I cannot think of anything at the moment that I wish I had said that I have not said.

The Chairman: In that case, Mr Phillips, can we thank you very much for your time this 610 afternoon.

Mr Phillips: Thank you very much.

______29 TSMI-A/15-16 103 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

Mr King was called at 4.50 p.m.

Procedural

The Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr King. 615 Thank you very much for attending to give evidence today. I am Chris Robertshaw MHK and I will be chairing this session. With me are my colleagues, the Hon. Howard Quayle MHK and Mr David Quirk MHK; our Clerk is Mrs Corkish. As you will know, this evidence is being taken in private but it is being recorded and a verbatim transcript will be produced for the Committee. In view of this, can I please ask that 620 mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched to silent. I will also be making sure that two people are not speaking at once. The evidence recorded today may be published as part of a report, if one is made to Tynwald following this investigation. In the course of our conversation today we may well refer to individuals who are neither the subject of this investigation nor being called as witnesses. I can 625 confirm that their names will not be published in a report, if one is made. All witnesses have been provided with the same pack of written evidence in advance of attending to give oral evidence. This is the evidence which the Committee has decided may be relevant to the specific allegations which have been made. Do you have yours with you? (Mr King: Yes.) Thank you. 630 You will be aware that the conduct of Mr John Houghton MHK was referred to the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee in July 2015. The referral letter is number 33 in your evidence pack. Because of the nature of the circumstances which led to the referral being made, a number of Members and Officers may have been conflicted and so, to ensure the matter is investigated 635 in a fair and objective way, the Committee had to ask for the permission of Tynwald Court to be quorate with three members instead of the usual four. The motion requesting this was approved on Wednesday 21st October 2015. The reduced Committee met on Tuesday 27th October 2015 and at that meeting resolved to investigate the matter referred to it. Three specific allegations have been made regarding the conduct of Mr Houghton. These are 640 that he lied, specifically; and here I quote:

and:

The next allegation is that he bullied, specifically – and here I quote:

After the inquiries into the staff issue were concluded Mr Houghton made what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk;

and, that:

Mr Houghton has adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

______30 TSMI-A/15-16 104 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

The third allegation being that he engaged in unwarranted interference in staff matters, 645 specifically that – and again here I quote:

Mr Houghton has engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against[their] senior managers, against my direct advice;

That was the advice of Mr Speaker which was given in writing on 5th November 2014. So for the purpose of this third allegation, evidence from that date only will be considered. That means we are only considering matters from 5th November onwards. Finally, we will also consider the statement, that – and again I quote:

His conduct has precipitated the resignation of a member of staff.

650 Mr King, we will be referring to the bundle in front of you from time to time, and on one or two occasions we may be referring to two different letters in the same question. Because these matters now before us relate to alleged incidents which occurred some time ago, we are perfectly happy to stop and give you the chance to reappraise yourself of any particular letter you may choose. 655 If you choose to do this and we see you reading, we will stop and then when you are satisfied that you have read the document before you, would you please indicate that you wish us to continue? We have plenty of time and please do not feel in any way rushed over this matter.

EVIDENCE OF Mr J D C King, Deputy Clerk of Tynwald

Q67. The Chairman: Before we begin to ask specific questions we would like to give you the opportunity to make any comments you wish at the outset, but we will also ask you at the end if 660 there are any further comments that you would like to add to that which has been discussed during the questions. So would you like to take this opportunity to offer any opening remarks?

Mr King: No, thank you. 665 Q68. The Chairman: Thank you very much. We turn to the matter of bullying. In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that Mr Houghton made, and I quote:

… what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

These were made in letters written on 22nd January 2015 and they are numbers 29 and 30 in 670 your bundle. Also that Mr Houghton, I quote:

… has adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

Are you content that I now start asking questions? Okay. Do you feel that the complaint made against you on 22nd January 2015 – that is at number 30 in your bundle – was malicious and bullying and, if so, can you tell us why? 675

______31 TSMI-A/15-16 105 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

Mr King: Yes, I certainly feel that it was malicious. The Tynwald Management Committee says it was bullying and I am happy to accept that. I think when you do any job in the public service you should welcome complaints because complaints are a way of finding out what has gone wrong and making it right for the next time. 680 So the fact that a Member of Tynwald makes a complaint about something I have done, in principle, I have not got a problem with. I would like to work in an organisation where the customers or the owners of the organisation or the shareholders, or whoever it is, are aware of what I am doing and I would like to think I am getting it right. If I am not getting it right I would like to be told so that I can get it right next time. 685 In this case, the complaints against me were particularly strange because in every case the things that were complained of had already been endorsed by Mr Speaker. To be specific, the letters that I wrote to Mr Houghton, explaining to him why I was not going to give him information about the staff investigation, in every case said: ‘Dear Mr Houghton, thank you for your letter. Mr Speaker has approved the contents of this reply.’ I did it that way because it was 690 an important piece of work and one with political ramifications, and it was perfectly natural for me to make sure the Speaker was aware of what I was doing and I would not have done it if the Speaker had told me not to. So in those circumstances to have a complaint directed to say, as the complaint does, ‘Mr King has got this wrong because he should not have talked to the Speaker,’ and then points 695 (b) and (c) ‘he should have given me the information and he should have allowed me to attend the meeting,’ was just very strange. I mean a complaint saying, ‘Jonathan King got the Order Paper wrong,’ or even, ‘Jonathan King did not fill in the form correctly’ – great, you know, tell me and I will correct it. But this was not in that category. There was no good reason for this complaint. 700 The Chairman: Right.

Q69. Mr Quayle: Could I just clarify, Mr Chairman? You used the words ‘political ramifications’; could you just expand on your definition of that? 705 Mr King: Yes. In the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office virtually everything has political ramifications and when we are deciding what to refer up to politicians we always have to ask ourselves the question, not is it political because it is all political, but how big a political issue is it? And, for me, the litmus test is will Members notice? So if a colleague comes to me and says, ‘Do you mind 710 if I move that bookcase from one side of the room to the other?’ and it is in an area where Members do not go very often I will say, ‘Great, go for it.’ But if they say, ‘Shall we put this cupboard in the Tynwald Chamber?’ then it is political and so you consult the Tynwald Management Committee. When it comes to staffing, the principle that we try to operate is that Members do not get 715 involved in staffing issues. But we are perfectly well aware that Members notice staffing issues and so we keep the Tynwald Management Committee aware. And this was in that category because we were dealing with a staffing issue , and so that is what I meant when I said it had political ramifications.

720 Mr Quayle: Thank you.

Q70. Mr Quirk: Can I just ask – the direct question from the Chairman was … you felt as though it was malicious, but I think you were giving a hint that you did not feel bullied.

725 Mr King: Yes, well I have thought about this one a lot because it is at the heart of this case that the office has a very serious zero-tolerance attitude to bullying in the workplace. Therefore, ‘bullying’ is not a term which we can use lightly and there is a lot of reading that you can do

______32 TSMI-A/15-16 106 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

about definitions of bullying, and people can argue the toss about whether a particular incident counts as bullying or not. 730 To be perfectly honest with you, when this was going on I did not say, ‘I feel bullied’. Roger said, ‘We are being bullied’ and I said, ‘Are you sure this is bullying, because here is the definition of bullying which we have used, which says it has got to be, “repeated action which is designed to undermine a person's sense of dignity in the workplace”. Is this a repeated action?’ So that is why I am a bit cautious about using the word ‘bullying’ – because it really was one 735 incident. I think if Mr Houghton was my line manager and he behaved like that every month or every six months or every year that would certainly be bullying. In fact, he is more in the nature of a customer or a client or a shareholder and so I personally feel we have got to be able to deal with whatever life throws at us in this office. 740 Having said that, and having discussed it with my colleagues, I am not going to argue with the Tynwald Management Committee when it says this is a bullying complaint. It was certainly malicious.

The Chairman: It was certainly malicious? 745 Mr King: Yes.

Q71. The Chairman: Okay. Following the investigation of this complaint by an independent officer, can you confirm 750 what, if any, action was taken?

Mr King: There was no action as a result of this complaint.

Q72. The Chairman: The next question concerns bullying again but I think we have covered 755 that more than adequately so I will skip that one. On 6th November 2014, Mr Speaker said to you that Mr Houghton had made some comments to him about this matter in the canteen. Can you tell us what the Speaker said to you?

760 Mr King: Sorry, can you remind me of the date again?

Mr Quirk: The 6th.

Q73. The Chairman: On 6th November. I will read the question out again. On 6th November 765 2014, Mr Speaker said to you that Mr Houghton had made some comments to him about this matter in the canteen. Can you tell us what the Speaker said to you?

Mr King: I will refer to my email of that afternoon, because I wrote it down at the time and I wrote:

Mr Speaker came [and told me that] John Houghton had collared him again, this time in the canteen. Mr Houghton said he was recruiting other Members. Mr Speaker had said ‘you’d better not’ and ‘the process has to run its course’. Mr Houghton had said ‘when it does, I’ll be waiting for you’.

770 Q74. The Chairman: Was there any further elaboration of what was understood in that phrase, ‘will be waiting for you’?

Mr King: No, I wrote down the salient points at the time and I cannot remember anything else from that conversation. 775

______33 TSMI-A/15-16 107 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

Q75. Mr Quirk: Can I ask just for a clarification? ‘Waiting for you’ – do you believe that was what the Speaker had confided in you to give himself some comfort or share that knowledge? Was it a reference to waiting for the Speaker?

780 Mr King: Oh, yes, this is a reported conversation between the Speaker and Mr Houghton, in which the Speaker says, ‘Let the process run its course,’ and Mr Houghton says, ‘When it does, I will be waiting for you,’ i.e. Mr Houghton said he would be waiting for Mr Speaker. I have no idea what that means.

785 Q76. The Chairman: We move on to the matter of the resignation of the Third Clerk. In the following we will be considering the resignation letter of the Third Clerk, Mrs Marie Lambden – that is number 32 in your bundle. You might consider this a subjective question but can you tell us what you felt about the resignation of Mrs Lambden? 790 Mr King: Well, this was a terrible event. I mean, of course it is a subjective question. It was really bad news for the office. There is no doubt about that. It was bad news for the office because Marie was good to work with and we enjoyed working with Marie; and she had x number of years’ experience – whatever it was, seven years – doing 795 the job and every time you lose somebody it is a headache because you have got to replace them and you have got to bring the next person up to speed. However well you do the recruitment process, it is work which you would not otherwise have to do. So any kind of resignation is a headache, but this was a particularly unpleasant one because of the circumstances in which it arose. I mean it was not simply a matter of somebody deciding 800 that the time had come to put up their feet and spend more time with their family. This was somebody who really was highly committed to this office and felt that she could not continue; and that does not reflect well on anyone.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. 805 Q77. Mr Quayle: Could I just come in there? Had you seen, Mr King, reasons as to why you could understand the Third Clerk felt the need to resign?

810 Mr King: Yes. I mean this letter was written on 25th June. Roger, Marie and I had been living with the episodes we are talking about since 30th October 2014. So we had been living with this for nine months – the best part of a year, pretty much a full parliamentary year – and it had not been easy. It had been very difficult. We had a difficult staffing matter to deal with, which we dealt with, and then we had this 815 associated political fallout with Mr Houghton which we were not really able to deal with – that is the long and the short of it. We try to keep management and political matters separate as far as we can in this very political environment. We did our best on the staffing issue and we came to a resolution. With the political level to this, you have seen from the papers that we wrote jointly a paper from the 820 three Clerks to the Tynwald Management Committee in February and I signed up to that because it was a good thing to do. We thought we had to report what was going on and the appropriate channel was to report it to the Tynwald Management Committee. I did not know what was going to happen next. I do not think any of us knew what was going to happen next, but certainly we felt that something ought to be done and I think of the three of 825 us – Roger, Marie and me – Marie felt that most acutely because she had been in the firing line the most. I know I had the formal complaint written about me but I had only done what I had been told and so in that sense I felt very confident that that complaint would come to nothing.

______34 TSMI-A/15-16 108 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

Marie, I think, felt more keenly than Roger and me that this was weighing on her professional reputation and, as she says in the letter, she felt that she had a strong sense of injustice that 830 Mr Houghton had not been censured.

Q78. Mr Quirk: Two questions from me, Chair, if I could. You are saying, ‘We had to deal with the fallout with Mr Houghton’ – or the ‘political fallout’ – what do you believe that was? I do not want to put words in your mouth but – 835 Mr King: Well, the original staffing issue was resolved in February and what were we left with? We were left with a situation where we had a Member of Tynwald who had tried to intervene in a staffing matter, who had made complaints against Roger and me, who had made Mr Wild's life a misery. It was clear because Mr Wild told me that as part of the investigation. 840 Now, can you just go on and put it all down to experience and hope for the best? Well, no you cannot because there is something hanging there which makes the job of managing the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office extremely difficult, not to say impossible. The principle that a Member may not get involved in a staffing matter is a really important principle. It was mentioned to me as long ago as 2007 when I first joined this office as a factor 845 which made managing this office very difficult. We thought, in 2012, that we had made significant progress – thanks to the Tynwald Management Committee agreeing this principle and giving us the instruction to apply it. From 2012 onwards, managing … It was part of a number of things which we have been trying to do over the last seven or eight years since Roger and I joined this office – and not just 850 us, I should say. We have been trying to improve the office and deliver a better service and be more efficient and do all the things that you would expect us to do. But this is a really important part of the framework for getting things done round here and if Members can come in and take sides in staffing matters, it makes our job extremely difficult. So that was really unfinished business. 855 Q79. Mr Quirk: Can I just supplement that by asking: regarding the code of conduct between political Members and members of staff, do you think on the whole all the Members now have realised that; are signed up to the code? Or do you think you still have to be aware of certain individuals in the future? 860 Mr King: As far as I know, Mr Houghton has never signed up to that. The last communication I had from him directly to me was, ‘If you do not allow me to get involved in this staff issue I will complain to the Tynwald Management Committee’. I did not allow him to get involved; he complained to the Tynwald Management Committee; nothing happened as a result. So I do not 865 know where he stands now – so that is one. As for the other 34 Members of Tynwald, there are five on the Tynwald Management Committee, so I think they have signed up to this principle. That leaves 30 and of course I do not know what they think.

870 Q80. Mr Quirk: The final thing from me, Chair: you mentioned ‘firing line’ and I could not quite get what the context of that was; do you still think you are in the firing line from Members, or have you got to now, when you meet Members of parliament, have two in the office?

Mr King: I cannot remember what I was saying when I used the words ‘firing line’, but I do 875 not feel in the firing line from Members of Tynwald and we do not have a practice of always having two in the office when we talk to a Member of Tynwald.

The Chairman: Thanks.

______35 TSMI-A/15-16 109 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER 2015

I think your answer to Mr Quirk’s first question was, in some ways, a rather good summary of 880 the position. I wonder, in closing, have you any further remarks you want to add, or are you content to leave it at that? We have no more questions for you.

Mr King: No, that is okay. Thank you very much. 885 The Chairman: Well – I beg your pardon.

Q81. Mr Quayle: Sorry, Mr Chair. Something has sprung to mind and I just wanted clarification that we have not asked, so my apologies. 890 I think when Members have been made aware that they should not have got involved, we have accepted, we feel, that before Mr Houghton was sent a letter – before that date – it could be argued he was not mens rea; but after that date, having received that letter, he knew what the advice was to him. Do you have any evidence to suggest that you were aware that Mr Houghton from Mr 895 Speaker, stating that he was not to get involved with staffing matters? Is there any conversation you had had with Mr Houghton where you felt, ‘Yes, he understands that he has been written to’? Whether he accepts it or not is immaterial; it is whether or not, in conversations you had had with Mr Houghton, he acknowledged receipt of the advice from Mr Speaker?

900 The Chairman: This is specifically the letter of 5th November we are talking about.

Mr King: Yes. I remember the letter. Let me just refer to the notes for a second. I do not know. I do not have any evidence that he received the letter.

905 Mr Quayle: So he never mentioned it to you in discussing –

Mr King: He mentions it in the letter of complaint, I think – in his complaint about me. No, he doesn’t, does he? Sorry, I have got mixed up. He talks about me talking to the Speaker and thinks that is a bad idea. 910 I did not have any conversations with Mr Houghton throughout this whole thing. That is one of the strangest things and one thing which marks him out from the other 34 Members of Tynwald. I am pretty sure he is the only one with whom I have not had a conversation in the last three or four years. He only communicates with me by letter. Except on the day we had a new Member for North Douglas and we had a little new 915 Members’ induction programme set up and the new Member was supposed to come to meet the Clerks from, I forget whether it was 9.30 or 10 in the morning and Mr Houghton brought Mr Peake down and introduced him to us. He said, ‘Here is Jonathan King. He is an excellent officer. He will show you what is going on. And here is Mrs Lowney and she is excellent too.’ He did all that. He was very charming. 920 The Chairman: That draws this session to a close, Mr King. It just remains for me to thank you very much for your attendance this afternoon and for spending time talking to us. Thank you very much indeed.

925 Mr King: Thank you.

The Committee adjourned at 5.20 p.m.

______36 TSMI-A/15-16 110 3RD DECEMBER 2015

Evidence of Mr TP Wild MLC

111 112 STANDINGCOMMITTEE OF TYNWALDCOURT OFFICIALREPORT

RECORTYSOIKOIL BINGVEAYNTINVAAL

PROCEEDINGS DAALTYN

TYNWALD STANDARDS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS COMMITTEE

PRIVATE TRANSCRIPT

Douglas, Thursday, 3rd December 2015

TSMI-A No. 3/15-16

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2015 113 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

Members Present:

Chairman: Mr C R Robertshaw MHK Hon. R H Quayle MHK Mr D J Quirk MHK

Clerk: Mrs J Corkish

Contents Procedural...... 39 EVIDENCE OF Mr T P Wild MLC...... 40 The Committee adjourned at 9.38 a.m...... 51

______38 TSMI-A/15-16 114 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

Standing Committee of Tynwald on Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests

The Committee sat in private at 8.40 a.m. in the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Douglas

[MR ROBERTSHAW in the Chair]

Procedural

The Chairman (Mr Robertshaw): Good morning. Thank you very much for attending this morning. As you will know this evidence is being taken in private but it is being recorded and a verbatim transcript will be produced for the Committee. So can I please ask you to make sure your mobiles are off, that is the first thing. 5 The evidence recorded today may be published as part of a report, if one is made to Tynwald following this investigation. In the course of our conversation today we may well refer to individuals who are neither the subject of this investigation nor being called as witnesses. I can confirm that their names will not be published in the report, if one is made. All witnesses have been provided with the same pack of written evidence in advance of 10 attending to give oral evidence. This is the evidence which the Committee has decided may be relevant to the specific allegations which have been made. Tony, have you got yours with you?

Mr Wild: I have, yes, Mr Chairman. 15 The Chairman: Thank you very much. You will be aware that the conduct of Mr John Houghton MHK was referred to the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee in July 2015. The referral letter is number 33 in your evidence pack. 20 Three specific allegations have been made regarding the conduct of Mr Houghton. The first is that he lied, specifically; and here I quote:

To support his complaints against the Clerk Mr Houghton invented two matters: one was that the initial complaints by him on behalf of the staff member were confidential and therefore should not have been communicated to the persons complained of; the other was that the Clerk had told him and [yourself] Mr Wild that the Third Clerk had been referred to Dr McAndry for depression. Neither of these claims is true;

And:

He gave the Clerk of Tynwald a letter which purported to be from him and [yourself] Mr Wild (both of whom had previously drawn to the Clerk’s attention matters involving allegations on the part of the staff member of bullying and breach of confidence) knowing he had no right to do so, in order to create a false impression that the allegations were withdrawn.

The next allegation being that he bullied, specifically that – and here again I quote:

______39 TSMI-A/15-16 115 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

After the inquiries into the staff issue were concluded Mr Houghton made what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk;

And, that:

Mr Houghton has adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

25 The third allegation being that he engaged in unwarranted interference in staff matters, specifically that – and, again, I quote:

Mr Houghton has engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against[their] senior managers, against my direct advice;

And that was the advice of Mr Speaker, which was given in writing on 5th November 2014. So for the purpose of this third allegation evidence from that date only will be considered – from 5th November. 30 Finally we will also consider that statement, that:

His conduct has precipitated the resignation of a member of staff.

Mr Wild, we will be referring to the bundle in front of you from time to time, and on one or two occasions we will be referring to two different letters in the same question. Because these matters now before us relate to alleged incidents which occurred some time ago, we are perfectly happy to stop and give you the chance to reappraise yourself of any particular letter. If 35 you choose to do this and I see you reading, we will stop, and then when you are satisfied that you have read the document before you, would you please look up again and indicate that you wish me to continue? We have got all the time that you want, so no problem there.

EVIDENCE OF Mr T P Wild MLC

Q82. The Chairman: So Mr Wild, having read the copy evidence provided, is there anything you disagree with in the terms of how your involvement has been represented by Mr Houghton? 40 And do not worry, you can come back to it if you miss anything –

Mr Wild: No, Mr Chairman, it is accurate.

Q83. The Chairman: Thank you. 45 So we turn to the first item which is ‘Lying’ and the confidentiality matter. In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that in his complaints against the Clerk, Mr Houghton invented the fact that the initial complaints by him on behalf of the staff member were confidential, and therefore should not have been communicated to the persons complained of. 50 So the question. What was your understanding of what the Clerk had agreed to do after the original meeting on 30th October 2014, at which you raised your concerns about a staff member to the Clerk of Tynwald?

Mr Wild: The Clerk was entitled to handle, I will say a ‘staff’ issue – I prefer ‘colleague’ – in 55 whatever manner the Clerk determined fit. And, from my banking perspective, you have these confidential meetings but they are not confidential because if they were confidential you cannot actually engage and take action.

______40 TSMI-A/15-16 116 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

Q84. The Chairman: Did this understanding change – the understanding that you have just indicated there – after you received the written summary of the meeting of 30th October that 60 the Clerk wrote and sent to you and Mr Houghton on 31st October? That is number 1 in your bundle, if you want to just cast your eye –

Mr Wild: No, I felt that the Clerk’s written summary was fair and reflected our meeting, and I had no issues with it whatsoever. 65 Q85. The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. Were you surprised to read that the Clerk had ‘informed both Marie Lambden and [member of staff B]of the allegations’; or that he intended ‘to ask the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald to investigate these allegations’? 70 Mr Wild: No, looking at it from my previous professional history I would probably have done the same. And on the basis that the Clerk is the – pardon the pun – ‘lender of last resort’, it seemed perfectly sensible to me for the Clerk to delegate the investigation to his Deputy.

75 Q86. The Chairman: What we would like to do now is move on to the two letters in your pack marked number 6 and number 7, if you would like to just bring those to the fore. This is letter number 6: in a letter to the Clerk from yourself and Mr Houghton dated 10th November 2014 – that is number 6 in your bundle – you said at point (i):

Although we stand by what we told you, we clearly advised you that what was discussed was in the strictest confidence and save for the Speaker, no third party was to be informed of our discussions.

I would now like to refer you to the letter in your bundle marked number 7. Did you accept 80 the Clerk’s reply to your letter of 10th November, which is dated 12th November – that is, as I say, number 7 in your bundle – where he writes:

I was astonished to learn that you regard our conversation as one which no third party should be brought into. At no stage did I undertake not to mention the terms of our conversation to anyone other than Mr Speaker. I am responsible to the Tynwald Management Committee and I could never agree to keep matters relating to administration of the Clerk of Tynwald Office from them. In addition, as I pointed out to you in my separate letters to each of you sent the day after our conversation, during the meeting I promised to have the matter investigated. At the time, I note that although Mr Houghton made some amendments to my note, neither of you expressed surprise at my recollection which was contained in the letter that I would have the matter investigated.

So, looking at number 7 first. When you received that, were you comfortable with its contents?

85 Mr Wild: I accepted the Clerk’s remarks.

Q87. The Chairman: So, then, going back to the letter number 6:

Although we stand by what we told you, we clearly advised you that what was discussed was in the strictest confidence ...

How did you react to that?

90 Mr Wild: With hindsight, which is a wonderful thing, I realise it was inappropriate to have put that in the letter. I will say, the letter was not written by me.

Q88. The Chairman: Are you saying that your understanding of your meeting with the Clerk of Tynwald was not one where you understood that the conversation between you was in the

______41 TSMI-A/15-16 117 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

95 strictest confidence, and that only the Speaker would be notified? Did you understand that to be the situation in that meeting?

Mr Wild: No, I accepted the fact that the Clerk would have to take what necessary action he deemed appropriate to investigate the allegations made by myself and the Hon. Member for 100 North Douglas, Mr Houghton.

Q89. The Chairman: Were you mindful at the time to try to correct that afterwards, or did the hindsight issue come to you much later?

105 Mr Wild: No, I trust the Clerk and his decision-making process and, as a professional banker by history, I would have accepted what actions the Clerk needed to take to investigate the matter.

Q90. The Chairman: So – and this is a leading question, so forgive me – but do you therefore 110 accept that the wording in the letter, in number 6 – the wording that we have focused on – is an inaccurate assessment of the meeting?

Mr Wild: Yes.

115 The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Q91. Mr Quayle: Just in case, for clarification, Mr Chairman, can we just confirm that I think you said you had not written the letter? Whilst you signed it, the letter had been drafted and composed by Mr Houghton? 120 Mr Wild: Correct.

Q92. Mr Quirk: Can I ask, quickly on that, through you, Chair: did you see sight of the letter before it was ...? 125 I presume one would actually read a letter, and I just wondered whether you felt under any obligation to sign the letter?

Mr Wild: That is a very good question, Mr Quirk. How can I put it? 130 I think there were tensions at that point in time. I had misgivings and I signed the letter. With hindsight, I should not have done; but I did.

Q93. The Chairman: Thank you. We would like to then close that part of the questioning and move onto the matter of the 135 allegation of lying relating to the Third Clerk’s referral. In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that in his complaints against the Clerk, Mr Houghton invented the fact that the Clerk had told you both – both yourself and Mr Houghton – that the Third Clerk had been referred to Dr McAndry for depression. 140 So, the question. At the meeting on 30th October 2015 did the Clerk tell you Mrs Lambden had previously been referred to Dr McAndry, the third party occupational health advisor used by the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office?

Mr Wild: Yes. 145 Q94. The Chairman: Thank you.

______42 TSMI-A/15-16 118 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

Did the Clerk advise the reason for the referral at that meeting? And, if he did, what was the reason?

150 Mr Wild: The Clerk was simply trying to reassure both the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, and myself that it was a perfectly natural, caring, professional action to take; and it was meant to be reassurance in terms of the other individual concerned, that that practice was perfectly acceptable and it was for the individual’s wellbeing.

155 Q95. The Chairman: Thank you. Did the Clerk advise the reason for the referral at any other time? And, if he did, what was that reason – the reason for the referral? I will ask you that question again: did the Clerk advise the reason for the referral at any other time? And, if he did, what was that reason? 160 Mr Wild: No, I cannot recollect any other referral to that particular case or, whatever ... referral. It was used to put the other individual into context.

Q96. The Chairman: So, for absolute clarity: do you recall at any time the Clerk of Tynwald 165 saying that the referral in this instance was for depression?

Mr Wild: To be quite honest, no. I would have said the referral was for wellbeing, if that is the right way of summarising it.

170 The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.

Q97. Mr Quirk: Could I ask Mr Wild, through the Chair: did the Clerk mention anything about rules and procedures for sickness, like the Bradford Scale which is normally used in Civil Service terms? 175 Mr Wild: No.

Q98. The Chairman: We will move on, then, to the next part. This concerns the allegation of lying relating to the withdrawal letter of 11th November. 180 In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that Mr Houghton gave the Clerk of Tynwald a letter dated 11th November 2014, on 13th November 2014 – that is number 10 in your bundle – which you said you no longer wished to send, although you had signed it. We also wish to consider a letter dated 19th November 2014 – that is number 17 in your bundle – in which Mr Houghton wrote, and I quote:

… that the evidence in this letter has been corroborated by Mr Wild and given under his hand.

185 So we are concerned, then, with two matters – number 10 and number 17. Are you content that I continue now?

Mr Wild: What was meant to be a caring meeting with the Clerk in terms of a member of staff got out of control, in my view. 190 Q99. The Chairman: The actual meeting itself, or subsequent events?

Mr Wild: Subsequent events. A lot was said between the individuals who were trying to care for the member of staff who 195 was clearly feeling that the individual’s words were bullying and picked upon – or whatever. And

______43 TSMI-A/15-16 119 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

at a certain point in time I … ‘panic’ is the wrong word. I became very uncomfortable and wished to pull the whole case back, because I felt it was becoming out of control – not from the Clerk’s Office but from, I guess, the Members’ office. That is when we wrote the letter to withdraw the, I suppose, allegations, or information. 200 It was agreed that I would give the letter to the Clerk and that the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, would give a copy of the letter to Mr Speaker. At the same time the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, asked me if I could get professional advice, which I agreed to do; because – and I think Mr Quirk will understand this comment – I have been a member of a union since 1978. I could have gone to the general secretary, but I did not – I went 205 to the helpline. But, as I was going to deliver the letter to the Clerk, I thought I would take professional advice first. I went home, phoned the[Company] union helpline and went through generically – without explaining too much detail – the series of events. I was told that I had done the right thing to report my concerns to the Clerk. I was told that the letter from the Speaker telling me to 210 disengage was compelling, and I should adhere to it and I should leave things alone. And I should tell the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, that we are at risk of possibly being accused of harassment, disruption, if we continue in this course of action. I therefore took the decision to not give the letter to the Clerk. I did throw the letter in my ... I have a wastepaper bin by my desk in my study at home and I shred everything for 215 confidentiality matters. But then chose to withdraw that letter – or pulled it out the bin – and put it back together, because I felt it was instrumental to a conversation with Mr Speaker and Mr Houghton the next day. I met Mr Houghton briefly before the meeting with Mr Speaker and told him I had not given the Clerk the letter. The Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, was less than pleased. I 220 explained I had taken advice from the union helpline and we should back off. We went to see Mr Speaker and it is not documented, but I can swear that in front of Mr Speaker and the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, I explained I had not given the Clerk the letter; and the union helpline advice was to walk away and leave it to the supervision and the actions of the Clerk, because the individual was a member of that office, his staff. And 225 we had done our bit by alerting the Clerk to the fact that we had some concerns. I had the letter in my hand. I have since given the letter to the Clerk and I believe it is in the safe in the Clerk’s office. It is what I would call the ‘wet ink test’ from my banking days. If you look at the letter that is in the safe, wet your finger and put it over my signature, it will smear; the letter that the Hon. Member 230 for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, gave to the Clerk saying it was from me, is a photocopy.

Q100. The Chairman: So, Mr Houghton knew before he gave the letter to the Clerk that you were absolutely clear that you did not want it to go?

235 Mr Wild: Correct.

Q101. The Chairman: And also in an earlier conversation if I have understood you correctly, it was agreed at that stage that you would take the letter to the Clerk and that he would take the other copy to the Speaker? 240 Have I understood that correctly?

Mr Wild: Correct.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. 245

______44 TSMI-A/15-16 120 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

Q102. Mr Quirk: Can I just ask, through the Chair, then: this series of events when the letter was instigated, can you give us any timeline when Mr Houghton was going to deliver the one to the Speaker and you were going to deliver the one to the Clerk? So I am not putting words in your mouth here, but just say Mr Houghton was fairly active and 250 ran down and gave it to the Speaker straight away, and you were two or three hours later?

Mr Wild: No. If I can recollect, it was probably about 4.30 in the afternoon. I went down, effectively going to the car, but to put the letter into the Clerk’s hand and Mr Houghton went straight to the Speaker. 255 I went to the car, went home and took professional advice.

103. Mr Quirk: Just a supplementary if I could on that, Mr Chair? Was Mr Houghton aware you were not delivering the letter then?

260 Mr Wild: No, he was only aware the following day.

Q104. Mr Quayle: Can I just ask, for my personal clarification, and my apologies if it is repetitious. On page 34 of your bundle there is a letter dated 19th November to the Clerk of Tynwald 265 from the Hon. Member for Douglas North, Mr Houghton, and in that letter on page 34 –

The Chairman: Have you got that, Mr Wild?

Mr Wild: Yes I have, thank you, Mr Chairman. 270 Mr Quayle: – Mr Houghton writes ... I think it is the fourth paragraph:

Mr Wild and I did meet to discuss your letter of 12th November and I clearly recall he was angry with its contents.

Would you say that is a true reflection of your thoughts at that time with the letter received from the Clerk? Is it a fair interpretation, shall we say? Has Mr Houghton represented your feelings as to how they were? 275 And also, if I can then move down that same page in that letter to item (iii), where it states:

Mr Wild clearly recalls my making it abundantly clear to you that our meeting was in confidence and was on an informal basis.

Mr Wild: To put it into context, I had no idea of, I would say, the Clerk of Tynwald’s personnel policies, Civil Service policies – and I was thinking as a banker. I am not an angry person, so I would say ‘No’ – and I did not quite understand, at first, the Clerk of Tynwald’s actions. But when I spoke to the union they explained to me that different 280 organisations have different rules, and people will follow those rules and procedures in certain ways. And all I will say is I was wrong in any misinterpretation of the Clerk’s actions. I stand fully by the fact that the necessary staff and HR protocols were taken through in the correct manner and no, I would withdraw any allegation in that sense, and I do not think it reflects my ... I think people know I am a calm person. 285 Q105. The Chairman: Thank you. That would take us on to the matter on 12th November the Clerk wrote a reply to your letter of 10th November – that is number 7 in your bundle –

290 Mr Wild: I am only smiling because I thought, ‘Yes, okay, I surrender!’

______45 TSMI-A/15-16 121 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

The Chairman: Okay. And in an email sent by you on 12th November at 22.06 – that is number 8 in your bundle – you wrote, and I quote:

Firstly, thank you for your letter of 12th November and the contents are noted. Mr Houghton and I will reply separately by letter.

295 Could you enlarge your thoughts at that stage? Why you decided to reply separately? Can you remember your feelings at the time?

Mr Wild: I was being professional and felt that, I think, having had my wrists smacked it was appropriate to respond formally. I fully accept the Clerk’s letter of 12th November and have no 300 issue with it.

Q106. Mr Quirk: Can I just ask, through the Chair: what was your relationship with Mr Houghton at that particular time? Were you still colleagues? Did you make a decision to take control of your own destiny? 305 Mr Wild: A very good question, Mr Quirk. I am saddened to be sat here. The Hon. Member for North Douglas had been a sponsor and supporter. I will say it in the kindest way ... at times in our relationship I thought he was a little eager 310 and enthusiastic in his pursuit of certain issues. But at the same time he provided counsel and support, for which I am grateful. On the day of the incident the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, was the only Member, I think,[around] at the time and I went to that individual for help for the staff member. 315 As events unfolded I became concerned that the Hon. Member for North Douglas was getting somewhat excitable – I am being careful here – and aggressive, and saying inappropriate statements about individuals, which I could not tolerate because that is not my way – I am a very objective, professional person. After I took advice I tried to, I think, defuse the situation and did advise the Hon. Member for 320 North Douglas very strongly that we were out of our depth heading on a path of possibly, I think, disciplinary action against ourselves if we continued in the manner in which we were going. We had done our bit and we had to walk away. The Hon. Member for North Douglas would not take my advice, which was meant genuinely. I care for him, in that sense. And after the meeting with Mr Speaker the Hon. Member for North 325 Douglas, Mr Houghton, was somewhat scathing in his judgement of my abilities as a professional banker. And I will just leave it at that.

Q107. The Chairman: Thank you. This takes us on to the next question and it is number 17 in your bundle, Mr Wild. 330 Number 17.

Mr Wild: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay? 335 In his letter dated 19th November – that is number 17 in your bundle – Mr Houghton makes several references to you. If we could look at three of these, please, can you confirm whether these points were true in your opinion? I will read them out and then we will deal with them individually, if you do not mind. So the first phrase we wish to emphasise is:

______46 TSMI-A/15-16 122 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

It is most unfortunate that Mr Wild now appears to have withdrawn his involvement in this very serious matter.

340 Is that a fair statement, do you believe?

Mr Wild: Yes.

Q108. The Chairman: Thank you. 345 We will go onto the next one:

Mr Wild and I did meet to discuss your letter of 12th November and I clearly recall he was angry with its content.

We have partly covered this but could you revisit that matter of anger, please?

Mr Wild: I would say ‘baffled’ rather than anger. And after I had taken professional advice I realised that we were having conversations that 350 were going round in circles because I neither believe that the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, nor I, understood the HR protocols within the Clerk’s Office.

Q109. The Chairman: Thank you. The final item we wish to address is – and I quote:

I must ask you to take notice that the evidence in this letter has been corroborated by Mr Wild and given under his hand.’

355 Did you corroborate it? If it was given under your hand, why did you not sign the letter? We have dealt with that to some degree.

Mr Wild: So we are referring to the letter of 19th November? No. 360 Q110. The Chairman: Thank you – that is clear enough. In all of your conversations with Mr Houghton were you ever satisfied in your mind that Mr Houghton was aware of the letter of 5th November from Mr Speaker, which effectively was the signal, the red light, to back off? 365 Did you ever get the impression that Mr Houghton was unaware of that letter? Or were you satisfied that in your conversations, he was very well aware of the Speaker’s position as articulated in the letter of 5th November when he asked you to, effectively, desist?

Mr Wild: The Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, was fully aware of the letter 370 and said it was irrelevant.

Q111. The Chairman: He said the Speaker’s letter was irrelevant? You can recall him saying that?

375 Mr Wild: Because I made the point that after I had taken professional advice that letter was binding, in terms of the parliamentary procedures. And the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton, did not believe that to be the case.

Q112. The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. 380 We will close that part and we move on to the next part, the bullying of the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, and yourself, Mr Wild.

______47 TSMI-A/15-16 123 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that Mr Houghton ‘has adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied yourself, the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk.’ 385 Can you explain how you felt bullied by Mr Houghton, Mr Wild?

Mr Wild: Mr Chairman, as a professional of 32 years I have not ever come across this experience and it is difficult to explain. I took a conscious decision after I had been a Member of the Legislative Council for 390 12 months ... well, the Hon. Member,[MHK] , said I could use his desk on the fourth floor so I could sit with[MHK] , because I preferred interaction with the MHKs – I was a bit lonely upstairs at times. You can sense the way an individual looks at you, does not talk to you, ignores you, or says things to you such as, ‘Call yourself an Island director, when you are a worthless individual’? I 395 cannot recollect the correct words ... and it became very uncomfortable in the terms of my interaction with the Hon. Member for North Douglas, Mr Houghton. I was sad that this had happened, because I acknowledge all the support that has been given to me and I was only trying to help that individual because of the advice I had been given. We have probably spoken in terms of ‘Good morning’ – well, from me – on three or four occasions 400 since, and I felt uncomfortable and I have relocated to the Legislative Council Chambers. It is difficult to describe bullying, but it is the way an individual looks at you, ignores you. And I could say I had an email following Tynwald in November over the amendment I proposed, basically closing down the Committee – which in itself was eloquently written, but at the same time not nice in its nature. I have copied it to Mr Speaker and the Clerk. 405 Q113. The Chairman: You have identified two occasions where it might be considered that the remarks were disparaging towards you. Are those the only two, or were there other occasions? And we do not need to go into them and I do not want my question to be leading. But were there a number of occasions where you felt this manner and tone was used 410 towards yourself from Mr Houghton?

Mr Wild: Well, for a simple example: when we have lunch occasionally – and I think Mr Quirk may have seen it – if Mr Houghton, the Hon. Member for North Douglas, sits somewhere near me he will totally ignore me. 415 And I am fine now, I am not bothered at all about it. I have not experienced bullying in my professional career, or actions that are made that could make you feel uncomfortable.

Q114. The Chairman: Thank you. Can we go specifically then, to a particular moment. Can you describe the exchange when 420 you told Mr Houghton you were stepping back from any formal involvement in this matter? And how was this information received? Can you recall that conversation?

Mr Wild: He was not happy. He questioned my professionalism, my career, my attitude – and cowardice. 425 Q115. The Chairman: He used the word ‘cowardice’?

Mr Wild: I believe he did, yes. He was … in total fairness to the Hon. Member for North Douglas, I do not recollect him ever 430 using what I would call bad language but he has questioned my professionalism, resolve, backbone – that type of thing.

______48 TSMI-A/15-16 124 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

Q116. The Chairman: What did he call you at the meeting on 12th November, which was observed by Mr Speaker? 435 Was there a comment there that you recall, particularly?

Mr Wild: No, oddly enough – I think he was perplexed, cross and felt let down.

Q117. The Chairman: Okay. 440 Did you receive and/or respond to any communication from him about the matter after you told him you were stepping back?

Mr Wild: No. As advised professionally, I took Mr Speaker’s letter and I have not gone near it since – apart from the fact I asked if I could have an interview with Dr King, just to put my points 445 across; and I acknowledged fully that it was now a matter of the Clerk’s Office, and I had to walk away.

Q118. The Chairman: Thank you very much. The next few questions, I think you have already answered fully, so I will move on. 450 We move on to the unwarranted interference in staff matters after the letter of 5th November – that is the point at which you are being asked to step back. In the following questions we will consider the allegation that: ‘Mr Houghton has engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against[their] senior managers, against my direct advice’ – that being the advice of Mr Speaker. 455 In considering this allegation the Committee felt that both yourself and Mr Houghton were not wrong to bring your concerns for a member of staff to the attention of the Clerk; and that, until the letters of 5th November 2014 from the Speaker – that is number 4 in your bundle – you would not necessarily be aware that continued involvement was inappropriate. It is noted that after this date you sought the permission of the Speaker to be interviewed as 460 part of the investigation, then being conducted by the Deputy Clerk into a related capability matter, which was given. The Committee are not aware that Mr Houghton sought advice or permission from the Speaker regarding his continued involvement.

465 Mr Wild: Correct.

Q119. The Chairman: So the first question is: can you tell us what you thought or did after you received the letter of 5th November 2014 from Mr Speaker? That is at number 4 in your bundle. 470 In some ways I think you have answered that, that you sought advice from the union?

Mr Wild: I was very mindful of the fact that it was a parliamentary matter. I respect authority and I took advice.

475 Q120. The Chairman: Thank you. I think you have answered this next question. I think you have answered this as well. Did you discuss your continued involvement with Mr Houghton on 12th November 2014? And if so, what did you say?

480 Mr Wild: No.

Q121. The Chairman: Okay.

______49 TSMI-A/15-16 125 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

After you had had the meeting with the Deputy Clerk on 14th November 2014 – notes of which are at number 14 in your bundle – what continued involvement did you have with this 485 staff matter?

Mr Wild: None.

Q122. The Chairman: Thank you. 490 On 23rd December 2014 you reported that you received a text from a member of staff saying, and I quote: ‘If only you had stuck with JH’. Can you confirm this and advise why you thought you had received it?

Mr Wild: I did get a text and I took it to the Second Clerk and asked him to make a record of 495 it. I did not reply to it.

Q123. The Chairman: It is a fairly broad question but why do you think that text was communicated to you? What do you think was behind it? Do you have a view on that? 500 Mr Wild: I think it was designed to hurt me.

Q124. The Chairman: Thank you. Mr Wild, I am going to thank you enormously for your contribution to our enquiries today. 505 Before we close – that brings us to the end of our written questions – have you any further final comments that you would like to add; or in any way that you think perhaps we have missed an appropriate question? Or is there any other comment you would like to make to us?

510 Mr Wild: When I had the septicaemia scare in April, I received a further text from a certain individual which, again, I did show to the Deputy Clerk. It referred to [a personal matter] – very helpful when you are in hospital worrying that you have got septicaemia again. That is it. All I can say is sadness. I feel it is not nice sitting here; and I do believe that if the 515 individual concerned had just co-operated with the Clerk’s Office it might have been a different outcome. And I think that the encouragement of a certain individual to refuse to be interviewed, to ignore procedure, was unhelpful because certainly in my previous career if you were summoned to a disciplinary interview, or an explorative interview, and refused, it would be considered a disciplinary offence. 520 Q125. The Chairman: For absolute clarity, Mr Wild, the certain individual is the same person who wrote the text ‘If only you had stuck with JH’. Is that what you are saying?

525 Mr Wild: Correct.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Q126. Mr Quayle: Can I just take that clarification even further, Mr Chairman, without 530 mentioning a name. It was the member of staff that you had originally tried to help, who was having the problem?

Mr Wild: It was, yes.

______50 TSMI-A/15-16 126 STANDING COMMITTEE, THURSDAY, 3rd DECEMBER 2015

535 Q127. Mr Quirk: The only one question from me is: when you went to see the Speaker and consequently you had a letter, did you acknowledge that letter or the conversation with the Speaker by an email or a letter, saying, ‘Yes, I am backing away’? Mr Speaker wrote ... and normally some Members do acknowledge and say, ‘I take your views on board. That is the end.’ 540 I just wondered whether you acknowledged the Speaker back by an email or a note?

Mr Wild: It was verbal.

Mr Quirk: Just verbal – yes. 545 The Chairman: I hope your car starts on the way home! Thank you very, very much indeed.

Mr Wild: Right, thank you. 550 The Chairman: Mr Wild, we are most grateful to you, sir.

The Committee adjourned at 9.38 a.m.

______51 TSMI-A/15-16 127 128 9TH DECEMBER 2015

Evidence of Mrs EM Lambden, Former Third Clerk of Tynwald

129 130 STANDINGCOMMITTEE OF TYNWALDCOURT OFFICIALREPORT

RECORTYSOIKOIL BINGVEAYNTINVAAL

PROCEEDINGS DAALTYN

TYNWALD STANDARDS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS COMMITTEE

PRIVATE TRANSCRIPT

Douglas, Wednesday, 9th December 2015

TSMI-A No. 4/15-16

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2015 131 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 9th DECEMBER 2015

Members Present:

Chairman: Mr C R Robertshaw MHK Hon. R H Quayle MHK Mr D J Quirk MHK

Clerk: Mrs J Corkish

Contents Procedural...... 55 EVIDENCE OF Mrs E M Lambden, former Third Clerk of Tynwald ...... 56 The Committee sat in private at 9.43 a.m...... 62

______54 TSMI-A/15-16 132 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 9th DECEMBER 2015

Standing Committee of Tynwald on Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests

The Committee sat in private at 9.15 a.m. in the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Douglas

[MR ROBERTSHAW in the Chair]

Procedural

The Chairman (Mr Robertshaw): Good morning, Mrs Lambden. Thank you very much for attending to give evidence today. I am Chris Robertshaw MHK and I will be chairing this session. With me are my colleagues Hon. Howard Quayle MHK and Mr David Quirk MHK. Our Clerk is Mrs Corkish. 5 As you will know this evidence is being taken in private but it is being recorded and a verbatim transcript will be produced for the Committee. In view of this, can I please ask that mobiles and other devices are switched to silent. I will also be making sure that two people are not speaking at once. The evidence recorded today may be published as part of a report, if one is made to Tynwald 10 following this investigation. In the course of our conversation today we may well refer to individuals who are neither the subject of this investigation nor being called as witnesses. I can confirm that their names will not be published in a report, if one is made. All witnesses have been provided with the same pack of written evidence in advance of attending to give oral evidence. This is the evidence which the Committee has decided may be 15 relevant to the specific allegations which have been made. Do you have your pack with you?

Mrs Lambden: I do.

20 The Chairman: Thank you. You will be aware that the conduct of Mr John Houghton MHK was referred to the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee in July 2015. The referral letter is number 33 in your evidence pack. Because of the nature of the circumstances which led to the referral being made, a number 25 of Members and Officers may have been conflicted and so, to ensure the matter is investigated in a fair and objective way, the Committee had to ask for the permission of Tynwald Court to be quorate with three members instead of the usual four. The motion requesting this was approved on Wednesday, 21st October 2015. The reduced Committee met on Tuesday, 27th October 2015 and at that meeting resolved to investigate the matter referred to it. 30 Three specific allegations have been made regarding the conduct of Mr Houghton. These are that he lied, specifically:

To support his complaints against the Clerk, Mr Houghton invented two matters: one was that the initial complaints by him on behalf of the staff member were confidential and therefore should not have been

______55 TSMI-A/15-16 133 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 9th DECEMBER 2015

communicated to the persons complained of; the other was that the Clerk had told him and Mr Wild that the Third Clerk had been referred to Dr McAndry for depression. Neither of these claims is true;

and:

The next allegation being that he bullied, specifically that – and I quote again:

After the inquiries into the staff issue were concluded Mr Houghton made what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk;

and that:

Mr Houghton has adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

35 The third allegation is that he engaged in unwarranted interference in staff matters, specifically that:

Mr Houghton has engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against[their] senior managers, against my direct advice;

and that was the advice of Mr Speaker, which was given in writing on 5th November 2014. So for the purpose of this third allegation, evidence from that date only – that is 5th November – will be considered. 40 Finally, we will also consider that statement that:

His conduct has precipitated the resignation of a member of staff.

EVIDENCE OF Mrs E M Lambden, former Third Clerk of Tynwald

Q128. The Chairman: Before we begin to ask specific questions, Mrs Lambden, we would like to give you the opportunity to make any comments you wish, but we will also ask you at the end if there is anything further you would like to add. So have you any opening remarks you would like to make? 45 Mrs Lambden: I would appreciate being able to make a statement. I think, to give some background, it could provide information in a structured way which the Committee may find useful. Thank you for allowing me to give evidence as a witness today. I am Manx born and bred, and 50 before joining the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald in 2008, I held a number of responsible positions, including administrator and company secretary for the Isle of Man Society of Chartered Accountants, company secretary for Conister Trust plc and executive officer and company secretary for the Association of Corporate Service Providers (ACSP) for slightly under the first nine years subsequent to its incorporation. 55 I am also a fully-qualified bilingual secretary and an adult education lecturer. I studied and qualified as an associate of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA) without any employer support and whilst coping with the difficulties of raising an autistic child.

______56 TSMI-A/15-16 134 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 9th DECEMBER 2015

In all of the aforementioned positions I was placed in a position of trust and responsibility, where the sensitive management of confidential information and relationships were the 60 overriding skills required. Throughout my career my integrity was never challenged. Indeed, I believe my reputation among many trusted, professional and well-respected people in the Manx community could not be higher. When I commenced my employment in the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, I encountered a few challenging staff matters, which I addressed in a structured and objective way with the full 65 support of my two colleagues, the Clerk of Tynwald and the Deputy Clerk. We were also in contact with the Isle of Man Civil Service Human Resource Department and Prospect union. One of the staff whose performance frequently fell below the standards that were expected reacted to attempts to rectify[their] performance by totally false accusation of my own behaviour. In bizarre and extraordinary circumstances, I was subjected to a full disciplinary investigation 70 before all the allegations against me were proven to be false. Mr Houghton would have been fully aware of this investigation, as he was on Tynwald Management Committee at that time, and they are kept fully appraised of such matters. Not only was I embarrassed and angry that I had to justify my own integrity, I was amazed that so many hours of time which should have been spent supporting the objectives of the Manx 75 parliament were diverted to such a wasteful cause. The pressure placed on me by the inquiry and the need to catch up with my workload had an effect on my personal life, including cancellation of plans to be with our younger son on his 21st birthday. He was studying medicine at the time and is now qualified. During the period between the allegations being made and finally formally being disproved, I 80 suffered rumours being spread about my integrity, both within Tynwald and outside, and was unable to respond until the formal investigation took place.

85 [A Member] might have been forgiven for being unaware of procedure, but Mr Houghton, who has also held office as the Chairman of the Isle of Man Civil Service Commission, was better placed than any Member to follow procedure and to exercise discretion when accusations of bullying by me were made to him by the same person whose serious and damaging false allegations had been made against me in 2010. And these were not a 90 single incident. You will note, however, from the written evidence before you have that on 30th October 2014, Mr Houghton and Mr Wild represented the once again false view of this employee, as a demand to the Clerk of Tynwald that action should be taken against me and [member of staff B]

95 You may also note that Mr Wild apologised unreservedly and quickly, which was very much appreciated. I recognise the position in which he had been placed and accepted his apology without reservation. By contrast, after Mr Phillips had commenced a second disciplinary investigation procedure against myself and[member of staff B] , Mr Houghton withdrew the allegation without 100 any acceptance that he had breached procedure. He claimed to be fighting for an injustice and yet did not feel it necessary to apologise to either of us for the injustice against us, which was both hurtful and disruptive to the work we were paid by the taxpayer to perform. I felt I was losing the confidence of the Members of Tynwald based upon a false, and subsequently withdrawn, claim of inappropriate behaviour for which I had no recourse. On 105 3rd November 2014, at a presentation in the Barrool Suite, it was apparent to me that Members of Tynwald had heard rumours of the matter. It was devastating and mordant to be the victim of a ‘silent assailment’ by Members. Members of Tynwald are rightfully powerful people, but when that power is being abused and staff are unable to respond as the rumours are set in motion by a mischievous Member, the

______57 TSMI-A/15-16 135 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 9th DECEMBER 2015

110 result is a highly destructive impingement on working relationships and personal and family life for the staff member who is the object of the rumours. It impacts on everything at work and at home. I withstood the atmosphere and the general unease for eight months, during which time I could only watch as two of my colleagues were externally investigated in connection with the 115 same allegations – at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Another colleague had been implicated in the beginning also. It is ironic that Mr Houghton accuses officers of incorrect disclosure of accurate confidential information, necessary for management to exercise judgement and perform their duties, yet as part of his evidence into the investigation of my colleagues he disclosed inaccurate confidential 120 information about myself. He claimed that I had suffered depression. This is untrue. I had received radiation on an overactive thyroid on 27th and 28th June 2014 at the Royal Hospital, Liverpool. I was absent from work for two days subsequently and then returned to work with limited contact with others for a few days, due to the radiation, in order to complete the Tynwald Day preparations. 125 The documents containing Mr Houghton’s statements were circulated to the executive director of the Isle of Man Civil Service as part of the investigation into my fellow Clerks. The Civil Service has been in possession of an untrue statement about me from a Member of Tynwald, with the potential to stigmatise my health issues and to jeopardise my future employment prospects. It was distributed to further senior civil servants as part of the 130 investigation. I was unable to defend that statement. Mr Houghton was happy to damage my reputation with his false statement about my health, and yet he was oblivious to the potential damage to my health of his cause. Eight months after he breached procedure and made false allegations against me, which he withdrew without apology, only to act as distastefully towards my colleagues, I was placed by my GP on beta- 135 blockers for hypertension. With no opportunity for me to defend the allegations which had been made against me, I chose to resign rather than take sick leave and to avoid further delay with a problem that requires urgent attention. My letter of resignation of 26th June 2015 records precisely the reasons for my resignation. My resignation was caused entirely by Mr Houghton’s behaviour and 140 the inability of the system to withstand such inappropriate interference with internal procedures. I must make it clear that I did not choose to retire and I am saddened that Mr Houghton’s conduct has interrupted my full-time professional career, which I studied so hard to achieve professional qualifications for and so diligently and skilfully worked to maintain. I reserve the 145 right to take legal action against Mr Houghton for damages suffered by his actions. The extent of these damages will depend on the outcome of this investigation and whether the public is made aware of the injustice against me and the conduct of an MHK. Since leaving Tynwald, I have enjoyed good health and though not immediately seeking alternative employment, I was offered a part-time job the very next day. 150 I hope that my resignation will, however, do more than improve my quality of life. Madam President, Mr Speaker and Tynwald Management Committee should not be exposed to having to deal with such behaviour from Members of Tynwald as I have experienced from Mr Houghton. There is a layer of protection lacking for staff of the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald and a system should be in place to protect staff, and in turn other Members of Tynwald, from 155 the wayward behaviour of the small minority of miscreant and unprincipled Members. For staff, jobs, livelihood and reputation are at stake. Such behaviour wastes considerable resources and has an adverse effect on staff recruitment for the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald and possibly more importantly on staff retention. I can only present evidence of my own circumstances, but I believe a study of causes of previous staff resignations would provide 160 evidence that political intervention in the management of the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office is not confined to my case.

______58 TSMI-A/15-16 136 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 9th DECEMBER 2015

Q129. The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for that introduction. Mrs Lambden, in the following questions we are going to consider the allegations that in his complaints against the Clerk, Mr Houghton invented the fact that the Clerk had told him and 165 Mr Wild that you had been referred to Dr McAndry for depression. I realise you have already mentioned this but for the record I think it is important to reiterate this. Have you ever been referred to Dr McAndry?

170 Mrs Lambden: I have been referred to Dr McAndry, yes.

Q130. The Chairman: Thank you. Was that referral for depression?

175 Mrs Lambden: It was not.

Q131. The Chairman: Thank you. Did the Clerk advise you at any time that he had told Mr Houghton and Mr Wild that you had been referred to Dr McAndry? 180 Mrs Lambden: I believe it came out as part of the investigation.

Q132. The Chairman: Thank you. Did he say that he had told them the reason for your referral and, if he did, what was that 185 reason?

Mrs Lambden: The reason for my referral was a hyperactive thyroid, and the referral was helpful because within Dr McAndry’s report he is able to say how somebody might feel with the thyroid and whether it would impact on work. 190 Q133. The Chairman: Thank you. In the following questions we will consider your resignation letter – that is number 32 in your bundle – to which you have already referred. Your introduction was very clear, but are there any other points that you would like to make 195 with regard to how you felt at the time of your resignation and why you felt it was essential that you did?

Mrs Lambden: I felt there was absolutely no recourse. As a member of staff, I feel – and I still do feel – a huge loyalty to Tynwald – this is the Isle of Man parliament! – and if outside heard 200 exactly what had happened, how it could look … Yet I was not aware of any procedure in place to assist me. I could not complain of an allegation which had been subsequently withdrawn. I had absolutely no recourse and I felt everything was happening above my head. I knew Roger and Jonathan were being investigated. I could not do anything about it. It was beyond my remit completely. 205 And I did feel that a number of Members were not quite the same to me as they had been. Two Members in the Barrool Suite that day who are usually very friendly, in a professional way – they ignored me. I saw another on the Promenade and he definitely ignored me twice, and the people I was with – I just felt so embarrassed. Other Members never said anything but I remember one in particular – an older Member – he just gave me a little pat on the back; he did 210 not say anything but I think he understood.

Q134. The Chairman: Were you asked to reconsider at any stage after you tendered your resignation?

______59 TSMI-A/15-16 137 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 9th DECEMBER 2015

Mrs Lambden: Did I ask for it to be considered? 215 The Chairman: No, were you asked to reconsider?

Mrs Lambden: Yes, I was, by a number of members of TMC.

220 Q135. The Chairman: How did you feel about that, what was your reaction to those approaches for you to reconsider?

Mrs Lambden: I appreciated them, but I did feel that something should have been done, should have been looked at prior to eight months. 225 Q136. The Chairman: Do you feel yourself in a position this morning to be able to expand in any way on your thoughts about how the relationship between the membership of Tynwald and the staff of Tynwald could be improved, in terms of process and procedures? You might well have given this some thought. 230 Mrs Lambden: I think the staff of the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald are expected, quite rightly, to be absolutely loyal to Members of Tynwald, and most Members are very nice people who treat staff with respect. I must say that: most Members of Tynwald are very good. But not all, and there should be more protection for staff. I would suggest that possibly another layer of 235 protection should be discussed through the union and the Isle of Man Civil Service Human Resources.

Q137. Mr Quirk: Can I just ask, regarding – and I do not want to be personal – were you a member of a trade union at the time? 240 Mrs Lambden: I have been a member of the union more or less since I started here.

Q138. Mr Quirk: So that would be Prospect?

245 Mrs Lambden: Yes.

Q139. Mr Quirk: Okay. I hope you do not mind, Chair, but on your statement it was interesting to me to find out, when you said there were letters regarding the Civil Service. I just wondered, was that when Mr 250 Houghton was actually Chair of the Civil Service?

Mrs Lambden: The first investigation was 2010 –

Mr Quirk: That was the date I was looking for. 255 Mrs Lambden: I think Mr Houghton was on TMC from 2007 to 2011; he was on the employers’ side of Whitley Council from 2004 to 2009; and Chair of the Isle of Man Civil Service from 2004 to 2011.

260 Mr Quirk: 2011? Right.

Mrs Lambden: That is according to the website.

Q140. Mr Quirk: Are you aware of the documents then that Mr Houghton or the Civil Service 265 Commission had produced?

______60 TSMI-A/15-16 138 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 9th DECEMBER 2015

Mrs Lambden: I was after the investigation – I was aware.

Q141. Mr Quirk: Do you still have them in your possession?

270 Mrs Lambden: Only as it is quoted in the papers.

Q142. Mr Quayle: The documents?

Mrs Lambden: Yes, there are quotes stating about ... 275 Q143. Mr Quayle: This Committee took a decision that it would not investigate from a certain date – beforehand – because it felt it could not prove ... that was the definitive date that the two Members in question had received a letter telling them they were not allowed to be involved in representing staff and that whilst that policy decision had been made in 2012, it had not been 280 put to Members of Tynwald. The staff had been advised that was the case, but it was felt that it could not be proven. Having named the number of committees that Mr Houghton had been on, would you have felt that he might have been aware of that rule – that Tynwald Members could not represent staff – as a result of his chairmanship of the various committees and looking into various 285 complaints against staff?

Mrs Lambden: That rule would have been put forward to Tynwald Management Committee. I could not understand how he would not be aware of it, but I do not wish to make any speculation. Certainly all staff were aware of it. 290 Q144. Mr Quirk: Could I just interject and say: how were the staff aware of that?

Mrs Lambden: Staff were aware of it. It was emailed to all staff and it was also kept in the ‘General’ drive, which is the common drive for staff. 295 Q145. Mr Quirk: Sorry, Chair, when you say ‘drive’ does that mean the terms and conditions?

Mrs Lambden: On the computer. The G-drive on the computer. It is the General drive that all staff do have access to. 300 The Chairman: Anything further?

Q146. Mr Quayle: Yes, there was just one thing. Just for clarification, because I do not think the answer was – not intentionally, I hasten to add – answered properly. That is our fifth 305 question to you, Mrs Lambden, where the Chairman asked: did he say that he had told them the reason for your referral – this is the Clerk of Tynwald – and if he did, what was the reason? If we could just clarify that. Just from the evidence, when I was listening to your answer, I think you answered the first part but ... If you have, I apologise for asking you again. I just want to make sure that we are absolutely clear here. 310 So this is when the Clerk of Tynwald spoke to Mr Wild and Mr Houghton. Did the Clerk of Tynwald advise you that he had told them the reason for your referral and, if he did, what was the reason that he told them about your referral?

Mrs Lambden: The Clerk of Tynwald did not tell Mr Houghton the reason for my referral – 315 the symptom reason for my referral.

______61 TSMI-A/15-16 139 STANDING COMMITTEE, WEDNESDAY, 9th DECEMBER 2015

Q147. Mr Quayle: Yes, so he did not mention you had an active thyroid problem. It was purely that you had been referred and he never mentioned anything else?

320 Mrs Lambden: No.

Q148. Mr Quirk: Just on a particular point then on, I think you said, the second referral in your little statement at the beginning . You said the Civil Service Commission; would they have been aware of any medical circumstances? 325 Mrs Lambden: Not normally, no.

Mr Quirk: No.

330 Q149. The Chairman: Mrs Lambden, are there any final closing remarks you would like to make?

Mrs Lambden: I would just like to say that I feel that Mr Houghton would have been better placed than anybody to understand correct procedure. He is an MHK of vast experience – we 335 have mentioned, former Chairman of Isle of Man Civil Service, former Member of Tynwald Management Committee and Whitley Council employer representative. It is clearly not appropriate for an MHK to interfere with the work of trusted, diligent, professional staff and to incur costs involving hundreds of hours of wasted time, paid for by the taxpayer. 340 He failed to apologise, but continued to involve the most senior members of the staff of the Office of Clerk of Tynwald who have never had their integrity questioned before. He showed a total disregard for the professional staff performing their duties in a proper manner.

The Chairman: Mrs Lambden, thank you very much indeed for attending this morning. (Mrs 345 Lambden: Thank you.) We are grateful to you for your time this morning and thank you very much indeed.

Mr Quirk: And we wish you a good Christmas.

350 Mrs Lambden: Thank you.

The Committee adjourned at 9.43 a.m.

______62 TSMI-A/15-16 140 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Evidence of Mr JR Houghton MHK

141 142 STANDINGCOMMITTEE OF TYNWALDCOURT OFFICIALREPORT

RECORTYSOIKOIL BINGVEAYNTINVAAL

PROCEEDINGS DAALTYN

TYNWALD STANDARDS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS COMMITTEE

PRIVATE TRANSCRIPT

Douglas, Friday, 18th December 2015

TSMI-A No. 5/15-16

All published Official Reports can be found on the Tynwald website:

www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard

Published by the Office of the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3PW. © High Court of Tynwald, 2015 143 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Members Present:

Chairman: Mr C R Robertshaw MHK Hon. R H Quayle MHK Mr D J Quirk MHK

Clerk: Mrs J Corkish

Contents Procedural...... 65 EVIDENCE OF Mr J R Houghton MHK...... 69 The Committee adjourned at 12.21 p.m...... 111

______64 TSMI-A/15-16 144 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Standing Committee of Tynwald on Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests

The Committee sat in private at 9.30 a.m. in the Legislative Council Chamber, Legislative Buildings, Douglas

[MR ROBERTSHAW in the Chair]

Procedural

The Chairman (Mr Robertshaw): Good morning. Thank you very much for attending to give evidence today. I am Chris Robertshaw MHK and I will be chairing this session. With me are my colleagues the Hon. Howard Quayle MHK and Mr David Quirk MHK; and our Clerk is Mrs Corkish. 5 As you will know this evidence is being taken in private but it is being recorded and a verbatim transcript will be produced for the Committee. In view of this can I please ask that mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched to silent. I will also be making sure that two people are not speaking at once. The evidence recorded today may be published as part of a report, if one is made to Tynwald 10 following this investigation. In the course of our conversation today we may well refer to individuals who are neither the subject of this investigation nor being called as witnesses. I can confirm that their names will not be published in a report, if one is made. All witnesses have been provided with the same pack of written evidence in advance of attending to give oral evidence. This is the evidence which the Committee has decided may be 15 relevant to the specific allegations which have been made. Mr Houghton, do you have your pack with you?

Mr Houghton: I do, yes.

20 The Chairman: Can I just therefore say, we will be referring to the bundle in front of you from time to time.

Mr Houghton: Fine. That is fine.

25 The Chairman: And on one or two occasions we will be referring to more than one item in the bundle in the same question.

Mr Houghton: That is absolutely fine.

30 The Chairman: Because these matters now before us relate to alleged incidents which occurred some time ago, we are perfectly happy to stop and give you time to reappraise yourself of any particular letter. If you choose to do this and I see you are reading, we will stop, and I will wait until you have indicated that you are ready to recommence. We have got all the time that you might wish to take this morning.

______65 TSMI-A/15-16 145 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

35 Mr Houghton: Thank you.

The Chairman: You will be aware that your conduct was referred to the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee in July 2015. The referral letter is number 33 in your evidence pack. 40 Because of the nature of the circumstances which led to the referral being made, a number of Members and officers may have been conflicted; and so to ensure the matter is investigated in a fair and objective way, the Committee had to ask for the permission of Tynwald Court to be quorate with three Members instead of the usual four. The motion requesting this was approved on Wednesday, 21st October 2015. The reduced Committee met on Tuesday, 27th October 2015 45 and at that meeting resolved to investigate the matter referred to it. Mr Houghton in order to assist you I would now like to outline the order the Committee will be following this morning. (Mr Houghton: Thank you.) First I intend to respond to the points you raised in your most recent letter to me. This I promised to do in my reply to you where I indicated that I believe that I would be able to give 50 you some comfort on the points you raised. Second, I will then reiterate the allegations made against you by the Tynwald Management Committee. We will then deal with each one in turn in the form of a series of questions to you. Third, at the conclusion of the question and answer session, I will invite you to add any further comments regarding the allegations that you believe are pertinent or relevant 55 Mr Houghton: Thank you, that’s fine.

The Chairman: Fourth, I will then invite you to address the matter about which you have already indicated to the Committee, both in writing and in person, that you feel very strongly 60 about, namely that of[member of staff A] being able to give evidence to this Committee. Fifth, I will then invite you to make any closing remarks you consider appropriate and this will conclude our session this morning.

Mr Houghton: Could I just for clarification, Mr Chairman, may I ask at item 3 where you invite 65 comments, can they also be questions of the Committee as to its due process and diligence etc. and also matters that I consider to be legal issues appertaining? So, simply, can I question the Committee?

The Chairman: We will do our best to help you when we get to that particular point. 70 Mr Houghton: When we get to that point? That’s fine.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.

75 The Chairman: So then, turning to your letter of 14th December, you asked three questions specifically of the Committee –

Mr Houghton: Sorry, can you give me that date again, Mr Chairman?

80 The Chairman: It is 14th December.

Mr Houghton: The latest one? Yes.

The Chairman: The very latest one. Okay?

______66 TSMI-A/15-16 146 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

85 You asked three pertinent questions: you asked whether the Committee ... I will read the words: ‘that the Committee will not be relying upon any evidence which has not already been provided to you’. The answer is that we will not. (Mr Houghton: Thank you.) If, however, something other than the evidence in the pack becomes available to us that we think is relevant, we will then circulate 90 that to you and you will then have the opportunity to respond to it. But at this stage we have no expectation of that.

Mr Houghton: And that would relate to new evidence?

95 The Chairman: Indeed. (Mr Houghton: Thank you.) The second point: whether the Committee has received legal advice in relation to the Speaker's referral letter dated 20th July in relation to conflict, and therefore that the letter may be inadmissible. The Committee would like to advise you that there is no conflict here. The Tynwald 100 Management Committee referred the matter to us and great care was taken that the Committee sitting before you this morning was not in any shape or form conflicted.

Mr Houghton: And so therefore, can I say have you received legal advice on that point?

105 The Chairman: No, we have not.

Mr Houghton: You have not? Okay. You have not received legal advice. Thank you.

The Chairman: On the third point: whether the Committee, through its Clerk, had received 110 any advice – legal or otherwise – from the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of Tynwald, as any such advice received must be treated as being conflicted. The answer to that question is no.

Mr Houghton: So you are operating without any legal advice?

115 The Chairman: In answer to your question three, the answer is no, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: So I take that then, Mr Chairman, you are operating without any legal advice? Thank you – that is noted.

120 The Chairman: Well, I think you have got a caveat on that – we have not yet sought legal advice –

Mr Houghton: Anything to this date? From the commencement of the Investigation Committee? 125 The Chairman: We may take legal advice in the future, but that is a matter for us to deliberate upon.

Mr Houghton: That’s fine. If you were, where would you be taking that legal advice from, 130 may I ask?

Mr Quirk: Undecided.

The Chairman: We would not be decided on that. It would depend if there was an item and 135 what that item was about. So I cannot answer that question.

______67 TSMI-A/15-16 147 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Mr Houghton: Well, okay, but as long as you would let me know where that advice came from, if you did seek it.

140 The Chairman: I do not see a problem with that.

Mr Houghton: Thanks very much.

The Chairman: Right, so then turning to the allegations. 145 Three specific allegations have been made regarding your conduct. First – and here I quote:

and – and here I quote again:

150 The second allegation – and again I quote:

After the inquiries into the staff issue were concluded Mr Houghton made what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk;

and, that:

Mr Houghton has adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

Thirdly, that you engaged in unwarranted interference in staff matters, specifically – and here, again, I quote:

Mr Houghton has engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against[their] senior managers, against my direct advice;

and that advice was Mr Speaker’s, which was given in writing on 5th November 2014. So for the 155 purpose of this third allegation evidence from that date only will be considered – so I will repeat that – evidence from 5th November. So evidence from 5th November onwards – it is that which is being considered.

Mr Houghton: Thank you, I have got that. 160 The Chairman: Finally we will also consider the statement, that – and I quote again:

His conduct has precipitated the resignation of a member of staff.

______68 TSMI-A/15-16 148 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

EVIDENCE OF Mr J R Houghton MHK

Q150. The Chairman: Mr Houghton, bearing in mind what I indicated in the first instance, 165 that there will be an opportunity for you to make any closing remarks that you wish, do you want to make an opening statement at this stage?

Mr Houghton: Yes I do. I would like to make an opening statement first. But if I just may address, before I make my opening statement, the four charges that are 170 against me. At no time, Mr Robertshaw, have you set those out in the way that you have detailed them now, this morning. I have asked you and asked you; and on 30th November you mentioned two, and I referred back to you in subsequent correspondence, which was ‘unwarranted interference in staff matters’ and that, two, I ‘engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff 175 against the senior members’ – which was against the advice of the Speaker. Now, you have set four charges out here that you have not given me prior notice of. I am going to be quite happy to deal with them today, because I have actually dealt with them in my submission and so on. So the first point, I have an issue with the Committee on this – and I do regret having to put it this way – but as I have said to you time and time again, this Committee is 180 operating rather like in the format of a Select Committee, rather than a disciplinary format, whereby I should have had each of these – can I word them as ‘charges’? (The Chairman: Allegations.) Allegations, charges – whichever – that have now been set out before me. This is the first time you have done that and I see that as unfair. What I should have had was a letter from the Committee – from you – stating ‘These are the 185 four items that we wish to speak you on – these are the four.’ All you have mentioned in the past is: ‘unwarranted interference in staff matters’, as a general; and that I was engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against senior members. So, what I have to say first, Mr Robertshaw, is that the Committee has erred in not informing me of that first. 190 But, as a measure of goodwill, because my integrity, as I hope the Committee will endorse in due course, is intact, I am quite able to go through these and answer these questions. Now, if I may turn to my opening remarks, Mr Robertshaw. I am appearing in front of the Committee today by precept, following my withdrawal last week due to the Committee's refusal to allow my witness,[MSA] , to give evidence. I note since, Mr Robertshaw, the precept has 195 been signed by you and I question as to whether you have the legal right to sign that precept because you are the investigating Chairman, if you like, and if I can word it this way, of a subcommittee of the Tynwald Standards Committee that was approved by Tynwald. And why I say that is the only person who is able to issue a precept – and it is set out in Standing Orders – is the Chairman of a Committee. The Chairman of the Committee in this 200 particular case is the Speaker – he is the Chairman of the Standards Committee. Of course, he is conflicted and therefore we understand that you were appointed as the investigation chairman, but you are the investigation chairman, not the Chairman of the Standards Committee; and therefore my legal advice is that that precept is unlawful. That is the first point. 205 I am here and, as I say, I was quite willing to come and bring my witness – I make that point to you. Now, going back to the matter of[MSA] and the refusal to allow[them] to give evidence last week is clearly against natural justice and my human rights to be permitted to have a fair trial. 210 I do not wish to see a Committee of Tynwald in breach of one, or indeed a number, of its own Acts. And that is where I think, unfortunately, this Committee is venturing and that is the reason why I have written so much in my earlier letters to the Committee.

______69 TSMI-A/15-16 149 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

I go on to say now that in my letter to the Committee dated 14th December, I have set out a number of items which were respectfully requested by the Chairman and I thank him for his 215 response to those already. So I thank you for that. I go on to say in the Chairman's letter dated 30th November, he confirms this Committee is investigating whether the Speaker's allegations of unwarranted interference in staff matters and that I engaged in personal advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against[their] senior managers. That is all I was preparing for today. 220 I have already stated that I will answer these allegations but I protest once again at the fact that the Committee has not properly informed me of the allegations it was looking for –it was just two general points that I have responded to you in writing. And that is regrettable. In respect of all of these allegations, these are clearly set out and we can go through these in my written submission; and I do hope that my written submission to the Committee has been 225 helpful. Because when we deal with each of these complaints ... because before you, as the Chairman, wrote to me and focused on some of these allegations that the Committee was wishing to look into today, all I could do was try and put together a presentation to the Committee in the form of my submission in order to answer everything. But then it appeared, from your correspondence, that it was not going to be examined, indeed. 230 I also would like to state that Mr Rodan's letter of 20th July that he has written to the Committee, that he is conflicted because of his pre-dealings. And there has been no other complaint that I have had receipt of from any of the management of this organisation. So that is why I wondered whether we were actually here in the first place. The whole of this has come together in a rather spread-out and unnatural and improper way, 235 rather than in what I would expect to be as a structured format – something that I am used to doing, and indeed you are used to doing, Mr Robertshaw – during the time when you were the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, whilst you were Minister of the Cabinet Office. I am sure you have held a number of disciplinary cases, as indeed I have during the time I was Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and that, I would have thought, would be an ideal 240 template to have gone along this morning. Now, I think that is all I have to say. I would ask the Committee, when I get to where you have invited comments from me, if I would be able to read out[MSA] 's statement to you, as part of my evidence – when we get to item 3.

245 The Chairman: Shall we address that when we get to that point?

Mr Houghton: Not at all – that is absolutely fine, yes.

Q151. The Chairman: Mr Houghton, thank you very much for your opening remarks – they 250 are carefully noted and we will deliberate on them with due care. The next step is for us to turn to our questions. The first one relates to confidentiality. (Mr Houghton: Yes, yes.) So, in the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that in your complaints against the Clerk you invented the fact that the initial complaints by you, on behalf of the staff 255 member, were confidential and therefore should not have been communicated to the persons complained of.

Mr Houghton: Yes. Right now, you say I ‘invented’. You should really say, Mr Robertshaw, that it is alleged that I invented. 260 The Chairman: Yes, perfectly correct. These are allegations.

Mr Houghton: Because I did not invent anything.

______70 TSMI-A/15-16 150 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

265 Q152. The Chairman: Yes, they are allegations and I fully accept that. So, to our first question then under that heading of confidentiality: what was your understanding of what the Clerk had agreed to do after the meeting of 30th October 2014, at which you raised your concerns about a staff member to the Clerk of Tynwald? Are you content with that question? 270 Mr Houghton: Yes, I am quite content with that. Yes, I can go ahead with that. Mr Wild took the lead in this matter. He found[MSA] deeply upset on two occasions, which caused Mr Wild to ask me to accompany him to this meeting with the Clerk, Mr Phillips. It was made abundantly clear to Mr Phillips that we – myself and Mr Wild – were attending 275 that meeting to just let him know, because he was the senior manager, what was going on and carefully advise him in confidence what we had found. It would have been quite improper for us to have gone to any subordinate manager of the Clerk – I am sure you would agree with that – so of course what we did is – and I think you have put it in writing to me that the Committee supports what we have done in that particular regard. 280 And that, of course, without a formal complaint from[MSA] about anything to do with any staff or management, there was nothing further that Mr Phillips could do – it was made quite clear to him by both of us – in order to investigate the matter as far as looking at operating a disciplinary procedure on any of his[other staff] . We gained that assurance and, of course, left to him that the only time he … and of course he 285 must have understood this – as I am sure the Committee understands – the fact that for someone to make a complaint it has to be the complainant who makes the complaint, not a third party. We were just the third party, saying, ‘All is not well in the [Clerk of Tynwald's Office] Mr Wild had found this[person] deeply upset and as a result of that we thought it was only right and proper that we inform the most senior manager, but he then agreed – he has denied [they] 290 since – that he would first go and see[MSA] with a note taker and see if wished – see [them] anyway, which is what we asked him to do – to make any formal complaint before he could start moving forward with any disciplinary procedures.

Q153. The Chairman: Thank you very much. 295 We move to the second question. On 31st October – the following day – the Clerk sent both you and Mr Wild a written summary of the meeting of the previous day, 30th October. That is number one in your bundle –

Mr Houghton: That is right, yes. 300 The Chairman: – and includes your annotations. On the basis of what he had written and what you amended, (Mr Houghton: Yes.) did your understanding of what he had agreed to change? I beg your pardon, I will read that again. On the basis of what he had written and what you 305 amended, did your understanding of what he had agreed to do change?

Mr Houghton: No, my understanding – and Mr Wild's understanding – was the same; and it was what I have just spelt out now to the Committee and the reason why you have, at item 1 there, a ‘manuscriptly’ altered letter of his to me, whereby I made some manuscript changes – 310 which the Committee has before it of course – in order to make what we understood the meaning of the meeting to have been set out more accurately in that. So the purpose of manuscripting that … and as you can see, you will see a little note at the top; it says:

Roger, please amend and reissue. Many thanks.

______71 TSMI-A/15-16 151 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Those little amendments that you can see there were to tidy up – and there were not many 315 of them – our thoughts and feelings of what had actually being said at that meeting. It was quite clear that that was the first of a number of documents that Mr Phillips altered to twist what his intention was; and that has been quite clear by that gentleman ever since that time. One of the first things that I was rather surprised about, too, even in that first document, is that it was issued as an open letter. It was not in strict confidence. Something I have noted from 320 your good self, Mr Robertshaw, all the time that we have been dealing with the run-up to today, is all that letters going between each of us have been in confidence. You, as the investigation chairman, understand that. Mr Phillips, as you will have read in these documents here, was always writing out as an open letter, without it being under confidential cover. Yet when I was responding back to him – or 325 when we were both, in the early days, Mr Wild and myself were responding back to him – they were in strict confidence. These are staff matters. They were in strict confidence and this is where things started, right from day one, as far as Mr Phillips's conduct, to go awry.

Q154. The Chairman: Would you be content for me to move onto the next question? (Mr 330 Houghton: Yes, absolutely.) Thank you. In it, the Clerk wrote that he had informed both Marie Lambden and[member of staff B] of the allegations and that he intended to ask the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald to investigate these allegations. In a letter to the Clerk, dated 10th November 2014 – that is number 6 in your bundle, (Mr 335 Houghton: Right, yes.) if you would like to turn to that –

Mr Houghton: Number 6. Yes, second page of a two-page letter – a two-page memorandum.

The Chairman: In that letter, you said at point 1 – 340 Mr Houghton: Top of page 6, point 1? Would you just take me further closer to that – ?

Mr Quayle: It is reference number 6, page 11.

345 Mr Houghton: Oh, I am sorry. Would you mind if we – so there is no misunderstanding – go to the page numbers? Would that be helpful? So page 11? Right, yes. Yes okay. Yes, thank you.

The Chairman: You said, at point 1:

Although we stand by what we told you, we clearly advised you that what was discussed was in the strictest confidence and, save for the Speaker, no third party was to be informed of our discussions.

Mr Houghton: That is right. 350 Q155. The Chairman: If this is true can you explain why you did not correct the note regarding the terms of confidentiality on 31st October, the day after the meeting?

Mr Houghton: On the first document that you have just been talking about? (The Chairman: 355 Yes.) Yes, I did it. I manuscripted it at the top of the letter. The purpose of that initial letter, Mr Robertshaw, in such an early day was that, if you can see, going back to page 1, I wrote ‘In strict confidence’ up above it and sent it back. And I actually manuscripted this, I think, in one of the sittings. I am not sure now. I think it was actually while we were in Tynwald when I got the letter, when everything at that particular time 360 appeared to be hunky-dory.

______72 TSMI-A/15-16 152 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

So I simply dealt with this as a draft and sent it back to Mr Phillips. That is the reason it has been manuscriptly altered; and of course from then on, between 31st October to now, where you are dealing with page 11 of the letter, signed by myself and Mr Wild, dated 10th November – there was quite a lot of water that had gone under the bridge in that time and that is the 365 reason why we were being a lot more detailed and careful in our dealings with Mr Phillips at that time. Because there had been quite a lot of water under the bridge and we had had this letter from the Speaker, and at that time it appeared to me that Mr Wild, who worked these up with me and signed the document and sent the document, was quite happy with the way that document had been set out. 370 You must also remember, members of the Committee, this was a developing scenario. So at the start you deal with things in a friendly, informal manner, if you see what I mean; going and seeing the Clerk, explaining what had happened, what our concerns were and thinking that, had the Clerk dealt with the matter appropriately and as he promised us at that meeting, that none of this would have gone this far. 375 A quiet word with[MSA] , see what the issues were.[MSA] did not wish to make a complaint at all.[They were] frightened and[they] had a better vision and foresight than, in fact, me and Mr Wild had at the start of this, because we went in confidence to that meeting and then having to go back to 10th November, obviously that letter will have been drafted by myself and Mr Wild on the 9th – at least over 24 hours – getting the detail correct to have to go in a lot more of a 380 formal manner, but still dealing with the matter in strictest confidence as far as we were concerned.

Q156. The Chairman: So are you content then that you did not, in your annotations of the Clerk’s letter of 31st October, choose to challenge the fact that he was informing Marie 385 Lambden and[member of staff B] ? You did not challenge that at that stage. Do you want to enlighten us as to why you might not have done that?

Mr Houghton: Because very much at that time, it was in the early days, in the early stages, and both myself and Mr Wild were rather … and I have to say there have been two sides to 390 Mr Wild, and I think you have got that in my submission, I hope you can see that. So only dealing with Mr Wild on face value, not realising that he was going behind our backs and running, telling stories to the management as a separate issue, I can only report the business that was being discussed between myself and Mr Wild at the time in good faith. When we got that note, that Mr Wild himself had freely agreed all of it himself – and I think 395 you will see a note on that somewhere. When I discussed it with him, he agreed with me the changes and he expressed surprise that Mr Phillips had already gone and done that. It is not really a matter other than that in the early development of this matter that … He had done it and, from that, we started both – I certainly did – to become very suspicious of Mr Phillips’ movements. 400 I have to say to this Committee, I was warned about Mr Phillips. I was warned that is the type of thing that he does. He has done it before. But as you are trusting, as you work your way forward through something like this, you have to trust the individuals you are working with. You know that as well, in your experience, Mr Robertshaw, and so do I; that of course this man had done this. Yes, we had left it. Mr Wild had signed his off. I do not know whether he had read it 405 and I would leave it to the conjecture of the Committee as to why at certain parts of the day, Mr Wild may not have read the document properly. I will leave it at that.

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr Houghton. Mr Quirk, you wanted to add a further – 410 Q157. Mr Quirk: Could I just ask, Mr Houghton, you said you were warned by somebody; was it a Member of parliament? Can you remember?

______73 TSMI-A/15-16 153 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Mr Houghton: It was a person from outside this place who had had dealings with Mr Phillips.

415 The Chairman: Okay.

Q158. Mr Quayle: Mr Houghton, if I could just clarify this (Mr Houghton: Go ahead, yes.) because I think this is an incredibly important issue and I do not feel as if in my head I have got the clear understanding. 420 I suppose, trying to paraphrase everything – and I am referring to reference 1, the letter on page 1 – where the Clerk of Tynwald has written to you and said this is my memory of everything as it happened. You have gone back and amended various words because you were not happy with it. (Mr Houghton: Yes.) I suppose the allegation is that because you said absolutely nothing regarding the Clerk of Tynwald’s actions on going to the …

‘I have informed both Marie Lambden and[member of staff B] of the allegations against them and I have advised them to consult their union as soon as possible.’

425 – because that paragraph has not been altered in any way, shape or form, therefore that was your understanding. Can you see where I am coming from?

Mr Houghton: Absolutely. I can see where you are coming from and that was corrected by myself and Mr Wild later, as you know. What – 430 Mr Quayle: But it was not corrected at this time.

Mr Houghton: And the reason why is because he was not asking us that … ‘I will go and inform both Marie Lambden and[member of staff B] ’; he said, ‘I have informed them’. 435 So there was very little point in correcting anything when he had already stated that he had informed them. Do you see where I am coming from? Does that help the Committee?

The Chairman: I understand what you are saying.

440 Q159. Mr Quayle: But at the last line, the letter says:

I intend to ask the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald to investigate these allegations. He returns on Monday when I shall speak to him.

That is on the very bottom of page 1. Would that not have been the opportunity to say, ‘No, that is not what we want to happen. Do not go ahead with this’?

Mr Houghton: Yes, that would have been an ideal opportunity but of course, depending on 445 the time that the letter was written, the time it took for me to receive it and return it back … time has gone on of course. The 31st October will have been a Friday, so you are into Monday; I possibly might not have even read it and I cannot remember that bit on timing that I responded back on that. But that is the reason why that letter was not altered. 450 And I have to say to the Committee that does not alter one iota of what was said and promised by Mr Phillips. So just because I had not re-manuscripted that document does not for one moment give any implication that I, as one of the Members supportive of[member of staff A] , was any way at all concurring with what was happening. I hope that is helpful. 455 Q160. The Chairman: Thank you. The next question: the Clerk replied to your letter of 10th November; the letter is dated 12th November – and that is number 7 in your bundle –

______74 TSMI-A/15-16 154 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Mr Houghton: Page 7? (The Chairman: Yes.) (The Clerk: No.) Oh, number 7.

460 Mr Quayle: Which is pages 13 and 14.

Mr Houghton: Thank you.

The Chairman: So the Clerk replied to your letter on 10th November 2014. The letter is dated 465 12th November – that is number 7 in your bundle. On 19th November you replied to the letter of 12th November – that is number 17 in your bundle and is pages 34 and 35. (Mr Houghton: Right.) So I am aware now you are trying to read two letters so take all the time in the world, (Mr Houghton: It’s okay.) Mr Houghton, please.

470 Mr Houghton: Well, perhaps if you put your question, Mr Chairman, (The Chairman: I will.) then I can read them both.

The Chairman: Okay that is fine.

475 Mr Houghton: I am quite familiar with this correspondence, but please feel free. Go ahead.

The Chairman: That is number 17 in your bundle and you wrote:

Please take note that I and indeed Mr Wild have at no time permitted you to copy any of our correspondence to ‘all and sundry’ and I am considering my options on this breach of trust.

Mr Houghton: Yes, could you just direct me to the paragraph on that? This on page 21 now, isn’t it? Is it? (The Chairman: No.) Sorry, on page 35. I am sorry. 480 The Chairman: It is pages 34 and 35.

Mr Houghton: Paragraph? If you can just guide me to the paragraph on that?

485 The Chairman: Paragraph 3, I am given to understand.

Mr Houghton: Paragraph 3. Yes.

Mr Houghton read out a paragraph. 490 Mr Houghton: Is that the one? Three? Bottom of page 34?

The Chairman: No.

495 Mr Quayle: No.

Mr Houghton: Is that the one you are referring to?

The Chairman: No, we will have to try again. Just bear with us. 500 Mr Houghton: I do apologise.

The Chairman: Not at all.

505 Mr Houghton: We are looking at pages 34 to 35 anyway, aren’t we? Somewhere there.

______75 TSMI-A/15-16 155 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

The Chairman: Yes. We are looking for the words:

Please take note that I and –

Mr Houghton: Ah, yes, it is at the penultimate paragraph on page 35. (Mr Quayle: Yes.) Penultimate:

Please take note that I and indeed Mr Wild have at no time permitted you to copy any of our correspondence to ‘all and sundry‘ and I am considering my options on this breach of trust.

510 Yes, I am fine.

The Chairman: That is what we are talking about.

Mr Houghton: Yes, now what is your question, sir? 515 Q161. The Chairman: Right. Can you explain what you meant by ‘all and sundry’?

Mr Houghton: To ‘all and sundry,’ what I meant was that correspondence was being copied to Mr King and[MSB] and Mrs Lambden. Those were ‘all and sundry’. Yes. (The Chairman: 520 Fine – ) When this correspondence should only have been – save for the Speaker, and I kept repeating that in quite a lot of items of correspondence; obviously it was our intention that the Speaker should not be debarred from seeing anything. So, ‘save for the Speaker, we are only talking to you. This is emanating from this confidential meeting that we had with you in good faith about a member of staff who was upset.’ 525 The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Houghton that is clear.

Mr Houghton: You are welcome. You are welcome.

530 Q162. The Chairman: Thank you. Next question: before sending the letter of 19th November did you show it to Mr Wild or discuss it with him?

Mr Houghton: Now, could you just refer me to that page? 535 The Chairman: That is 34 and 35 again. That is –

Mr Houghton: Oh, 34 and 35? Oh so –

540 The Chairman: So the question was: before sending the letter of 19th November – that is pages 34 –

Mr Houghton: Yes, I have got that.

545 The Chairman: – did you show it to Mr Wild and discuss it with him?

Mr Houghton: No, I did not. No, I did not. By that time – by around about 15th November – and I think you will find that in my submission – Mr Wild had departed from all support of[MSA] . Whereas previously he was supporting[MSA] very closely and of course he was working with me 550 very closely, once he had departed I wrote all the future letters then of course, which was including this one of 19th November, and as you can see it is signed just by me. So that was done with me. Mr Wild had gone by that time.

______76 TSMI-A/15-16 156 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr Houghton.

555 Mr Houghton: You are welcome.

Q163. The Chairman: We previously referred to the penultimate paragraph. May I refer you to the one above on page 35 of the letter? (Mr Houghton: Yes.) It reads:

I must ask you to take note that the evidence in this letter has been corroborated by Mr Wild and given under his hand.

Mr Houghton: Yes. Yes – 560 The Chairman:

He has not sought to withdraw his recollection of the above events.

Could you explain how that –

Mr Houghton: Yes, I can certainly. 565 The Chairman: – relates to what you have just said?

Mr Houghton: And I think it is a very good point and I am very pleased to be able to do that. Right up until …

I must ask you to take note that the evidence in this letter has been corroborated …

570 So what I am saying is the evidence that I have put in this letter that is before the Committee, of course, was corroborated by Mr Wild when he was on board with this matter – okay? And all I was doing was basically, if you like, in a lot of this, repeating what had already been said in subsequent correspondence that Mr Wild was involved with and gave under his hand in joint letters and so on. 575 So what I am saying there is that it had been corroborated by Mr Wild in all of those earlier days, if that is more helpful to you. (The Chairman: Fine.) It was evidence that we had already dealt with – if you like, historic evidence.

Q164. The Chairman: Thank you very much. 580 That concludes the questions in relation to that particular part of this morning’s session. I would now like to turn to the matter of the referral of the Third Clerk. In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that in your complaints against the Clerk you invented the fact that the Clerk –

585 Mr Houghton: This is alleged, Mr Robertshaw.

The Chairman: I have already said that these are allegations, Mr Houghton. I will read this introduction again.

590 Mr Houghton: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that in your complaints against the Clerk you invented the fact that the Clerk had told you and Mr Wild that the Third Clerk had been referred to Dr McAndry for depression. (Mr Houghton: Yes.) Yes.

______77 TSMI-A/15-16 157 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

595 So we turn to the questions. At the meeting on 30th October, did the Clerk tell you Mrs Lambden had previously been referred to Dr McAndry, the third party occupational health adviser used by the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office?

Mr Houghton: Yes he did, and he said it was for depression. 600 The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr Houghton: And that is as clear and as true as I am sitting here, Mr Robertshaw.

605 Q165. The Chairman: Can I confirm that he used the word ‘depression’?

Mr Houghton: He certainly did, because I remember the Clerk was sitting to my right and to Mr Wild’s left. Mr Wild was sitting at the table opposite me. I looked at him and he raised his eyebrows, (The Chairman: Okay.) as if to say, ‘Wow!’ and if I may just further be helpful, [member of staff A] 610 Mr Wild discussed that point in the company of afterwards – about … we were surprised that he said that. I know that Mr Phillips has completely denied it. I can say it was said and Mr Wild confirmed it being said to[member of staff A] .

615 Q166. The Chairman: Mr Houghton, would you be kind enough just to make a note of what you have just said there and bring it up later on at the end, when we discuss the issue about [MSA] ? Would you do that for me?

Mr Houghton: Yes, just one moment. 620 Thank you.

Q167. The Chairman: We will return to that later – (Mr Houghton: Yes, thank you.) if you wish. Did the Clerk advise the reason for the referral at any other time, and if he did what was that 625 reason? At any other time than 30th October?

Mr Houghton: To my recollection, other than confirming it in the correspondence that you have before the Committee – other than anything in the correspondence that you have, the answer is no – certainly not verbally anyway. But other than in the correspondence that is 630 before the Committee …

The Chairman: Thank you very much –

Mr Houghton: I think it was spoken about quite a lot in correspondence. 635 The Chairman: That concludes the questions in that section. Turning then to the withdrawal letter of 11th November –

Mr Houghton: And that is page …? 640 Q168. The Chairman: I will come to it in a second. In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that you gave the Clerk of Tynwald a letter dated 11th November 2014 on 13th November 2014. That is number 10 in your bundle and that is on page, I believe, 17.

______78 TSMI-A/15-16 158 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

645 Mr Houghton: Before you ask your questions on that, which I will be more than happy to answer – that is not a problem – can I refer the Committee once again to the sections as clearly set out in my submission and I hope that has been helpful to the Committee –

The Chairman: Take your time. 650 Mr Houghton: No, it is okay. Thank you. You have got and have read, have you, my submission dated 8th December? Mr Chairman, have you?

655 The Chairman: We have read your submission and we will be deliberating on it further at a later –

Mr Houghton: No, that is absolutely fine. That is fine. I thought that would be helpful to do that. Let’s just see. Now, the dealings with the withdrawal letter, just for Hansard and for the 660 information of the Committee of course, begins on page 8 at section 14, and then it goes on for a number of pages, up to 14.17, so there is a very comprehensive response to that, which I thought would be helpful for the Committee.

The Chairman: And at the appropriate time we will consider both the answers that you give 665 now in conjunction with your submission. You have our assurances on that.

Mr Houghton: And I will pleased to answer those again to the best of my recollection, orally, needless to say, and also referring you to that because I have gone to a lot of trouble explaining that, which I am more than happy to confirm. So please go ahead. Thank you. 670 Q169. The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. So I will go back to the introduction again, so we are absolutely clear. In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that you gave the Clerk of Tynwald a letter dated 11th November on 13th November – that is number 10 in your bundle – (Mr Houghton: 675 Yes.) which Mr Wild had told you he no longer wished to send, although he had signed it. We also wish to consider a letter dated 19th November – that is number 17 in your bundle and that is again on pages 34 and 35 –

Mr Houghton: Pages 34 and 35. Yes the one we have been – 680 The Chairman: We have been discussing before, (Mr Houghton: Yes, okay.) in which you wrote – and that is the one at number 17 –

Mr Houghton: On page 17? 685 The Chairman: No. We also wish you to consider a letter dated 19th November – that is number 17 –

Mr Houghton: Yes, sorry, I have got that. 690 The Chairman: – on pages 34 and 35 –

Mr Houghton: Pages 34 and 35. Yes, thank you. I have got that. Yes. Yes.

695 The Chairman: – in which you wrote that:

______79 TSMI-A/15-16 159 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

the evidence in this letter has been corroborated by Mr Wild and given under his hand.

Mr Houghton: Yes.

Mr Quayle: That is the third to last paragraph on page 35.

700 Mr Houghton: On page 35. Yes.

The Chairman: So that is the focus.

Mr Houghton: Yes. That is okay. Yes that is absolutely fine. 705 Q170. The Chairman: Right, so to the first question, Mr Houghton. Can you explain how you came to write and sign the letter on 11th November 2014 – that is number 10 in your bundle?

Mr Houghton: Right. Now that letter, as I have set out in great detail in my submission to 710 you … If I can just perhaps put things in context and then explain to you fully what the situation was. This letter was discussed because: because Mr Phillips was moving in such a rampant manner to put[member of staff A] on disciplinary charges, we started to try and retract everything we said or that was discussed at the meeting of 30th October, to stop him from disciplining[MSA] . That is 715 what we did. So we had a discussion in a late evening, on or round 11th November – myself and Mr Wild – and through that discussion, Mr Wild suggested, ‘Well, let’s send a letter then, followed along these lines’ – as I say, the detail that I have put, that I stand by in my submission to you. 720 So Mr Wild said, ‘Let’s do the letter now!’ So Mr Wild set about on his laptop, drafting this letter. So this letter, dated 11th November, was drafted by Mr Wild – drafted in his own time. I went off and did some other work whilst he drafted that, printed it and signed it. It was not just a letter that has been signed by Mr Wild. He was so vehement at this time, to support[MSA] – and I am saying supposedly, because there was another side to him on this matter – that ‘we 725 need to tell Mr Phillips that we are withdrawing everything we have said’, so if you like, in Mr Wild’s mind was that the meeting … therefore no disciplinary action could be taken against [MSA]. ‘We have got to halt this!’ And I was fully supportive, because by this time the matter was raging out of control – the matter of being disciplined for something that[they] had not done. All of this came about, do 730 not forget, by this only single meeting on 30th October. So coming to the letter, Mr Robertshaw: Mr Wild drafted that letter, jointly signed that letter and then the agreement was that Mr Wild and myself – because we were leaving the building – I would drop a copy of the letter in to the Speaker and he would drop a copy of the letter into Mr Phillips’ office. That was the agreement that happened. 735 As you can see in the paperwork here, that did not take place. Mr Wild then coerced me into a meeting the next day, in with the Speaker, where he was concerned about this letter. And if I can just say this, Mr Robertshaw: what was he concerned about here? This was not a letter that did anything other than wish to withdraw what we said at our meeting with Mr Phillips on 30th October, in order to halt a[person] becoming more and more ill with worry – more and more ill 740 with worry – and halt the whole of the proceedings and to stay the proceedings at that. So the wording was in Mr Wild’s wording. He signed the letter. I jointly signed it with him. I delivered my copy in to the Speaker and he was entrusted to deliver his copy, which was the original letter, if you like, because it was addressed to Mr Phillips, in to Mr Phillips. One would take it one way and one would take it the other.

______80 TSMI-A/15-16 160 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

745 Now, of course, the Committee is aware that did not happen. Mr Wild did not do that and, as I say, the next day we had a meeting with the Speaker – that you will see in the submission; I hope that has been helpful for you – where Mr Wild was very cagey about the letter and that he had thought again on not delivering it. I hope this is helpful because I am giving you my evidence but also giving the Committee the 750 picture, so it can draw all of the narratives together on this because it is important that you do so and it is important that I help you as far as possible to do that. So it was only afterwards that I read in the timeline of events that actually the next day before the meeting with Mr Wild, or on or around that time in general discussion, that Mr Wild had actually gone and shown Mr Phillips this letter that was meant to have been delivered to 755 him, to see whether Mr Phillips agreed he should receive it. Mr Phillips – and you have got it in your timeline information there, and it is in my submission there, clearly directing you to that – said words to the effect that he should think again sending that letter; because the purpose of that was if we had withdrawn all we said then proceedings against[MSA] would have had to have been stayed, and that is not what Mr Phillips wanted to do. He wanted that[person] out of here. 760 That was quite clear – very, abundantly clear, Mr Robertshaw. So Mr Wild did not deliver the letter, but he had shown him it – and, as I say, that is in the evidence that can be seen. Now then, I discussed that with the Speaker, who made no notes – and I made notes of the discussions. When we came out of the meeting with the Speaker – myself and Mr Wild – we immediately met[member of staff A] – again it is in my submission – and Mr Wild had jumped back on 765 another horse. He said, ‘I have thought again about this, John.’ He said, ‘I think we really do need to send this letter,’ and he said that to[MSA] . [member of staff A] has got that information in[their] statement, that the Committee needs to hear, and also the fact that he wished to send the letter. So he is showing the letter at the same time – which we were not aware of, obviously, at the time – to Mr Phillips, who is saying, ‘Please do not 770 give me that letter.’ That is the way I am wording it and it is in your evidence. He is not sure about what he is doing with the Speaker, but when he joins in with myself and[MSA] afterwards in this follow-up meeting after the meeting with the Speaker, which was immediately for debriefing, he is fully intent on sending the letter and he says, ‘Yes, , I will give Mr Phillips that letter tomorrow.’ 775 When we got to the next day or the next appropriate day, Mr Wild was not to be seen in the office – that is the Members’ floors. It is quite clear from the evidence you have before you in the timelines that he was actually in the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office discussing the letter with Mr Phillips, as I have already mentioned.

780 The Chairman: Can I take –

Mr Houghton: Yes, certainly. By all means. Go ahead.

Q171. The Chairman: Can I take you back to the meeting between yourself and Mr Wild, with 785 Mr Speaker as an observer?

Mr Houghton: Yes, yes, you can.

The Chairman: You used the word ‘cagey’ when referring to Mr Wild’s attitude to the letter. 790 Could you elaborate on –?

Mr Houghton: Yes, I can. I can. As time went along, when we spoke to Mr Wild – as the time before, if I can say, he departed from his assistance from[MSA] – as time drew up towards that point – and this was getting 795 close to that time – Mr Wild was saying one thing and doing another. So using the word ‘cagey’

______81 TSMI-A/15-16 161 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

is … I was very suspicious of what he really meant when he was saying anything to me with the Speaker, or vice versa. I think you will notice in the submission there that when I said I was coerced into that meeting with the Speaker, because Mr Wild had pre-met with the Speaker and then come down 800 the corridor to coerce me into this meeting with the Speaker. There was no need for that. He could have organised it. As you know yourself, we are all equals. We can go and see the Speaker at any time. There was no need for him to do this. But basically Mr Wild, it is now quite clear, was losing track of what he was saying to whom, because he was saying one thing to one party and another to another. So the point I am saying is 805 that his evidence was becoming more and more unreliable, and that is the reason that within a couple of days of that … This was dated 11th November, delivered by me on 13th because it was agreed it would go. As I say, it was done, signed and drafted by Mr Wild, agreed. So I thought, ‘This letter needs to be put’, because the Speaker had a live copy of the letter and had seen it and we had discussed it. 810 But the letter itself – the original – Mr Wild had, so all I could do, only for propriety in this matter – and it was with the agreement, the last time I had spoken to Mr Wild – was his full agreement in front of[member of staff A] that that letter be delivered to Mr Phillips. So, for that, and as I have explained in great detail in my submission to support this, I then took that letter as a copy and gave it to Mr Phillips. And if he had two – if you understand what I 815 mean; if he had already had the original one from Mr Wild, then of course the letter that I am giving him … he has got two copies of the same letter, if you will. Because it was quite improper for a letter that had been given to the Speaker, which was a copy of this letter of course … that the recipient of the letter had not received his. As I reiterate, it is now known that Mr Wild had shown him and Mr Phillips had advised him 820 against, and that is coming off your timeline information. So I treat that as independent, if you will.

Q172. The Chairman: Thank you. Next question: and here we refer, Mr Houghton, to number 10 in your bundle, which is on 825 page 17 –

Mr Houghton: Yes, the same letter.

The Chairman: Do you have that? 830 Mr Houghton: Yes, the same letter.

The Chairman: Right, so in the email dated 13th November 2014 – that is at number 10 in your bundle – 835 Mr Houghton: Number 10, yes.

The Chairman: Page 17.

840 Mr Quayle: Page 17.

The Clerk: No, it is not.

Mr Houghton: Sorry, I have got page 17 – the letter you are referring to, Chairman. And then 845 page 10, an email to Roger Phillips from Jonathan King, yes?

The Chairman: You have got the email?

______82 TSMI-A/15-16 162 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Mr Houghton: I have got the email which is on page 10.

850 The Chairman: Let me just clarify that.

The Clerk: Let me just double check.

Mr Houghton: Page 10. 855 The Clerk: Sorry, the reference to the email dated 13th November is actually reference number 12 in your bundle, which is page 19. I am sorry. That was a typing mistake on my part –

Mr Houghton: Thank you, so we are looking at page 17 and page 19. 860 The Clerk: Yes, so the letter is on page 17 and the email is on page 19. Sorry, Mr Chair.

Mr Houghton: Absolutely. Yes, okay. Yes, okay. Please go ahead.

865 Q173. The Chairman: You are content? Right. So I will begin the question again. In the email dated 13th November, Mr Phillips writes to Mr Wild about a conversation they have just had about the letter of 11th November. He writes:

You told me that Mr Houghton had given me this letter without your permission and that you did not withdraw your remarks. Also you had told Mr Houghton yesterday at a meeting with Mr Speaker that you did not intend to give me the letter.

In some respects, we have dealt with this. Is there anything else you want to add?

870 Mr Houghton: Yes, and thank you for raising that of course. As you can see, this shows the Committee a little bit more about what was going in Mr Phillips’ mind. Mr Phillips was putting Mr Wild on record, because of course this was dated 13th November; this was before Mr Wild had withdrawn, because he got himself in a mess and the fact that Mr Phillips was putting Mr Wild on record here to cover Mr Phillips’s back, that is 875 what he was doing, and that was copied obviously to even Mrs Christian – and I do not know why it was Mrs Christian at that time – Jonathan King and of course the Speaker. So my only point in that is Mr Phillips was doing that to cover his back – cover his back; that is Mr Phillips’s back – as against what Mr Wild was doing. One thing we can understand about Mr Phillips in matters like this of course … He will have 880 been looking after number one. It is quite clear in the way that they have been manuscripting those timelines that they were looking ahead, and although Mr Wild was eating out of their hands – and he was! – they were keeping him well and truly tied down by making sure that the exchanges that he had had – because obviously I was not party to this – with them were documented. 885 The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr Houghton: I hope that is helpful.

890 Mr Quayle: Can I just –?

Mr Houghton: And I had not seen that of course. Until I saw the timeline bundle of course, I had not seen this letter, because there were a number of emails that indeed Mr Wild was exchanging between the management, even at the time when we were working together, 895 without my knowledge. ______83 TSMI-A/15-16 163 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

The Chairman: Do you still want to ask your question?

Q174. Mr Quayle: Yes, sir, if I may. You refer to the fact that Mr Wild was ‘eating out of their hands’. Just for clarification, ‘their 900 hands’ being – without wanting to put words into your … was that the Clerk of Tynwald and the Deputy Clerk?

Mr Houghton: Yes, that is the Clerk of Tynwald and the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald. Yes. Obviously, for some reason – and only Mr Wild can answer this – he was saying one thing to me 905 and he was running back, telling stories to the management. Why he sought to do that I do not know but, as I say, it became abundantly clear that sometimes Mr Wild's mind was, can I say, befuddled and he was not … And if I could just slightly elaborate, Members of Tynwald saw strange in some of Mr Wild’s behaviour on occasions, where he would say one thing and mean another, and vice versa. 910 When he is dealing with an intricate matter where he wants to show[MSA] that he is supporting[them] fully, but yet he is going in informing on by emails, meetings and everything which is in your timeline, as you can see, he was obviously losing control of managing the situation in two camps.

915 Q175. The Chairman: Thank you. We now refer to the last question in this particular section of this morning’s session, and we refer again to the letter number 17, which is pages 34 and 35 – it is becoming quite a famous couple of pages. (Mr Houghton: Yes.) May I continue? 920 Mr Houghton: Yes, please.

The Chairman: In your letter dated 19th November – that is number 17 in your bundle – you make several references to Mr Wild. (Mr Houghton: Yes.) You wrote:

It is most unfortunate that Mr Wild now appears to have withdrawn his involvement in this very serious matter.

925 But you also wrote:

I must ask you to take note that the evidence in this letter has been corroborated by Mr Wild and given under his hand.

In some respects, you have already answered this question –

Mr Houghton: Yes, I have, yes.

930 The Chairman: Is there anything else you want to add to what you have already said?

Mr Houghton: Only to say, when I am saying ‘corroborated’, perhaps I should have put ‘corroborated historically’, meaning I was not meaning … and for no reason and the person who this letter was addressed to fully knew – and I know – at that time that Mr Wild was no longer 935 supporting[MSA] – working with me or supporting[MSA] . To make it absolutely clear, Mr Wild could have continued to support and not worked with me, and he could have said that to me. And then of course the text of my letter would have been different. But what I am referring to in that very important letter is that … is those … where he had 940 corroborated all these things and signed them, that I have set out in that letter – where he had done all of those things, that is what he did and freely did at that time.

______84 TSMI-A/15-16 164 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

So, basically, that letter of the 19th reiterates a number of issues that happened prior to Mr Wild’s withdrawal. I hope that is helpful to the Committee.

945 The Chairman: I understand what you are saying, Mr Houghton.

Q176. Mr Quayle: Sorry, Mr Chairman, could I just, for clarification again, Mr Houghton, in that same letter and paragraph on page 35, third paragraph, could you just clarify:

… by Mr Wild and given under his hand.

(Mr Houghton: Yes.) if he had already withdrawn, if you see where I am coming from? 950 Mr Houghton: Yes. What I am referring to again is this letter must not be taken that Mr Wild was on board with me on 19th November when this letter was made. What I am referring to is when he has confirmed things and given them under his hand etc. is in that, if I can say, historic correspondence. Remember this matter only began on 30th October and this was only 955 19th November – Mr Wild having departed around 15th November. So what I was referring to was items and documents that he had signed and discussed, if you see what I mean, that I am setting out here when I was assisting[MSA] jointly with that person. Does that help, Mr Quayle?

960 Mr Quayle: It does.

Mr Houghton: Does it clearly give ... because you have now made two separate references to it? What I am clearly saying in this letter here – and it is quite clear; it is a well-written letter – that I am reporting what happened during the times that the matters went along, and when I am 965 saying what Mr Wild did do, that was at the time when he was ... when I say, on board helping me and working together. And when we are talking about him giving things under his hand and he is signing documents, those are the letters that he signed and he supported at that time. And that is my word on that.

970 Q177. The Chairman: Thank you. That completes the questions in that section, Mr Houghton. We now move on. We move on to the allegation of bullying the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and Mr Wild. (Mr Houghton: Right, that’s …) In the first instance we will be referring to items number 29 and 30 in your bundle – (Mr Houghton: Pages?) which are on pages 51 to 56, (Mr Houghton: 51 to 56.) 975 and 57 to 62.

Mr Houghton: Yes, the complaint against Mr Phillips, yes – 56. And 57 to 62.

The Chairman: Do you want to spend a couple of minutes just –? 980 Mr Houghton: No, I do not need to, no. Apart from the fact that ... if you just take me to any particular point in it. I remember those well.

The Chairman: If you wish, just stop me any time you want to . 985 Mr Houghton: Yes, thank you very much.

Q178. The Chairman: Okay. In the following questions we are going to consider the allegation that you made:

______85 TSMI-A/15-16 165 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

990 These were made in letters written on 22nd January 2015. They are at numbers 29 and 30 in your bundle.

Mr Houghton: 29 and 30 in the bundle.

995 The Chairman: So, if you recall, those were on pages –

Mr Houghton: Sorry, 29 and 30 in the bundle. Right. It is one email, isn’t it, that you are talking about?

1000 The Chairman: No.

Mr Quayle: No, 29 and 30, Mr Houghton, for clarification, is pages 51 –

Mr Houghton: Oh, I am sorry. Yes, if we can refer to the pages it would be helpful. 1005 Mr Quayle: Yes.

The Chairman: Sorry.

1010 Mr Houghton: I go on to the pages instead of the … yes.

Mr Quayle: It is pages 51 to 62.

Mr Houghton: Yes, that is helpful. Right, fine. Absolutely fine. 1015 Mr Quayle: Two different letters –

Mr Houghton: Yes, absolutely. Okay. Yes.

1020 Q179. The Chairman: So I will read it again. The allegation that you made:

what the Tynwald Management Committee considers to be malicious and bullying complaints against the Clerk and Deputy Clerk.

Also that you:

adopted a manner in interfering in this staff issue which has been consistently bullying. He has bullied Mr Wild, the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk.

So that is setting the scene. We now turn to specific questions. Do you feel that the complaints you made on 22nd January 2015, in items 29 and 30 in your 1025 bundle were malicious and bullying?

Mr Houghton: Absolutely not! And can we just hold on that point just for one moment and I will come right back to it. Can we just go to … and I do hope the Committee will concur with the definition of bullying that I put in my submission to the Committee. That is a public document, 1030 where I have got that from. If I can just turn the Committee to that page. It is important we just look at the definition of bullying and then we can step back from that. That is page 5, Mr Chairman – bottom of page 5 at section 9.

______86 TSMI-A/15-16 166 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

‘Bullying: the definition’ which is from the Fairness at Work Policy of this year – so it is a Government document … because there are various definitions that are around for bullying. So 1035 all I can do it refer the Committee fairly to the Government’s most up-to-date one, of course, which is a Fairness at Work Policy. Now where it defines bullying as:

Any repeated offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour with abuse of power …

1040 And it goes on. So ‘any repeated offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious’. So now, can I just help the … and then I will help to answer your questions by referring to what I have just said … ‘Repeated offensive’ – so I wrote one complaint about each of those – and it was a detailed, comprehensive complaint and I mean every word of that complaint, even now. 1045 Now, in respect of each of those complaints – perhaps if we can treat them together in some ways, although they were separate matters – they are not a repeated matter, Mr Chairman. I am not writing in complaints every week about someone who I think is doing wrong, or what have you; this is one single complaint, with sections of it in a comprehensive manner. So it is not repeated. 1050 ‘Offensive’ – I will leave that to the Committee to decide whether any language I am using in that was indeed offensive. And remember it has got to be ‘repeated offensive’. I want to paint a little picture in a moment. I do hope this helps because it is my evidence to the Committee. ‘Abusive’ – I will leave it to the Committee to decide whether they think that what I have written, indeed, is abusive. 1055 ‘Intimidating’ – these were formal complaints about my findings. I do not think they can be taken as intimidating, but I will have to leave that to the Committee to draw upon that. Now, ‘malicious’, okay. A malicious complaint is something where someone decides that they are going to act in a malicious manner. All of the detail in both of those complaints, as you can see, they are comprehensive complaints where I have done my best to spell out the purpose, 1060 the meaning and reasoning for my complaints. Indeed, Mr Robertshaw, I have seen writings of yours in such comprehensive manners in other walks of life and you go to similar detail. ‘Insulting’ – I do not think so, but I will leave that to the Committee in that regard. ‘Abuse of power’ – I do not think so. I do not think I am abusing power. So if you take all those very strong and powerful words, separate them each way, but weigh 1065 up the complaint and the nature of it – it is a single complaint, it is not repeated and if you look here, ‘repeated’! So repeated offensive remarks, insults, this, that and the other; that is bullying, Mr Robertshaw. There is too much use these days – and I am sure the Committee will agree with me – that immediately someone raises their voice at someone … I mean perhaps now, while I am just 1070 speaking clearly now, Mr Quirk might think that, ‘Mr Houghton is raising his voice’; Mr Robertshaw may think, ‘No, he is just speaking as he ordinarily does’; Mr Quayle might have a different view. I think it would be quite unfair for anyone to deduct that, ‘Mr Houghton was trying to bully the Committee or bully whomsoever’. Bullying is clearly set out here and it has got a number of issues to it. Rather than one on its 1075 own, there has to be repeated either offensive, abusive, repeated intimidating, repeated malicious, repeated insulting. I do not think that writing the complaint and handing both of those complaints in – and who I submitted them to at the time was the President of Tynwald – was in any way bullying. I think that is a gross distortion of the facts and a gross distortion of fairness from the Speaker in writing that. 1080 I am open now to you for questions, Mr Robertshaw.

Q180. The Chairman: Thank you, Mr Houghton. Your answer has been very clear. (Mr Houghton: Thank you.)

______87 TSMI-A/15-16 167 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

What I would ask you – and we have it down so I will ask this question – following an 1085 independent investigation, it was concluded that the only breach of discipline was one point of a minor nature to be addressed by education; do you still, in light of that information, feel that the complaint you made on 22nd January were acceptable; in other words, they were not malicious and bullying? I mean you have been very clear in your answer but we have that –

1090 Mr Houghton: I absolutely so believe. I have a right to make a complaint, as any other person does anywhere, and of course as long as it is not malicious, insulting and intimidating and so on – and it is before the Committee. The wording of everything that I have used is before the Committee. I pick up, Mr Chairman, where you mentioned that the result of the inquiry was that of 1095 education and so on. I have not got that information that you are referring to.

The Chairman: It will come out in the report in due course.

Mr Houghton: No, I am sorry, Mr Robertshaw, we have been very fair with each other this 1100 morning. You are referring to information there that I do not have. You have mentioned something about an investigation report – the conclusion of the investigation report – which I have asked you more than once for and you have made a reference to it … that one of it was to do with an education function. I have not seen the reasoning behind that –

1105 The Chairman: That does not refer to you, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: I am sorry, Mr Robertshaw. You are making a point whereby you are asking me questions on these complaints and then, if you like, you have given me the result or the conclusion of the investigation’s officers – that is what I am assuming, because I have not got the 1110 information – whereby you stated that all that ended up was some education required for certain training or whatever – whatever you actually stated. But you were referring to something that I do not have before me, so how can I properly answer the questions? And, Mr Robertshaw, I did ask for disclosure and you are now quoting from something you have not disclosed to me. 1115 I am very sorry that we have had a really good session this morning, and I am quite willing to carry on with this session, but I will ask you now because this is where I am quite surprised. I will ask you once again: have I got disclosure of everything that you are relying on during this hearing?

1120 Q181. The Chairman: Did you get a letter after the investigation was concluded?

Mr Houghton: I got a letter after the investigation was concluded, yes.

The Chairman: Okay, that is fine. 1125 Mr Houghton: No, I am sorry –

Q182. Mr Quayle: And the letter advised you that there had been no case?

1130 Mr Houghton: No, I am sorry. That is not before me today. That should have been resubmitted to me. Whatever is said in that letter – everything that Mr Robertshaw … I am sorry, it is a very strong point that I make. That is where … because I think you … and I can see where this matter is going to go, and what it will bring about is a change in the way that people are investigated when they are before the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee.

______88 TSMI-A/15-16 168 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

1135 You have referred to a document that I gave not been copied in on. Now, unless it is within this bundle that you have given me and you will have my apologies if it is, can you refer me to where you made that … because a letter that I received months ago that I have discarded – that I may have discarded and certainly not brought it to the meeting here to answer any questions … because I think the nature of the questioning, Mr Robertshaw, on this is, ‘You put a big 1140 complaint in and it only came out with the fact that these people only had minor educational functions.’ I am sorry, the reason why that investigation failed – the main reason why it failed – was the investigation officer,[IIO] , who was advised that there was a witness to this who he must see, he did not see. So that investigation was concluded without it being fully undertaken and 1145 because of that, Mr Robertshaw, the whole thing went awry and now revengeful people, not sitting before us today, have set forth on all of this matter here quite improperly – and I am referring to the Speaker in this case. He quite improperly went behind my back to the Tynwald Management Committee without informing me. I did not know until you first wrote to me that there was a complaint against me. You explained why, and I thank you for that; I am not holding 1150 you responsible for that, but all of these things have been done in a revengeful way. I would like to further state that that letter – is it 20th July …? There is only one letter that has been referred to here, of 20th July – is what I would call, Mr Robertshaw, an angry letter. It has been written in an angry way. It is not focused. It should have set out the complaints properly for you to have had a chance to look at it. 1155 You will recall earlier when I said to you, ‘You have listed a number of allegations that you have not done so far.’ The whole integrity of the way this Committee has operated right from the beginning, when it has not had a proper reason to sit. I am coming to you, because I have come under a precept – that I have challenged, but I am coming anyway. I told you I would come, because I am quite innocent of all of these matters, but 1160 what I am saying to you is that you are quoting … and I hope you have nothing further to quote in any of your considerations that I have not already seen. And I have asked you time and time, Mr Robertshaw. I am quite happy to move on now.

1165 The Chairman: That does conclude and we will move on.

Mr Houghton: Thank you very much. I do appreciate it.

Q183. The Chairman: The next question: Mr Wild has said that when he advised you of his 1170 decision to withdraw from this matter –

Mr Houghton: Can we go to the document? I am sorry. Can we go to the document that you are referring to? You may have already given it to me, but could you just reiterate what Mr Wild said? 1175 The Chairman: Just bear with me. It is alright –

Mr Houghton: I am sorry about this. It is helpful because then I can draw from that and –

1180 The Chairman: This came out in oral evidence.

Mr Houghton: In what oral evidence?

The Chairman: From Mr Wild. 1185

______89 TSMI-A/15-16 169 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Mr Houghton: Now, hang on. Has Mr Wild given oral evidence to this Committee? How come I am unaware of this?

The Chairman: A number of people have given oral evidence, of which you are one. 1190 Mr Houghton: Hang on, Mr Robertshaw, I am sorry. I am sorry. I really am sorry. I have to just ask here if the Committee can step back here.

Q184. The Chairman: Just one second, Mr … Just bear with me before we go off on a tangent. 1195 Let’s just check number 15 –

Mr Houghton: I hope you do not go off on a tangent because if we look into –

The Chairman: No, I am sure we will not. 1200 Mr Houghton: I have to say, while you are doing that, Mr Chairman, I am being very patient with the Committee, but now there are one or two things coming out of this that I am now starting to consider (The Chairman: No, I – ) as being improper. (The Chairman: Well – ) You have not – 1205 The Chairman: Mr Houghton, before you say any more, let me just please –

Mr Houghton: Yes, that is okay.

1210 Q185. The Chairman: Let me just refer you to the item on page 27. (Mr Houghton: 27.) Yes. It is number 15. In that email, he says to – (Mr Houghton: Page 27?) 27. He says, ‘We have to back off,’ so it is in front of you in your bundle –

1215 Mr Houghton: Yes, thank you.

The Chairman: Yes, so …

Mr Houghton: Yes, I have got that. Thank you. 1220 The Chairman: So you accept then you saw this?

Mr Houghton: Yes I have got that in front of me.

1225 The Chairman: That is fine. That is fine!

Mr Houghton: Why …? And I would much like to make the point, in the email that Mr Wild says, as you say, half way through that second paragraph there:

Forget my own opinions … of management style. The Clerk can manage his team in anyway he wishes. We have to back off.

That is the advice of his union and he goes on of course. 1230 Now, that letter there that he sent to me , which is fine, on 15th November, which is the date I have been saying he withdrew, at 17.50 on a Saturday night, he copied to Roger Phillips, Jonathan King, Steve Rodan and Clare Christian. Can I – and I will have to send this in to the Committee – can I arrange to send you the copy he sent to me … was not copied to all those

______90 TSMI-A/15-16 170 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

people? As far as I recall, it is the same email but it was to me and it has been blind copied to all 1235 of those names that I have just mentioned. This was a personal email to me and I have a copy of that somewhere at home. Would it benefit the Committee, or would the Committee just take my word for it?

The Chairman: We will take your word for it, Mr Houghton. 1240 Mr Houghton: Okay, so you will accept what I am saying is the fact that Mr Wild sent me a letter at ten to six, if you like, on a Saturday evening and copied it to these people as a blind copy, for want of a better word? Thanks very much. Thank you. 1245 Q186. The Chairman: Yes, we will accept that. So we then move on to the next item. Why did you continue to contact Mr Wild after he advised you in writing on 15th November – that is this email that we are talking about – that he did not wish to have any formal involvement in this matter? 1250 Mr Houghton: Now, can you show me the evidence that you are referring to on that?

The Chairman: Yes, that is the same email on page 27.

1255 Mr Houghton: The email on 27. Yes, so that was emailed:

I can do no more and will not engage in any further meetings.

The Chairman: Okay, so –

Mr Houghton: That was where he cut away from that. So you have asked me why did I carry on communicating with Mr Wild after that time? Can you show me that correspondence? Refer 1260 me to that correspondence in the bundle?

The Chairman: Just a second.

The Clerk: It is items number 20 and 21 and that is on pages 40, 41 and 42 in your bundle. 1265 Mr Houghton: Pages 40, 41, 42.

The Chairman: Do you just want to read through those quietly?

1270 Mr Houghton: Yes, thank you. I will not be a moment. Yes I am almost ready to go now. Thank you. Now your question was, sorry, why did I –?

Q187. The Chairman: I will ask you the question again so if you are clear, now you have had a 1275 chance to read pages (Mr Houghton: Thank you.) 40 to 42. Why did you continue to contact Mr Wild after he advised you in writing on the 15th that he did not wish to have any more formal involvement in the matter?

Mr Houghton: Yes, of course. Obviously, what, as you can see … which is before you there, I 1280 was looking for a copy of the signed meeting notes which was agreed that he would provide me those at the time when he was still working with me. Current position for the mediation,

______91 TSMI-A/15-16 171 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

independent interviewer situation and so on, which, if you like, was unfinished business, so I was just asking him for the information so that I can carry on doing my best to represent[member of staff A] . And, as you can see, all of these were copied direct behind my back to Mr King, Mr Phillips 1285 and Mr Rodan. So that is all and, as you can see, they are only very simple and short communications as such. If you like, the purpose of that was to take over the continuity of the work that he was doing, in order to take that forward.

Q188. The Chairman: Okay, the final question in this section is a little bit convoluted so we 1290 are going to have to find our way into this gently, I think. (Mr Houghton: Okay.) I will start it off, but before I do so I will refer you to number 22 in the bundle, which is pages 43 and 44. I hope you have got enough fingers on this one, Mr Houghton!

Mr Houghton: Yes, I know! 43 and 44, yes. 1295 The Chairman: At number 19, which is … have you got –?

Mr Houghton: On 39? Yes.

1300 The Chairman: Finally, you will be pleased to hear, number 18, which is pages 36 and 38. (Mr Houghton: 36 and 38.) Can I leave you for a couple of minutes just to familiarise yourself with those three?

Mr Houghton: Okay. 1305 The Chairman: And I am happy for you to read them again once I have asked the question.

Mr Houghton: Yes, that is fine. Thank you. (The Chairman: Okay.) Just give me a couple of minutes. 1310 The Chairman: It might help if I read the question and then you could refer back.

Mr Houghton: Yes, I am nearly there, Mr Robertshaw. Just two seconds.

1315 The Chairman: No problem.

Mr Houghton: Yes, fine. Thank you very much.

Q189. The Chairman: Right, let’s have a shot at doing it. 1320 Why did you feel that you needed to write that you would make a formal complaint about the Deputy Clerk in your letter of 1st December – that is number 22 in your bundle – (Mr Houghton: Yes, yes.) when he had explained in his letter of 25th November – that is the number 19 – (Mr Houghton: 19, yes.) why he was unable to provide the information you requested in your letter of 20th November – that is the number 18 one? 1325 So I will ask the question again. Why did you feel that you needed to write that you would make a formal complaint about the Deputy Clerk in your letter (Mr Houghton: Yes.) of 1st December, when he had explained in his letter of 25th November why he was unable to provide the information you requested in your letter of 20th November?

1330 Mr Houghton: Yes, this is quite the nub of the issue as far as whether it was appropriate or not. And if I can give you the story so you have got a full understanding of it. Whether it was appropriate or otherwise for a Member of Tynwald to represent a Tynwald staff member, if I can do that.

______92 TSMI-A/15-16 172 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Now, I have represented over a number of years that I have been here – before your time 1335 even – a number of staff members who have been bullied by management on a number of occasions. On one such occasion that I had with a member of staff, looking after a member of staff – because I am afraid that is what I do, Mr Robertshaw, I look after people and I look after the little[person] , if you do not mind me putting it in that way – and it culminated in a meeting in the Speaker’s office, with the Speaker and Mr Phillips, and Mr Phillips lost the battle and the charges 1340 against the member of staff were dropped. And that was three to four years ago. I can be more clear in that if you want that information. And as a result of that – and that was in around about 2012 – the Tynwald Management Committee took it upon themselves to make a decision to debar Members of Tynwald from representing Tynwald staff. They took it upon that ... But before they could do so – obviously 1345 because it is a change in employment matters in the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office staff handbook, which has all the rules of engagement of disciplinary procedures and who may represent them etc. – because there had to be a change in that staff handbook, the draft change, worded appropriately debarring Members of Tynwald, had then to go out to consultation, which I am sure you would be agreeable that it had to happen, and be consulted upon with the staff unions 1350 etc. before returning back in the appropriate wording for the Tynwald Management Committee to then formally approve, which would go into the staff handbook. I liken this, I analogise this, with Mr Quayle’s £50 million Enterprise Fund. He came to Tynwald some time ago about the £50 million; they said, ‘Yes, what a good idea. Let’s look into it.’ In July this year the proposal came back, ‘Look, is Tynwald still in agreement that an 1355 Enterprise Fund should go ahead? If so, and Tynwald approves it, we will bring all the terms of reference, the small print, back in the following October – which was October – so we can approve an order that states that money could be spent in that way.’ So what I am analogising here is the Tynwald Management Committee made that decision in a similar way to Tynwald with the Enterprise Fund in July, meaning, ‘Yes, we give you leave to 1360 come back with those differences – those changes. Go out and do all your work and your consultation and come back with the appropriate worded change after consultation and everything else for formal approval.’ Because of course it is the only way any proper organisation does it. So Tynwald does it. It always gives an indication that, ‘Look, we are looking at doing this,’ then it comes back later with an order properly written. 1365 In this case it is exactly the same. The Tynwald Management wished to do that, but before they could do it they needed consultation, the appropriate wording referred back to them to formally approve that wording that had been consulted and agreed by the staff unions etc. Now, that document was only ever in draft at the time this matter was developing. It was only ever in draft. It was not approved. I do not even think – but I stand corrected on that point 1370 – it had actually gone before the unions for consultation, but it certainly had not completed its trip back with the change of wording for the formal approving that that wording is now set in stone in the Tynwald staff members’ handbook. So the argument that was going on in this case here was I was saying ‘I can’ and I still believe I could at that time. I am sure the handbook has changed now, but it was during the time that I [member of staff A] 1375 still had a right to represent . was frightened![they were] frightened about [their] job and[they were] frightened about the intimidation and bullying against[them] by these [other staff] . And [they were] very frightened with Mr King! So a lot of the text of this matter is where I am seeking information and so on. Can I just ...? I do not want to pre-empt one of your questions, Mr Robertshaw, but I think it is just perhaps 1380 appropriate and it will help you with your questions on this ... whereas if then, because Mr King would not engage with me as[MSA] ’s representative, but then I was after all of this information which is set out in this letter, which of course obviously I had[MSA] ’s permission to get, because some of it was personal, as you can imagine. Even though, let’s just say for one moment that the staff handbook was up to date and in it, 1385 it had been an approved document that Tynwald Members were debarred – let’s just assume

______93 TSMI-A/15-16 173 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

that – I can still ask, with[MSA] ’s permission – I still can lawfully ask – and obtain information, even though I was not representing[them] . Now, that is a point of law. I hope it is helpful.

1390 Q190. The Chairman: Thank you. I would seek one point of clarification on this. At the outset it was clear from the evidence we have seen that[member of staff A] did not wish representations to happen on[their] behalf. At what stage did that position change?

1395 Mr Houghton: It changed as they were moving – ‘they’, the management – were moving in against[them] . Jonathan King was writing to[them] on a two or three times-a-week basis, after getting … to get under interview for a disciplinary that[they] should not have faced. So it built up as time went along, Mr Chairman. As the matter developed, then so did this.

[their] 1400 Q191. The Chairman: At what stage did[they] change position and decide that[they] wanted you to represent ?

Mr Houghton: No, the position was that I was going to represent[member of staff A] really from day one, from – 1405 Q192. The Chairman: Even though[they] had said to you that did not want you –

Mr Houghton: No, what said is did not want to make any complaint and had not made any complaint. That is what said. 1410 The Chairman: Thank you. That is actually concludes our questions in that section and we are onto the final section now, unless there is any –? Mr Quirk.

1415 Q193. Mr Quirk: Can I just ask, Mr Houghton, just on page 43, (Mr Houghton: Yes.) when you wrote to Jonathan King, the Clerk, (Mr Houghton: Yes.) the second paragraph down it says – and not wanting to put words into your mouth – I wonder what was behind it: ‘I require you therefore to produce this before 3rd December’?

1420 Mr Houghton: Right, yes. What it is, David, is:

I require you, therefore, to produce to me before the 3rd December next, the information and documentation ...

because I was getting nowhere with him and time was going along, and[MSA] was becoming more and more ill. And if I may it, just at this juncture, David, around about this time you took a part in this matter. Do you recall that? You personally took a part – to your credit. (Mr Quirk: 2012?) 1425 Around about this time.

Mr Quirk: This is 2014?

Mr Houghton: No, no, no. Around about this time – I do not know exactly when – you took a 1430 part in this matter. Do you recall that?

Q194. Mr Quirk: No. If you are talking about 2014, (Mr Houghton: Can I refresh –?) I would probably need a date.

______94 TSMI-A/15-16 174 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

1435 Mr Houghton: David, I know and I can do that. What I am saying to you, to your credit, you actually took a part in this matter because I think you found[MSA] . and you took a part in this matter, where you contacted the unions –and I will just quote, Mr Quirk, from what[member of staff A] is saying here in[their] statement – was that Mr Quirk will recall that he had occasion to contact the union when he learnt that 1440 [MSA] was being interrogated by Mr King (Mr Quirk: No.) and you, Mr Quirk, asked the union to send an experienced representative as – and these are your words – ‘Mr King was an unpleasant man and that you did not trust him to treat[MSA] fairly.’

Mr Quirk: Can I, through you Chair, because it is an allegation back to me –? 1445 Mr Houghton: No it is not an allegation. I am just saying do you recall all this yourself?

Q195. Mr Quirk: No, sorry, Mr Houghton, but you are quoting it to us, so therefore can you provide us with some documentation to the Chair, because I do not remember actually doing 1450 that.

Mr Houghton: Yes. Right, afterwards, when –

Mr Quirk: Sorry, Mr Houghton, if you are saying that directly to me – 1455 Mr Houghton: Yes, I am.

Mr Quirk: – in front of the Committee members of the Tynwald Management Committee, (Mr Houghton: Yes.) I do not remember doing that at all 1460 Mr Houghton: This is where, Mr Robertshaw, we would have benefited from[member of staff A] ’s evidence, and then of course[they] would have been able to remind Mr Quirk when it happened. I can actually remember it happening, David, actually. I recall it happening. But this is a quotation from the statement that[member of staff A] made, and would help you remember. 1465 Because you were furious. You were furious with what was going on.[they] briefed you. You have probably forgotten, it is a long time ago, but would be able to remind you of the times.

Mr Quirk: Not 2012 or 14.

1470 Mr Houghton: No, no, I am talking about 2014, last year, (Mr Quirk: No.) during all of this. Well, that is a matter for you, but you can communicate with[member of staff A] on that. But [they] would have been able to put things right for you, Mr Chairman, on that.

Q196. The Chairman: You refer there to the union. Is there some written evidence to support 1475 your statement here?

Mr Houghton: You need to ask[member of staff A] about this. This is[member of staff A] ’s evidence. This is part of[their] statement and would have clarified anything that you wished.

1480 The Chairman: Well, we will come to that in the latter part of this.

Mr Houghton: Please do, yes. Because I am asking if I can read the whole statement out, and it is important, because[member of staff A] would have been able to remind Mr Quirk where he stepped in and helped[them] on that occasion, to his credit. 1485 The Chairman: Do you want to say anything else at this stage?

______95 TSMI-A/15-16 175 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Q197. Mr Quirk: No, no, it is just that I wish to put on record really, I do not remember the conversation and I am sure, if there was any reference to that, it would be back from [the union] itself, . Honestly – 1490 Mr Houghton: That is why I have brought[member of staff A] ’s –

Mr Quirk: Sorry, Mr Houghton, but if you are saying something to me, and we are saying something back, the best thing to do is put it into some sort of evidence. If you have got a date 1495 and time, I am happy to let the Committee investigate that.

Mr Houghton: Mr Quirk,[member of staff A] has got the evidence and this is[their] statement. So[they] , had[they] been here last week and been able to …[they] would have clarified everything for you right across the table here now today. That is unfortunate that it is not, but when you are asking [member of staff A] 1500 a relative question like you have, you actually took a part, to your credit, in helping . You cannot deny it, David.

Q198. Mr Quirk: No, no, what I am saying to you, through the Chair actually, is your letter, and making a reference to the letter. That is all it is. 1505 Mr Houghton: But this was at the time when you were involved. That is what I am trying to say. You were also, to your credit, you were involved in assisting[member of staff A] . And you were. I remember discussing – I cannot remember the words and so on – but you were, because you heard and saw all of this going on in the room. 1510 Mr Quayle was likely aware of it, but he did not take any part. You did.

Q199. Mr Quirk: Just getting back to the inquiry, Chairman, I just ask Mr Houghton, on the same letter, what I was asking for is: I wonder why on page 44 at the back there – 1515 Mr Houghton: Page 44, yes.

Mr Quirk: – you say, ‘Take Notice’. I just wonder what your view was on ‘Take Notice’?

1520 Mr Houghton: Yes, because I was not getting anywhere with them, they were not providing me with the information, and was getting more and more upset about the fact that[they had] an impending disciplinary challenge against[their] integrity, there were a number of Members starting to get involved – and that is why I am saying you were too. And in my case here, where was I asking for this information that was not forthcoming, because had it, they 1525 would have given me in the case of the draft change in the handbook, it would then have meant that I could have then appropriately represented[MSA] – appropriately represented[them] , and that would have saved you having to go down to the union to do it. That would have saved you. You were in the conversation, David, because we were saying, ‘Look, I can’t get any sense out of management, they won’t play ball with me. I am doing my best to write and represent [member of staff A] 1530 .’ I was discussing with you, and then you discussed with[MSA] and said, ‘Oh, I’m going to do something about it, I’m sick of this’, and what I have just quoted is what [MSA] is quoting about you helping[them] .

Mr Quirk: Well, I would like to see some evidence. 1535 Mr Houghton: And thank you for that.

The Chairman: Thank you, I think we can close that for the moment.

______96 TSMI-A/15-16 176 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Mr Houghton: Thank you. 1540 Q200. The Chairman: So that actually concludes that section, and we go over to the next section, which is –

Mr Houghton: How many more sections have you got, Mr Robertshaw? 1545 The Chairman: Not long to go, no –

Mr Houghton: No, I am here for as long as it takes – but you only mentioned four sections to me, and you seem to be going into more than that. 1550 Mr Quirk: Parts.

The Chairman: No, parts of sections.

1555 Mr Houghton: Well, are we in section 3 now, or section 4?

The Chairman: We are now at the element marked ‘Unwarranted interference in staff matters’ after –

1560 Mr Houghton: Section 3.

The Chairman: After 3rd November.

Mr Houghton: You are at section 3 – 1565 Mr Quirk: Fifth. (Interjections)

Q201. The Chairman: After 5th November. I do apologise. The 5th November. So, in the following questions, we will consider the allegation that you ‘engaged in personal [their] 1570 advocacy on behalf of one member of staff against senior managers, against my direct advice’ – that is the advice of the Speaker. That is what we are on now. (Mr Houghton: Yes.) In considering this allegation, the Committee felt that you and Mr Wild were not wrong to bring your concerns for a member of staff to the attention of the Clerk –

1575 Mr Houghton: Thank you.

The Chairman: – and that until the letters of 5th November 2014 from the Speaker – that is at number 4 and which is –

1580 Mr Houghton: We have looked at that, haven’t we?

The Chairman: –pages 8 and 9.

Mr Houghton: Pages 8 and 9. 1585 Yes, a letter to me and the same letter to Mr Wild.

Q202. The Chairman: Okay, so, you would not necessarily have been aware that continued involvement was inappropriate. It is noted that after this date, Mr Wild sought the permission of the Speaker to be interviewed as part of the investigation then being conducted by the Deputy 1590 Clerk into a related capability matter, which was given.

______97 TSMI-A/15-16 177 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

The Committee are not aware that you sought advice or permission from the Speaker regarding your continued involvement.

Mr Houghton: After 5th November is what you’re asking? 1595 The Chairman: After the 5th. We are not concerned about matters before that.

Mr Houghton: Yes, fine, so if I can go to the relevant section in my submission so that –

1600 The Chairman: Yes, by all means.

Mr Houghton: Right, section 17, I think that we are going to, Mr Robertshaw, aren’t we? Section 17, where you had set out about the unwarranted interference that we have covered a lot of, and the ‘engaged in personal on behalf’. 1605 Now, from section 17 there –

The Chairman: Are you – ?

Mr Houghton: I am ready to go, just bearing in mind that we are dealing with section 17, 1610 mainly on page 12

The Chairman: If you want to stop again and re-read, by all means.

Mr Houghton: No, that’s okay, thank you. 1615 Q203. The Chairman: Can you tell us, when you received the letter of 5th November from Mr Speaker – that is that number 4 in your pack – ?

Mr Houghton: Probably on the 6th or 7th November, depending on reasonably within two 1620 days, three days.

Q204. The Chairman: Thank you. Can you tell us what you thought or did after you received the letter of 5th November from Mr Speaker?

1625 Mr Houghton: Right, that letter from Mr Speaker was … All he was doing was advising. It was only advice. It was not an instruction. He did not say, ‘I instruct you to withdraw.’ He is saying, ‘I advise you’. That was all he was doing, was giving the benefit of his advice. On section 17, I think I am explaining the issue:

… the Speaker’s letter to me dated 5th November (page 9 of the bundle) he states any continued involvement in this case by a Member of Tynwald is inappropriate.

This was purely advice given by the Speaker, and what I say in my submission – and I stand by 1630 what I am saying here – it was advice. He was trying to advise me to back off, but I was representing a[person] who was frightened – frightened of[their] job and frightened of being intimidated – and I was not likely to back off in that regard, if I was not going against any rules or regulations. Obviously, we can only do what we do lawfully. So, he was purely giving advice, which he is entitled to have his opinion – but so am I. And 1635 then I continued. I noted what he said, and I continued.

The Chairman: Thank you, that is very –

______98 TSMI-A/15-16 178 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Mr Houghton: And I would continue today. If that[person] over there was looking for help – or [person] 1640 this over here was looking for any assistance from me – I am just like that, Mr Robertshaw. I defend a lot of people in lots of ways who have been downtrodden. It is our job to do that, and without being suitably satisfied that Mr Speaker would say, ‘Look, we’ll drop all of this, you can back off, Mr Houghton’ and all the rest of it … All he was saying is: ‘Get out of the way while the army bashes on and crushes that person’ – and I am absolutely disgusted that he allowed it to … [member of staff A] 1645 that he continued to allow a proper person to be crushed in the way that was.

The Chairman: I will skip my next question, because I think you have already answered it!

Mr Houghton: Yes, oh, thank you. 1650 Q205. The Chairman: Did you discuss your continued involvement with Mr Wild on 12th November? And what did you say, if you did?

Mr Houghton: Yes, if I can say, I discussed … Obviously, we both discussed our letters with Mr 1655 Speaker … I am sorry, we both discussed our letters from Mr Speaker – myself and Mr Wild – because as you can see, we had a letter apiece there. And as you can see, unbeknown to me, Mr Wild had run off – and it is the earliest time I can see in the timeline that has been provided in the bundle that Mr Wild started running, as I say – to the other side, behind my back and trying to see if he could get them to put together some letter from a Standards Committee – you have 1660 read it in the timeline, you know what I am referring to – in order for him to then bring that to [MSA] and say, ‘They’ve told me,[MSA] , I can’t help you any more.’ God, that was pathetic! His discussion with me is: ‘we have got to keep on looking after[MSA] – please carry on, Mr Houghton.’ And we had discussed it, to carry on, because we had looked at it, and said, ‘That’s the advice of the Speaker, but it is only advice.’ It was not an instruction from the Speaker to 1665 say, ‘If you continue to do this, you will be sent to Castle Rushen’.

Q206. The Chairman: Okay, well, you have answered my next question –

Mr Houghton: Oh, thank you, thank you. 1670 The Chairman: – but I will ask it anyway, for clarity, in his email to you of 15th November – that is number 15 in your bundle, which is pages 27 and 28, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Number 15, pages 27 and 28. Yes, yes. 1675 The Chairman: Tell me when you are ready.

Mr Houghton: Yes, got that, go ahead. We have been to that one.

1680 The Chairman: Right, Mr Wild says:

I have taken professional advice and I will follow Mr Speaker’s instructions. … We have to back off. That is the advice of my Union …

Did this have any effect at all on your involvement in the matter?

Mr Houghton: On my involvement? (The Chairman: Yes.) None whatsoever.

1685 The Chairman: Okay, I think we have –

______99 TSMI-A/15-16 179 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Mr Houghton: Other than the fact that Mr Wild … That letter was dated 5th November, and we know what Mr Wild was doing behind the scenes – we are quite aware of that, I am sure the Committee have noted that, I do not need to spell that out any more than that – but when he 1690 had written this letter here, and I have mentioned this already, he had sent me this as a personal email on the Saturday evening, 15th November at 10 minutes to six. Of course I only got it on the Monday – as you know, I only receive my emails of over the weekend on the following Monday. But he blind-copied this to everybody else, to show what a good little boy he was. But that 1695 was some 10 days later, Mr Chairman, as you know. It is not really correlated with Mr Speaker’s, because it was 10 days. Mr Wild had signed two letters: one was the withdrawal letter, if we can call it that, where he drafted it and signed it – we have dealt with that in the earlier evidence; and the other letter, I think it was dated the 12th, that you have majored on earlier as well. He signed both of those and he was fully engaged in battle, as far as his discussion with myself and 1700 [MSA] was concerned.

Q207. The Chairman: Okay. Next questions – three more in this part of the section. In the letter from you and Mr Wild dated 10th November – that is number 6, pages 11 and 12 – 1705 Mr Houghton: Pages 11 and 12. Yes.

The Chairman: Can I continue?

1710 Mr Houghton: Yes, please do.

The Chairman: You wrote, ‘The staff member has made it acutely clear all along that they did not wish us to approach you at any time.’

1715 Mr Houghton: Can you just take me to what paragraph that is, on page 11? I have numbered the paragraphs for you.

The Chairman: Can anybody help me find that particular phrase?

1720 The Clerk: Yes – top of page 12.

Mr Houghton: Top of page 12:

[MSA] has made it acutely clear all along that[they] did NOT wish us to approach you at any time.

Mr Houghton: I have got that now, Mr Chairman.

1725 The Chairman: Have you got it?

Mr Houghton: Yes:

[MSA] has made it acutely clear all along that did NOT wish us to approach you at any time.

Q208. The Chairman: Okay, fine. And knowing the advice received from Mr Speaker, why did you then accept an email from the staff member – that is number 18 in your bundle – 1730 authorising you to represent them or obtain information on their behalf, pertaining to their employment – ?

Mr Houghton: Can you just go to that … ?

______100 TSMI-A/15-16 180 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

The Clerk: Pages 36 to 38. 1735 Mr Houghton: Pages 36 to 38. Yes – ‘hereby authorise’ – yes, got that.[they had] authorised me to act on[their] behalf. Yes, how can I help now, Mr Chairman?

1740 Q209. The Chairman: So why did you accept that email from the staff member?

Mr Houghton: Well, if you first look at it, from the letter where ‘[MSA] made it acutely clear [they] did not wish us to approach you at any time’ – that is dealing with a historic matter, which was of course the fact that we were saying to Mr Phillips, when we went to see him on 30th 1745 October … There was only ever one meeting we had with Mr Phillips, 30th October: ‘there is a [person] in distress, please help[them] ’, and he said, ‘Yes, I will go and see[them] and see what we can do’ – not all of this or that. That was 10th November there, where we were quoting, ‘[MSA] made it acutely clear that did not wish us to approach you at any time.’ That was quite correct there, and that was dated 1750 10th November, signed by both of us. You are referring now to the email dated 20th November, when of course,[MSA] has authorised me to represent , because obviously matters had moved on considerably. [MSA] was in severe distress – severe distress – and around about that time, obviously I could not start communicating with Mr King without an authorisation from[MSA] . So that was the purpose 1755 of gaining that. If you don’t mind me saying, the wheel was well off now. There was action against . They were looking to crush that tiny individual. There was machinery in place – I could feel it, I could see it and so, what I was doing was putting obviously the documentation into order there, to properly represent[them] . 1760 The Chairman: That is very clear, thank you Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Thank you very much.

1765 Q210. The Chairman: Here we now refer to Item 22, which is pages 43 and 44 in your bundle. (Mr Houghton: Yes.) And it is a letter from yourself to the Deputy Clerk.

Mr Houghton: The one we have already dealt with, yes. We dealt with this –

1770 The Chairman: I will ask you the question, and you can refer back to the letter if you feel you wish to. In your letter of 1st December, at number 22 in your bundle, you stated that – and here I quote from the letter:

any employee has an absolute right in law to authorise anyone to obtain documents or information on their behalf in connection with any matter concerning their employment.

You recall that? (Mr Houghton: Yes.) What is the law which gives you this right, Mr 1775 Houghton?

Mr Houghton: I have actually referred to this earlier. I referred clearly to this earlier. I will have to provide that – I can provide that on to the Committee, if the Committee wishes it, but I dealt with all of that earlier – that whole subject matter – insofar as the obtaining of 1780 documents. If you recall, what I was saying was: you do not have to represent someone – obviously the person whose data it is, in this case[member of staff A] – because the Tynwald

______101 TSMI-A/15-16 181 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

management would not allow me to go into an interview with[member of staff A] and properly represent[them] , which is what all of this is about, that quite separately does not deter them – and I think perhaps it may be appropriate for you to get your own legal advice and if it disagrees, 1785 come back and check with me and we can clear that point. But what I am stating is there is a lawful right to be able to obtain documents, even though you may not be representing someone, as long as you have that person's permission. So what I was doing was, because – and things were developing, they were developing quite quickly – I had to obtain certain documents from them, to see what all of this was about, and 1790 where it had come from and so on, in order to scope the situation appropriately. The answer to your question – and I have already answered this to the Committee – is the fact that even if you cannot represent someone, you can still, with their approval, obtain documents. In fact, Mr Robertshaw, you are actually doing this now, in the action you are taking with the 1795 Arts Council. You are looking to obtain documents, which you have a right to have, if in this case there are public documents. If those documents that you are trying to do with the Arts Council, with your matter there was a case for a private person, as long as that private individual said, ‘Dear Mr Robertshaw, I authorise you to get that documentation’, you are then lawfully able to do that. Because the documents, of course, relate to data, and of course you can have data 1800 disclosure on any documents anywhere, as long as in your case you have got the third party’s permission so to do.

Q211. The Chairman: So are you referring to the Access Code to Information, then, is that what you are saying? 1805 Mr Houghton: No, no, I am just saying it is just a right. It is a right that you have. And if you have a problem with that – just advising you – if you have a problem with that, and you want clarification, please come into writing with me, and I will provide you with the sound advice on that, if you have not already obtained it from outside Tynwald – which is where you 1810 must get your advice from, of course.

Q212. The Chairman: Final question on this section: are you aware that on 23rd December 2014, Mr Wild received a text from a member of staff saying, ‘If only you had stuck with JH’? Are aware of that? 1815 Mr Houghton: I am aware of that from the bundle – from the information that I have received. And what I am aware of too, of course, from the bundle of course … If I can step back, because I was aware that[MSA] … Mr Wild was in the lead in most of all of this, and still he started running away. Now, Mr Wild and[MSA] were talking to each other on 1820 text. They were texting each other during times, to do whatever – and I am not aware of those texts, but they were texting each other. Mr Wild spoke an awful lot to[MSA] without my knowledge – which is fine, Mr Quirk does, everybody does. But in the case of this, I am fully aware of this, having read it and seen it in the timeline of the bundle of course – that[MSA] sent that out of[their] own volition of course – and what I was not 1825 aware was that Mr Wild obviously has not answered it, responded to it, but he has reported it to headquarters. He has gone and sent it in, and those downstairs have recorded that against[MSA] . Isn’t that a disgrace!

Q213. The Chairman: That rhetorical question closes that section – part of the section. 1830 So we turn now, finally, to the resignation of the Third Clerk. (Mr Houghton: Yes.) In the following questions, we will consider the resignation letter of the Third Clerk, Mrs Marie Lambden – that is number 32 and is on pages 74 to 75 in your bundle – 74 to 75. I will leave you to get that one.

______102 TSMI-A/15-16 182 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

Mr Houghton: And I refer to section 8 of my submission, set out on page 5 of my 1835 submission – that the Committee will have read.

The Chairman: Yes, but are you content that I now ask you a question?

Mr Houghton: Yes, go ahead. 1840 The Chairman: You will have seen the resignation letter from Mrs Lambden.

Mr Houghton: Yes, I was surprised to see that letter – very surprised, yes.

1845 Q214. The Chairman: Were you aware that your involvement in this matter had contributed to her decision to resign?

Mr Houghton: No, I was not aware of that at all. I had no knowledge whatsoever. I think I have said all I can possibly say in that section about this matter. It came as an absolute surprise 1850 and a shock to me, and I had no knowledge about it, but I think your Clerk might have had knowledge, because the Clerk and Mrs Lambden are very close friends, aren’t you, and meet and have lunch an awful lot? I have seen you out having lunch, so you would be aware of this. The fact is that she never made me aware. I reiterate that I have never spoken to Mrs Lambden at all about this matter – not at all, in any way shape or form. And in that, I completely 1855 deny – and you can tell your friend this when you see her – that I completely deny any allegation that I had anything to do with Mrs Lambden’s resignation. Let me put things in a different context for you, Mr Robertshaw, in this particular case. I have always treated that lady very, very fairly. I have helped her in the past. I have set that out in my submission. I went to school with her husband. I know the lady well. Nothing but pleasantries 1860 exchanged, even during all of this time, with that lady. Not once have I done that – when we went, Mr Wild and myself, went to see Mr Phillips at the start, it was Mr Wild who had stated that Mrs Lambden had been bullied. Mr Wild stated that, not me. And because[MSA] did not want to take this any further, had Mr Phillips done some TLC – and I think we all know what I mean by that: dealt with this in a professional manner 1865 – Mrs Lambden and[MSB] should never, ever have been brought into this. Mr Phillips brought that lady into this. Here I now just point out to a collusion in this matter. If you just turn to a page or two, where Mrs Lambden has obviously believed everything she has been told by Messrs Phillips and King – and if I can just refer the Committee to pages 8 and 9 of the submission. 1870 Oh, I am sorry, I am doing the same now – I do apologise. Pages 63 and 65 – I do apologise, I am getting my numbers crossed now. Yes, beginning on page 63. I would ask you to just view this – this is in the context of that lady who was involved in something that I knew nothing about. Now, this is a confidential memorandum that has been submitted to the Tynwald Management Committee. Now, just look 1875 at this: dated 23rd February – ‘Investigation into staff matters, conduct of Mr Houghton’ – from the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk, and the Third Clerk of Tynwald. All of these three conspired together to say what they said in that three-page document. It also says rubbish like, ‘Mr Wild has told the Clerk that he feels bullied by Mr Houghton.’ Well, where is the complaint in it? Who wrote which section? 1880 This matter, Mr Robertshaw, once this Standards Committee matter is over, will be subject of a further investigation, where I am afraid Mrs Lambden will have to come back and give evidence to a proper thing, and be allowed to be cross-examined because if I had done something wrong against that lady, I would be the first to go and apologise to her. I thought the world of her. And I do not think that she had any reason or right to blame me and resign her

______103 TSMI-A/15-16 183 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

1885 post, because of me. Never spoken to the lady, never harmed her once, never communicated other than pleasantries in passing. Not ever. So who has poisoned that lady's mind for her to conspire with those others to write this memorandum that was accepted by the Tynwald Management Committee? Why it was accepted, I do not know, because that document, Mr Robertshaw, in itself was improper. If 1890 there is an investigation into someone, they should not be writing about the person who has made the complaint until the matter is over. This investigation against me was only begun after the conclusion of the investigations into the two complaints. Now, that is correct – only that the Speaker forgot to send me a letter to tell me what he was doing. We have covered that in an earlier part of my submission. 1895 Now, on 23rd February 2015, two of these gentlemen were under investigation. They had already – it is in the timeline – been informed that there was an investigation into those two. Yet, they conspired with Marie Lambden to put this document together here to colour the judgement of the Tynwald Management Committee on that time. Had they had an ounce of common sense, any of those three, they would have withheld this until the complaint against 1900 Messrs Phillips and King was concluded, and then they make then their subsequent complaint here. So they have written all of this – it is all from these three, and these three will have to answer to this document, at some point in the future, and I do not think it will do poor old Mrs Lambden’s health any good, because you know, Jo, that she does suffer from ill health, that 1905 poor lady, and she has been dragged into a thing here, where she will have to be cross-examined and asked, ‘Which sections did you put in here, Mrs Lambden? What were you doing, colluding with these other two parties to poison that Committee against Mr Houghton?’ They had no right to do that. If Mr Wild feels bullied by Mr Houghton, that is for Mr Wild to make a formal complaint. Have 1910 you got, Mr Robertshaw, a formal letter of complaint from Mr Wild, setting out where and when he felt bullied – not was bullied; felt bullied? Have you got such a complaint?

The Chairman: If there was one, then you would have it before you.

1915 Mr Houghton: I am sure I would, and I thank you for that. I do thank you for that. But it makes the point clear. That whole thing at 12 there – that simple line in itself – shows me, from three so-called legal people – two legal people anyway – Do you have legal qualifications, Jo?

1920 The Chairman: We will leave that, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: No, I am just asking the Third Clerk –

The Chairman: No, no, Mr Houghton – 1925 Mr Quayle: This is not an investigation of our Clerk.

Mr Houghton: The point I am saying, gentlemen, is this: Mrs Lambden, unfortunately the way I see it, because she has been party to all the goings-on – ‘and that rotten[member of staff A] should 1930 be sent to Coventry immediately, and all that, and Houghton is in the way – we have got rid of Wild now, but Houghton is in the way’ and all the rest of it – I think is an absolute disgrace. It is a disgrace. But when these formal complaints had been levied appropriately, as we dealt with earlier, against the Clerk of Tynwald and the Deputy Clerk of Tynwald, Mrs Lambden who had nothing to 1935 do with this anyway, should have been kept out of it. Why did they bring her in with this? To muddy the waters? I think it is a downright disgrace.

______104 TSMI-A/15-16 184 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

And I ask you, Mr Robertshaw, to carefully read in between the lines of all this and how their collusion has caused Mrs Lambden to believe that I am the big bad wolf in the place, when I would be the first one to help that lady – and I was the first one to help that lady on an 1940 unrelated matter some time in the past. So, I am sorry, I wholly – and I cannot put it any stronger than the way I am putting it – my actions did not precipitate the resignation of a member of staff. They did wholly not. The actions of Mr Phillips and Mr … (The Chairman: King.) King, thank you – Mr King – they precipitated this by coercing that poor lady to thinking that I was against her and all that. 1945 All we did was went to see Mr Phillips, carefully advise him that things were not all well upstairs. ‘Please do something about it, but[MSA] is not making a complaint’ – and it comes to all of this to suit Mr Phillips. Because Mr Phillips twists things, and the sooner this Court understands that Mr Phillips twists things to suit himself ... This is a clear example: all of this. All of this. 1950 But I am not frightened to say so, Mr Robertshaw – and do you know what? I think I have got an equal with you. You speak your mind when you do, and I think you would too. People of integrity do not do what has happened here, and cause this. That lady should still have been here, and that is that. Although, I have to say, Mrs Lambden always looked to get out of here. She never liked working in Tynwald. Her friend will tell you this. It was timely that she left just at 1955 the time when Joann arrived here. It was timely.

The Chairman: Well, Mr Houghton, thank you very much for what has undoubtedly been a most fulsome answer. Thank you for that.

1960 Mr Houghton: Well, I have to say, and I do apologise to the Committee and I thank you for your patience while I answer some of these questions because they are very important. They are very important, and I do hope the Committee will trust what I am saying is right, because I have got integrity. If nothing else, I, like you, have integrity in this matter.

1965 The Chairman: We come then to our last question, you will be pleased to hear, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Thank you.

Q215. The Chairman: In our letter dated 29th October, advising you of these allegations and 1970 decision to investigate, we wrote:

You will be invited to give evidence in due course and in the meantime, the Committee would suggest that it would be very inappropriate for you to discuss this matter with any of the parties involved.

Mr Houghton: Yes, can you just … ? Yes, go ahead, sorry.

The Chairman: The question is a simple one. The Committee is surprised therefore that you discussed this with[MSA] . Do you want to make any comment on that? 1975 Mr Houghton: Yes, I most certainly do. The people that … I read that letter and I have accorded to that, and so on of course. I have not discussed anything with the Committee. The people involved are the management, yourselves who are examining this matter and so on. 1980 [MSA] is my witness in this. That is why – and I have made no bones, of course I have liaised with[MSA] on all of this matter. Because the last investigation fell over because of Mr Wild changing his story, and because the investigating officer of those two complaints did not bother to go and see[MSA] and gain clarification – because of those two matters – then

______105 TSMI-A/15-16 185 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

it was only right and proper that I inform you that I have a witness, and that witness – if you see 1985 what I mean – was the person I was representing. So my answer to you, Mr Robertshaw, is I was quite happy to not discuss anything with obviously those people who were like yourselves, who should not be contacted; but most certainly it is for me – because remember, I am back on trial. I am on trial in this matter, so it was for me to bring witnesses, independent of those people who you were really talking about 1990 in that letter to me, in order to give you the opportunity of having a full examination of this.

Q216. The Chairman: Thank you. That brings us on – that closes our formal questions – to the penultimate matter and that is, what points would you like to submit to the Committee which you believe would encourage us 1995 to consider that it was appropriate that[MSA] was called as a witness? Could you stipulate those specific points?

Mr Houghton: Yes, the stipulation of that is this, and it is right at the heart or the seat of the matter, which I hope I have done some justice to in the correspondence that we have had 2000 before this day. The way this Committee is operating is as if you are Select Committee – like in the mode of a Select Committee. The Tynwald Standards Committee is a disciplinary committee. You are going to make – you will have to make – you will either decide or otherwise, you have made that clear – you have the ability to make a report to Tynwald about this matter and deliver that 2005 report to Tynwald. Tynwald gives the sanction that you would recommend, of course, in that regard. So that is the way the Committee is set up. Where there has been absolutely no thought in this – and I really am shocked at a person like yourself, Mr Robertshaw, with the integrity you have, because I know if I was sitting in your seat, I would not have run an inquiry like this, in this way, in the way that you have. 2010 I have sent you something that I think that was one of the most appropriate methods, which was that of the Civil Service disciplinary procedure, whereby you have a whole-day hearing or longer if that is necessary, whereby the person who is accused sits through the whole of the case – like in a court or like in a disciplinary hearing with the Civil Service and any other Employment Act disciplinary circumstances with any other company in the Isle of Man. 2015 Then, if I can use it in this way, there is a prosecutor – someone puts the case against the accused person. You as the Committee hear the case, ask any questions that you may wish for clarification and fact. The prosecution side puts the case and proper charges – because remember, we have been surprised here where there have not even been a proper list of allegations that you were to provide me with before we begin in order for me to prepare. We 2020 have covered that point, but I am just covering it again. The precept was not even right. I am saying that, and therefore when it comes to trial, the prosecutor puts the case. He calls however many appropriate witnesses as he sees fit. The defence – because if this was a very serious matter, I would have come here today represented. So then, either you are represented or you represent yourself, that is fine – in this case, I have 2025 represented myself. I would wish then to be able to cross-examine all those witnesses, as well as you. So I could do it on the defence side, and of course the Committee could do it, because you are the adjudicators in this matter. From that, the matter goes then to the witness giving his evidence. Anybody calling the accused, bringing his witness to give evidence, and the ability for that witness to be cross- 2030 examined by, could I call it, the prosecutor in front of you and both sides, for clarification and fact. Then the opportunity after that then, for both sides to sum up and any further clarification required at that time from you three gentlemen. That has not happened at all. And you know, that the way that you have operated here – you know in your heart of hearts – the way that you 2035 have operated here has been improper. Therefore it cannot carry any weight.

______106 TSMI-A/15-16 186 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

If you put something to Tynwald, yes, they will vote, because they will think ‘Oh, yes, John Houghton is a wrong ’un and Mr Robertshaw is a right person’ – or whatever they think. But that is not proper. That is not the right to a fair trial under human rights, under natural justice or anything. That is why I thought the Committee would benefit from the evidence of[MSA] . 2040 I have also learned this morning that the Committee have taken it upon themselves to interview witnesses before this day. In fact you quoted from a document that I did not have sight of. It is improper. The case would be thrown out. If this goes to Tynwald, I am going to have an awful lot to say about what has taken place – more to say about the structure of this than what I will have to say about how badly and disgracefully[MSA] was treated, and the public 2045 need to hear it all. They need to hear it and know it. Because all we have done – we have all managed to do – and this is no thanks to Mr Roger Phillips – is we have got ourselves in another big mess over a member of staff who should have been better looked after. When this comes out into the public domain, then people are going to wonder about us again, because Tynwald who makes the laws for this Island should be the 2050 shining example of how it conducts those. This is pitiful. This is not … And I have respect for all three of you. But this is pitiful – pitiful and wrong, Mr Robertshaw. Is that an answer to your question?

The Chairman: No. 2055 Mr Quayle: Could I just ask a question?

Mr Houghton: Please do, Mr Quayle.

2060 Q217. Mr Quayle: If you feel it is pitiful and wrong, when Committees have investigated Members in the past, why hasn’t anything been done?

Mr Houghton: I think I only recall one, Mr Quayle –

2065 Mr Quayle: Mr Anderson has been investigated fairly recently.

Mr Houghton: Oh right, okay, sorry, I was nothing to do with that, yes.

Mr Quayle: But you read the report, you did not say ... You accepted the report. You did not 2070 say this is wrong, the procedure is wrong. This is exactly the same format –

Mr Houghton: Please do not turn the matter round on me; I am the accused person in this particular case and I am bringing it to your attention – with the greatest respect – you know the respect I have had. We have had a very, very good examination this morning, and there are 2075 more things I need to ask of the Committee and speak, which Mr Robertshaw has given me the opportunity to do. The situation is, Mr Quayle, I was not before that Committee. That would be a matter for that accused person. If that accused person in that other case, in a previous Standards Committee, has gone along with this sort of set-up, well, I can only pity him for not – 2080 Q218. Mr Quayle: But you accepted it and voted in favour of it –

Mr Houghton: What I am saying to you is, please do not turn it around on me, Mr Quayle. Please do not turn it around on me that I accepted and voted in favour. I trusted, without 2085 knowing the smaller points, the finer points – which are the most important points in this case – that there had been a proper hearing. A proper hearing of someone who would have been able to cross-examine witnesses, be there for the whole of the thing.

______107 TSMI-A/15-16 187 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

You have heard evidence that you have admitted to doing this morning from people that I have not heard. You cannot make judgement on that until I have the opportunity to do it. If you 2090 do, you are going to be running into a terrible situation! You will get massively … And please, this is being helpful to you – I wouldn’t … well, I am sure you are not taking me as coming to any sort of threat. This is very strong advice, gentlemen. I can see people outside using the words ‘kangaroo court’. I can see it. And you three gentlemen are the people who have conducted this. And it is a serious matter. I want to clear my 2095 name here, but I want to do it appropriately, Mr Robertshaw. I want to do it appropriately. (The Chairman: Yes.) And I have had to bite my tongue today, and answer the questions, and do my best on what I would call a wrong-sided improper hearing that you have conducted – even though you have been an absolute gentleman, and I commend you for that. I have no problem on that. 2100 The Chairman: Can I go back to the question, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: Yes, you can, certainly. Go ahead.

2105 Q219. The Chairman: Perhaps I should be clearer, so that might help you. I asked you whether you could submit any good reasons in specific terms why we wish to hear from [MSA] concerning – let me specific here – anything which transpired following the receipt of the letter from Mr Speaker onwards, in other words, from 5th November onwards. Is there any light you think[MSA] could cast on our investigations that you think would help us? 2110 Mr Houghton: Yes, everything that you … or many of the questions that you have put to me today could have been verified by[MSA] . The issues, for instance, of the disclosures, all those letter that you pointed out about[MSA] –[they] would have been able to give you clarity as to when and why, as the matter was developing, actions were being taken. And of 2115 course,[they] would have been able to clarify the assistance Mr Quirk gave. All of those things would have been vitally, vitally important because obviously an investigation like this is into an historic matter and you need to get the best clarification you possibly can from the most appropriate witnesses. There is nobody more appropriate than[MSA] , because[they were] discussing things with 2120 me together with Mr Wild, but separately with Mr Wild, separately with Mr Quirk, and so on. That is evidence – that is vitally important evidence – for the Committee to be able to take cognisance of. It is important as that, Mr Robertshaw.

The Chairman: Thank you. That I think is an answer. 2125 Mr Houghton: Thank you.

Q220. The Chairman: That brings us to a close. I think in some respects, Mr Houghton, you summarised very eloquently your position prior 2130 to answering the question. May I take that as your summary comments at the end of this session?

Mr Houghton: Now, you are drawing to an end, because the summary comments … You are drawing to an end, Mr Robertshaw. Two other issues, I was looking at 3 and 4 of your order of 2135 proceedings today. One was ‘we have invited comments’ and the other one was in asking me to address issues. Of course we have sort of combined that, and I am quite happy – as long as you are happy and content. (The Chairman: Yes.) I would like the opportunity – it will take some time – to read[MSA] ’s statement out, and I did promise Mr Quirk that earlier.

______108 TSMI-A/15-16 188 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

2140 The Chairman: I think we would be happy to receive a written copy of it, rather than it being read out.

Mr Houghton: I would have to gain[MSA] ’s permission for that.[they have] given me the permission to read it out, and then of course provide you with that document – 2145 The Chairman: In that case, the Committee would be content to receive – if[they] give you permission to submit it in writing, we would be content to receive it.

Mr Houghton: And would you be content to see[them] , and ask[them] to interview for clarification 2150 of fact?

The Chairman: We would have to deliberate on that, having received[their] submission.

Mr Houghton: All right, let me just make a note of that, because that is very important. 2155 So you are inviting me to get[MSA] ’s permission to submit the … Because I think it is only right for Mr Quirk that he sees the statement. Okay, I will put that to[MSA] and come back to the Committee as soon as I possibly can.

The Chairman: That is fine, thank you very much for that. 2160 Mr Houghton: I have made a number of notes, some of which I think have been covered. I will just run through them very quickly in my mind if you …

The Chairman: By all means. 2165 Mr Houghton: Thank you. Just a few technical questions, if I may, of the Committee. If the Committee find against me today, do I have a right of appeal?

2170 The Chairman: We cannot pre-empt any of our thoughts at this stage.

Mr Houghton: No, it is procedure. I am not asking you to pre-empt anything. I am just saying in the procedure of the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee, does a Member, when a report is made about the Member, have a right of appeal? It is a technical point. 2175 The Chairman: We will write to you on that one.

Mr Houghton: Thank you very much. Can you also write to me and confirm to me, if you have had any legal advice – you have been 2180 advised by anyone outside this place, this room – who and what advice you have received?

The Chairman: We can confirm that in writing too.

Mr Houghton: You are aware that Messrs Phillips and King are conflicted. They must not be 2185 approached for advice. Any advice that you may have already received from them on this matter is conflicted. So could you write and confirm that. I would be very grateful, Mr Robertshaw.

The Chairman: No problem.

______109 TSMI-A/15-16 189 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

2190 Mr Houghton: Also, in respect of the issues to do with me, who is before the Committee for the so-called allegation of ‘interfering’ with staff matters, etc. may I ask, is Mr Wild on a similar charge? Because he interfered. Can you come back to me in writing?

The Chairman: I can tell you now. This Committee is deliberating on allegations submitted to 2195 it by the Tynwald Management Committee and that was you, and you alone.

Mr Houghton: So they did not choose to look at Mr Wild.

The Chairman: No, they did not. 2200 Mr Houghton: Mr Quirk has had an involvement. Will he be referred to the – ? I am sorry, Mr Quirk, I am not being funny. It is a technical question, it is vitally important.

Mr Quirk: Yes, I see what you are saying. 2205 Mr Houghton: You assisted. I admire you for the help you gave. Will Mr Quirk be the subject of ‘interference’?

The Chairman: At this stage, there is an allegation there – 2210 Mr Houghton: It is only against me. So there are no others. So Mr Wild … It is very strange, because Mr Quirk played a small part, Mr Wild played a very large part in all of this before he backed out, even though he was going from one side to the other, as we have discussed. I am surprised that he is not facing similar charges. 2215 Very few more points. I am just sort of brushing up on one or two things that have cropped up beforehand. May I ask for a copy of Hansard as soon as it has been delivered please –as soon as it has been done, is that okay?

2220 The Chairman: Again we will advise you on that.

Mr Houghton: Right, I will be interested. So you will advise. (The Chairman: Yes.) And also a copy of Hansard of the other witnesses that you have done too.

2225 The Chairman: Again, you will get advice on that as well.

Mr Houghton: There was one other point that had not been covered, and I mentioned it in my submission. In the opening part of my submission, the Committee will recall me saying what a dreadful state of management towards its staff, and there have been a number of occasions 2230 when staff have felt very, very poorly treated by management. It has been left to a number of members of staff who have left as a result of this. I provided Mrs Christian, when I submitted the formal complaint, with the names of those who were poorly treated. They were a[person] in 2010, ; another[person] in 2012; another [person] 2235 So one went in 2010, one went in 2012 and one went in 2013. [these people] went because of Roger Phillips. A person went in 2014.[a person] went in 2015 and another person left also in 2015. They were driven out. I have spoken to all 2240 of them. They were driven out by the actions of Mr Phillips, and a little less by Mr King. Some of

______110 TSMI-A/15-16 190 STANDING COMMITTEE, FRIDAY, 18TH DECEMBER 2015

those people – I know it is not relevant here, but you need to have the whole situation – some of those people, Mr Robertshaw, are willing to come back and give evidence. This place is a mess. That is why I –

2245 The Chairman: Mr Houghton, I have got to stop you there, because this really is not appropriate to this investigation, Mr Houghton.

Mr Houghton: That is why I represented to the best of my ability someone who was a very fine[employee] , and , and I think we should all hold our heads in shame 2250 because of that. I thank you Mr Robertshaw, and I thank you all.

The Chairman: Mr Houghton, thank you very much for such a long session. Thank you.

2255 Mr Houghton: Thanks for your patience, thank you.

The Committee adjourned at 12.21 p.m.

______111 TSMI-A/15-16 191 192 WRITTEN EVIDENCE

193 194 APPENDIX 1

Letter dated 20th July 2015 referring the conduct of Mr JR Houghton MHK to the Tynwald Standards and Members’ Interests Committee

195 196 [their]

197 198 APPENDIX 2

Terms of Reference for the Investigation

199 200 201 202 APPENDIX 3

Evidence Bundle

203 204 REF DATE FROM/TO 1 31st October 2014 Letter from the Clerk sent to Mr Houghton and Mr Wild - annotated by Mr Houghton

2 4th November 2014 17:19 Email from [MSA] to Deputy Clerk

3 5th November 2014 Letter from the Clerk to Mr Houghton, similar sent to Mr Wild 4 5th November 2014 Letters from Mr Speaker to Mr Wild and Mr Houghton

5 6th November 2014 14:26 Email from the Deputy Clerk to the Clerk

6 11-12 10th November 2014 Letter from Mr Houghton and Mr Wild delivered by hand to the Clerk by Mr Houghton

7 12th November 2014 Letter from the Clerk to Mr Houghton and Mr Wild

8 12th November 2014 22:06 Email from Mr Wild to the Clerk

9 13th November 2014 13:52 Email from the Clerk to Mr Wild 10 13th November 2014 Letter dated 11th November 2014 from Mr Houghton and Mr Wild to the Clerk, delivered by hand to the Clerk by Mr Houghton 11 13th November 2014 Letter from the Clerk to Mr Houghton and Mr Wild

12 13th November 2014 16:21 Email from the Clerk to Mr Wild

13 13th November 2014 23:19 Email from Mr Wild to the Clerk (reply to 13-11-15 16:21 email) - Note: Mr Wild submitted a typographically corrected copy of this email on 14th November 19:47. This later copy is used. 14 14th November 2014 Notes of meeting between Mr Wild and the Deputy Clerk 15 15th November 2014 17:50 Email from Mr Houghton to Mr Wild (not dated) and Mr Wild's reply via memsec email 16 18th November 2014 09:35 to Email exchange between Deputy Clerk and 19th November 2014 11:10 With Attachments Re TMC minutes and Draft Staff Codes from 2012 17 19th November 2014 Letter from Mr Houghton to the Clerk

18 20th November 2014 Letter from Mr Houghton to the Deputy Clerk

With Enclosure Email from to Mr Houghton 19 25th November 2014 Letter from Deputy Clerk to Mr Houghton

20 21st November 2014 and Email from Mr Houghton to Mr Wild, then from Mr 26th November 2014 Wild to Mr Houghton and then to the Deputy Clerk

205 21 1st December 2014 Email from Mr Houghton to Mr Wild, then from Mr Wild to the Deputy Clerk

22 1st December 2014 Letter from Mr Houghton to the Deputy Clerk

23 2nd December 2014 Letter from Mr Houghton to the Deputy Clerk

24 3rd December 2014 Letter from the Deputy Clerk to Mr Houghton

25 4th December 2014 Letter from Mr Houghton to the Clerk

26 5th December 2014 Letter from the Clerk to Mr Houghton

27 49 5th December 2014 Letter from Mr Houghton to the Deputy Clerk

28 11th December 2014 Letter from Deputy Clerk to Mr Houghton

29 22nd January 2015 Letter to Madam President as Vice Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee from Mr Houghton re Clerk 30 22nd January 2015 Letter to Madam President as Vice Chairman of the Tynwald Management Committee from Mr Houghton re Deputy Clerk 31 23rd February 2015 Memo from Clerk, Deputy Clerk and Third Clerk of Tynwald to Tynwald Management Committee (including timeline) 32 25th June 2015 Letter from Third Clerk of Tynwald resigning her position 33 20th July 2015 Letter from Mr Speaker on behalf of Tynwald Management Committee referring the conduct of Mr Houghton to the Tynwald Standards and Members' Interests Committee

206 [MSA]

[MSA]

[MSB]

[MSA] [their] [they] [they were] [they] [they]

[them] [them] [MSA]

[they said] [them] [MSA]

[MSA] [MSA]

[MSA] [they] [they]

[were] tter] [member of staff B] [their] [personal matter] [MSA] [MSB] [their personal matter they] [they] [MSB] [MSA] [MSB]

[their]

[MSA and other staff]

[member of staff B]

207[MSA] 208 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

209 [MSA] [they have]

[member of staff B] [MSA]

210 [member of staff A] [their] [they] [they were]

[them] [MSA] [they] [they]

[member of staff A] [their] [they] [they] [member of staff B] [about a personal matter] [MSA] [member of staff B] [MSA] [MSB] [a personal matter] [they were]

[member of staff A]

211 [MSA]

[MSA]

[member of staff A]

[MSA] [MSA]

[member of staff A and other staff]

[MSA and other staff]

212 213 214 215 [MSB]

216 [MSA]

[the union]

[MSA]

[MSA] [them] [a personal matter]

217 [MSA] [they]

[MSA] [they are] [MSA] [them]

218 219 [MSA] [MSB]

220 [MSA]

[re MSA]

221 [re MSA]

222 [re MSA]

223 [MSB] [MSA]

[MSA]

224 [member of staff A]

[You have]

225 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

226 [MSA]

227 [other staff]

[MSA] [they] [them]

[MSA] [they] [them] [they] [they] [they were] [member of staff B]

[member of staff A]

[have they] [they are]

[MSA]

228 [they don't] [they] [them] [them]

[their]

[MSA]

[they are]

[they] [them]

[them] [they are]

[they]

[they] [themself] [them]

[them]

[in the office]

[MSA]

[MSA] [they] [they were] [they were] [they]

229 [them]

[MSA] [they] [for] [a personal matter] [they] [MSB] [they] [MSB]

[they]

[member of staff B] [MSA] [they] [MSA] [MSB]

[they] [they were] [other staff]

[them]

[MSA]

[MHK] [MHK] [MHK]

[MSA] [MHK]

[MSB] [their] [they were] [they] [they] [a personal matter] [other staff] [MSA]

230 [they were]

[they were] [other staff] [them] [them]

[them] [their

[MSA] [they]

[in the office]

[MSA] [have they]

[them]

[MSA]

231 [MSA] [them] [MSA]

[MSA]

[MSA] [them]

232 [MSA]

[Company]

233 [MSA]

234 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

235 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

236 237 238 239 240 [MSA]

241 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [they have] [them] [them] [their]

[MSA] [them]

242 [MSA] [their]

243 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

244 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [them] [their] [their] [MSA]

[MSA] [them] [their]

245 [MSA] [their]

246 247 248 [member of staff A]

[MSA] [their] [MSA] [their]

249 [MSA]

250 [member of staff A]

[MSA]

251 [member of staff A]

252 253 254 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

[MSA]

255 [MSA]

[MSA] [them] [their]

256 [member of staff A]

257 [member of staff A]

[MSA] [MSA]

[MSA]

258 259 [MSA] [they] [they] [they]

[MSA] [MSA]

[MSA]

260 [MSA] [MSA]

[MSA]

[member of staff B]

261 262 [member of staff A]

263 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [them] [their] [MSA]

264 [member of staff A] [their] [they were] [their] [they]

[MSA] [them] [their]

[MSA]

[their]

265 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

[MSA]

[MSA] [them their]

266 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

[MSA]

[member of staff A]

267 268 [member of staff A] [member of staff B] [member of staff A] [member of staff B]

[member of staff A]

269 [member of staff A]

270 [other staff]

[member of staff A]

271 [member of staff A] [they have] [they said]

[MSA] [their]

[member of staff A] [them] [member of staff A] [they were] [they were] [they] [member of staff A] [their] [their] [their]

[member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [member of staff B]

[member of staff B]

[member of staff B] [member of staff A]

272 [member of staff B] [a union rep] [a union rep]

[member of staff A] [they have] [their] [they have]

[member of staff B]

[member of staff A] [they have] [them]

[member of staff B] [they]

[they are]

[member of staff A]

[them] [they were]

[member of staff B]

[member of staff A]

273 [a union rep] [they] [a union rep] [they] [they do] [member of staff B]

[member of staff A]

[other staff] [member of staff A] [they] [they are] [MSB] [they have] [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

[them]

[member of staff A] [member of staff B]

274 [other staff] [member of staff B] [other staff]

[member of staff A]

[them]

[member of staff A]

[other staff]

275 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

[other staff] [member of staff A] [do they] [they]

[member of staff A]

276 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [member of staff A] [a union rep] [other staff]

[OHR] [OHR]

277 [in the office]

[member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [their] [member of staff A]

[a lawyer]

[member of staff A] [their] [them]

278 [member of staff A]

[member of staff B] [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

279 280 281 [their]

282 283 284 APPENDIX 3A

Additions to the Evidence Bundle

285 286 [Independent Investigating Officer]

287 [a union rep] [their]

288 289 290 [MSA]

[a union rep] [their]

291 292 [Independent Investigating Officer]

[a union rep]

293 294 295 [them]

296 297 [they were]

298 APPENDIX 4

Correspondence between Mr JR Houghton MHK and the Tynwald Standards & Members’ Interests Committee

299 300 301 302 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [they] [they] [member of staff A] [their] [they were]

[member of staff A] [they wish]

[member of staff A] [them] [they give]

303 304 305 306 307 [member of staff A] [member of staff A] [they are] [them]

308 [member of staff A] [them] [they] [MSA] [their]

[they] [member of staff A] [they] [they are] [their]

[they are] [attend] [member of staff A] [have] [their] [they] [ they]

309 310 [member of staff A] [member of staff A]

[their]

311 312 [member of staff A]

[their]

[member of staff A]

313 314 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

315 316 317 [a lawyer]

[member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [them]

318 [member of staff A]

319 320 [member of staff A]

321 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [in the office] [x] [service] [their]

[previously] [MSA] [their] [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [their] [their]

[member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [they]

322 [member of staff A] [they]

[member of staff A] [them]

[MSA]

[MSA] [MSA] [MSA]

[MSA]

[member of staff A] [member of staff A]

[MSA] [them]

[MSA]

[MSA] [them]

[member of staff A] [member of staff A]

323 [member of staff A] [the Independent Investigating Officer] [them] [them] [MSA] [they]

[member of staff A]

324 [member of staff A]

325 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [member of staff A] [their]

326 [MSA]

[member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [they]

[the IIO]

[member of staff A]

327 [member of staff A] [member of staff A] [they] [them] [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

[MSA]

[member of staff A] [them] [member of staff A] [their]

[member of staff A]

328 [member of staff A]

[staff]

[member of staff A]

329 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

330 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

331 [their]

[member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [member of staff A] [their] [member of staff A] [employee] [they were]

[Independent Investigating Officer]

332 [member of staff A]

333 334 335 336 337 338 [member of staff A]

[member of staff A]

[them] [they]

339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 [MSA]

[they do]

371 372 [member of staff A] [their] [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [their]

[member of staff A] [their] [member of staff A] [they wish]

[they]

373 [they] [their]

374 375 376 377 378 [the IIO]

379 [the IIO] [MSA]

380 [Independent]

[the IIO]

[the IIO] [the IIO] [they] [member of staff A]

[the IIO] [member of staff A]

[member of staff A] [the IIO] [member of staff A]

381 [the IIO]

[lawyer]

[the IIO]

382 [the IIO]

383 384 APPENDIX 5

Correspondence between (member of Staff A) and the Tynwald Standards & Members’ Interests Committee

385 386 [member of staff A]

387 388 [member of staff A]

389 390 [member of staff A]

391 392 [member of staff B] [they] [them] [a personal matter] [a personal matter] [them] [they] [their] [they]

[other staff]

393 [a reason]

[staff]

394 [a personal matter] [their]

395 396 [other staff]

397 [member of staff B] [member of staff B]

[member of staff B] [themself] [their]

[the IIO] [their]

[member of staff A]

398 APPENDIX 6

Advice provided by the Attorney General’s Chambers to the Tynwald Standards & Members’ Interests Committee

399 400 Summary - Legal Advice Received

1. Report of Conversation with a member of staff from the Attorney General’s Chambers I advised the Committee of the following by email on 17th Nov 2015  Q -Was the 3 months to advise the Member of the complaint ‘reasonable’ o In court the judge would consider whether the delay had in any way prejudiced a defendant. The legal opinion is that it would not be considered prejudicial, particularly as you have explained the reason for the delay, i.e. to ensure that there was no conflict and make it fair.  Q -Redacting names from any final report o Legal opinion is that any redaction must be able to be robustly explained so: . redacting the name of the former employee who is not being called to give evidence would be defensible in that they are not taking any part in this inquiry. . redacting the name of a Tynwald Member whose evidence is relied upon would be more difficult to explain to the Court, and ultimately the public, so is not recommended – although ultimately this is still the committee’s report and therefore decision  Q -Providing evidence packs but not others oral evidence o Legal opinion is that this if not all the evidence received is being provided the ‘used’ evidence being provided to all equally is fair. o It is better that witnesses do not hear each other’s oral evidence and provided the member being reported about sees the report, if one is made, including any evidence which is being published before publishing, that is fair.  Q- Re the absolute right in law to obtain information on behalf of another – legal opinion will follow (I didn’t see an employment law expert unfortunately)

2. Regarding Employment Law Ref the final bullet above I did receive further information about Employment Law and the absolute right to information by email later on 17th November 2015 I had asked: “b) A Member has disputed the Tynwald Management Committee’s legal ability to make a decision it minuted on 21st May 2012 which stated: ‘A Member of Tynwald had been named as the “next friend” of a staff member for the purposes of a management interview which had been planned but which had now been postponed indefinitely: the Committee agreed that it was not acceptable for a Member to attend disciplinary or capability meetings or other management meetings on behalf of a staff member and that in future staff should not be allowed this option.’ The member wrote: ‘any employee has an absolute right in law to authorise anyone to obtain documents and information on their behalf in connection with any matter concerning their employment’

The committee would like to understand whether such an absolute right exists and how it would be applicable. (I have looked at the Employment Act 2006 and the Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance procedures 2007 – SD 306/07 and I understand that the Employment Act 2006 gives employees a right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing

401 by a companion of their choice who is a full-time trade union official, a lay trade union official or another of the employer’s workers. A member of Tynwald is unlikely to be a trade union official and is not an employee of the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office so in fact the Tynwald Management Committee do seem only to have been restating the law in 2012. I can’t however find any reference to whether a person can authorise another person to obtain documents and information on their behalf in connection with any matter concerning their employment.) “

The reply was: I have had a good look at Point b) raised in your email.

I have no doubt that your interpretation of the right of accompaniment at a disciplinary/grievance hearing is correct. The UK Employment Relations Act 1999 (sections 10 & 13) on which section 103 of our Employment Act 2006 is based defines “worker” (in order to clarify who is entitled to be a companion) to include someone “employed as a relevant member of the House of Lords staff or the House of Commons staff within the meaning of section 194(6) or 195(5) of [the Employment Rights Act 1996].” As this does not appear in our Employment Act 2006, we must infer that Tynwald specifically did not wish it to. In any event, as you point out, Members are not employees of the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office. There is no ground, therefore, under Isle of Man employment law on which any Member could insist on accompanying as of right an employee of the Clerk of Tynwald’s Office to such an employee’s disciplinary/grievance hearing. A further analogy may be drawn from legal proceedings where litigants in person (i.e., people representing themselves) are on occasion permitted to be accompanied to the hearing by a so-called McKenzie friend. It is well settled that the right to a McKenzie friend is a qualified right, subject to the court’s permission.

With regard to obtaining documents and information on behalf of the employee, in other words, what we might call pre-hearing proceedings, it is probably true that someone could, for instance, appoint an attorney or give some special authority to a particular individual to carry out actions on his or her behalf. However, the institution from which information is being requested would be fully entitled to see proper written authority in this regard.

3. Advice received from the Acting Attorney General in an email exchange Dec 15- Jan 16

From: Quinn, John Sent: 14 January 2016 10:01 To: Joann Corkish Subject: RE: Legal Advice for a Committee - Confidential (AGCH.325)

Dear Jo,

Thank you for your message below.

402 The issue of whether the Committee is required to comply with the rules of natural justice as alleged is often debated and it is beyond this response to address all the arguments.

In the short time available to me, I am happy to offer the following comments for the Committee to consider: The Human Rights Act 2001 ("the 2001 Act"), in section 6, imposes a duty on a 'public authority' to comply with Convention rights. Section 6(3) provides that a 'public authority' does not include Tynwald, the Legislative Council, the House of Keys or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Tynwald, the Legislative Council or House of Keys'. This exclusion would include a Committee. I consider it clear that in making this exclusion, the intention is to enable Parliamentary privilege to prevail and to exclude our Parliament from the scope of the 2001 Act.

I consider, therefore, that the procedures adopted by the legislature when acting in a Parliamentary Committee are not open to challenge under the 2001 Act in the context of Convention rights.

Although there is potentially no scope to challenge the procedures adopted by a Parliamentary Committee in the Manx courts as above, I do believe the procedures could nevertheless be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights ("ECHR"). The ECHR, ratified by the UK in 1951, extends to the Isle of Man and there are circumstances when the ECHR can be applied to the legislature. From the cases I have briefly considered, I have noted that the ECHR have not addressed any internal processes of a Parliament (or Parliamentary Committee) but have addressed issues, e.g., when a Parliament has exercised a function not perhaps part of their parliamentary role (e.g. where a judicial function had been exercised by a Committee in determining a party's guilt and where the members who participated in the Committee's finding of guilt had themselves been interested in the subject matter complaint). In that case, the ECHR found a breach of Article 6(1). Also, where in a Parliamentary Debate comment was made by a Minister regarding the guilt of an individual facing criminal charges when that individual complained that those comments had prejudiced his criminal trial and violated the presumption of innocence under Article 6(2); the ECHR agreed and so held.

In the matter you put to me, I understand an individual who has been referred to the Committee has alleged that the process being adopted by the Committee is not in line with natural justice. This criticism relates to the internal procedures of the Committee. In my opinion, the fairness of those procedures cannot be challenged in the Manx courts. A contrary view would result in the risk of undermining the ability of a Parliamentary Committee to investigate a matter as it saw fit and to report fully and frankly. The law in the UK is settled, that it is for Parliament (and that would include a Committee) to manage its own affairs. I consider the Manx courts would support this stance.

It follows that if the Committee decides that it does not wish to hear a witness whom the individual under investigation wishes to call, the Committee's decision in that regard cannot be challenged. The Committee's decision is not contrary to natural justice (we must assume the Committee has made an informed decision) and nor is it contrary to the individual's human rights (as ECHR does not apply to the Committee).

403 Having made the above points, I should add that although there is perhaps no legal requirement so to do, the Committee should, in my view, always adopt fair procedures as a matter of good practice. This will entail in an inquiry, which might result in an individual being criticised, affording that individual an opportunity to put their case. What amounts to fair procedures will differ from one case to the next and perhaps at some stage Tynwald itself might consider issuing some guidance in this respect. In particular, the process by which a witness is put on notice of the possibility of adverse comment should perhaps be considered by the Standing Orders Committee.

I hope my comments may be of some assistance.

Regards, John

J L M Quinn Esq., H.M. Acting Attorney General Attorney General's Chambers, 3rd Floor, St. Mary's Court, Hill Street, Douglas, Isle of Man. IM1 1EU

IMPORTANT PLEASE NOTE: - 1. Any legal advice contained in this communication may be subject to Attorney General's privilege, in which case neither the fact of consultation nor the opinion or advice given may be disclosed outside government without the express consent of the Attorney General. 2. Whilst the legal advice privilege attaching to this communication is always ultimately the privilege of the recipient, the contents are not to be forwarded or quoted in whole or in part without the express consent of the sender. ______From: Joann Corkish Sent: 12 January 2016 15:03 To: Quinn, John Subject: RE: Legal Advice for a Committee - Confidential

Dear Attorney General Thank you for the response. The application of principles of natural justice in the context of a parliamentary standards committee inquiry is what the committee would like to discuss. The person who has been referred to the Committee has made reference to the process not being in line with natural justice. During oral evidence he said: ‘If you put something to Tynwald, yes, they will vote, because they will think ‘Oh, yes, Mr X is a wrong ’un and Mr Y is a right person’ – or whatever they think. But that is not proper. That is not the right to a fair trial under human rights, under natural justice or anything.’ It was also mentioned in reference to the Committee being able to select who they wished to take evidence from but the person who had been referred (who in committee terms is a witness with the same status as any other) not being able to bring a witness to give evidence on their behalf. Again during oral evidence he said: ‘I am here and, as I say, I was quite willing to come and bring my witness – I make that point to you. Now, going back to the matter of Z and the refusal to allow … to give evidence last week is clearly against natural justice and my human rights to be permitted to have a fair trial.’

404 On reviewing the initial evidence the Committee did not feel that they needed to hear from that witness. The Chairman did suggest that a written statement could be submitted but that offer was declined. The Committee may still decide to call the additional witness, having now heard the oral evidence of a number of witnesses, but if they did not, which in parliamentary terms is entirely their choice, could it be seen as unacceptable in respect of the principles of natural justice. I’m afraid I don’t have the legal background needed to be able to guide them on how the principles of natural justice might apply hence my request on their behalf. They are due to meet at 10.00 on Friday morning. Kind Regards Jo ______From: Quinn, John Sent: 12 January 2016 12:41 To: Joann Corkish Subject: RE: Legal Advice for a Committee - Confidential

Dear Jo,

I have now explained to Howard (Connell), which explanation I am happy to share with you, Lord Pannick has not made any ruling on the issue of the application of Natural Justice to parliamentary procedure here on the Island. Lord Pannick’s involvement at my behest was simply to provide to me his opinion on certain matters and I have not as yet formed any view with reference to that advice which I can share with you. If the Committee wish me to consider and advise on any specific matter then of course I would be happy to oblige.

Kind regards, John

J L M Quinn Esq, Acting Attorney General Attorney General's Chambers, 3rd Floor, St. Mary's Court, Hill Street, Douglas, Isle of Man. IM1 1EU.

From: Joann Corkish Sent: 22 December 2015 13:18 To: John Quinn Subject: Legal Advice for a Committee - Confidential

405 Dear Mr Attorney General

You will be aware I am working with some of the members of the Tynwald Standards and Member’s Interest Committee who are investigating a matter concerning the conduct of a Member, referred to them by the Speaker on behalf of the Tynwald Management Committee.

As part of that I am content that the Committee is following parliamentary procedure and that this investigation is subject to neither court or civil service process. However the Committee has discussed to what extent natural justice would be applied. I was talking to Howard Connell this morning and asked his advice and he mentioned that he thought there had been a previous ruling on this point from Lord Pannik.

With respect to the investigation I am clerking I am not able to seek legal advice from either the Clerk of Deputy Clerk, who may have aware of this, so I wonder if it is possible for you to provide me with a copy of the ruling, or information about it, for the Committee, if you think it would assist.

The Committee are next due to meet on the 15th January. After this week I am on leave until 11th January but I will be keeping an eye on my emails so if you are able to forward anything to me I will send it on to them.

Many thanks Jo ______Mrs Joann Corkish, Third Clerk of Tynwald

406

Parliamentary Copyright available from:

The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man, IM1 3PW British Isles May 2016 Tel: 01624685520 Fax: 01624 685522 e-mail: [email protected] Price: £35.75