The Conduct of Lord Singh of Wimbledon
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report from the Commissioner for Standards The conduct of Lord Singh of Wimbledon Published 13 January 2021 Commissioner Report 2020–21/9 Code of Conduct for Members, Guide to the Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct for Members’ Staff The present Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords was agreed on 30 November 2009. Amendments to it were agreed by the House on 30 March 2010, 12 June 2014, 25 February 2016, 9 February 2017, 3 April 2017, 30 April 2019,18 July 2019, 16 March 2020 and 8 July 2020. The Guide to the Code of Conduct was proposed by the Committee for Privileges (2nd Report, Session 2009–10, HL Paper 81) and agreed by the House on 16 March 2010. The Guide was amended on 9 November 2011, 6 March 2014, 13 May 2014, 24 March 2015, 25 February 2016, 9 February 2017, 3 April 2017, 30 April 2019, 18 July 2019, 16 March 2020 and 8 July 2020. The Code of Conduct for House of Lords Members’ Staff was agreed on 13 May 2014. Amendments to it were agreed on 24 March 2015, 30 April 2019, 18 July 2019, 16 March 2020 and 8 July 2020. Review The Codes and Guide are kept under review by the Conduct Committee. Recommended changes are reported to the House and take effect when agreed by the House. The members of the Conduct Committee are: Baroness Anelay of St Johns Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Cindy Butts (lay member) Mark Castle (lay member) Andrea Coomber (lay member) Dr Vanessa Davies (lay member) Baroness Donaghy Baroness Hussein-Ece Lord Mance (Chairman) Advice The Registrar of Lords’ Interests advises members of the House and their staff on their obligations under the Codes of Conduct. Address: Registrar of Lords’ Interests, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW Email: [email protected] Telephone: 020 7219 3112/3120 Registers of Interests A list of interests of members and their staff can be found online: http://www.parliament.uk/hlregister Commissioner for Standards The independent Commissioner for Standards is responsible for considering any alleged breaches of the Codes of Conduct. Address: The Commissioner for Standards, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW Email: [email protected] Telephone: 020 7219 7152 Website: www.parliament.uk/hl-standards Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme Helpline 0808 168 9281 (freephone) [email protected] CONTENTS Page Summary 7 Chapter 1: Introduction 9 Chronology and process 9 Relevant aspects of the Code 10 Parliamentary Behaviour Code and definitions of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct 10 Chapter 2: Principles relating to investigations and outcomes 12 Natural justice and fairness 12 Proportionality 13 Remedial action 13 Sanctions imposed by the House 13 Agreed resolution 14 Openness and transparency 14 Chapter 3: Account of the key facts and evidence 16 Timeline of investigation 16 Preet Kaur Gill MP’s complaint 16 Lord Singh’s response 19 Proposal for mediation 22 APPG for British Sikhs 23 Lord Singh’s engagement with the APPG 24 Ms Kaur Gill as chair of the APPG 24 Lord Singh’s requests for an opportunity to address the APPG 25 Analysis 27 ONS meeting 28 Analysis 29 Sunny Hundal article 30 Analysis 30 Tweets 31 Analysis 33 Network of Sikh Organisations and the Sikh Federation (UK) 33 The Network of Sikh Organisations and Lord Singh 33 The Sikh Federation (UK) and Ms Kaur Gill 34 Analysis 34 Impact of Lord Singh’s conduct on Preet Kaur Gill 35 Chapter 4: Response to draft factual report 38 Lord Singh’s response to the draft factual report 38 Chapter 5: Findings and outcome 39 Is the conduct complained of proven? 39 Does Lord Singh’s behaviour amount to harassment? 40 Was Lord Singh’s conduct unwanted? 40 Was Lord Singh’s conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic? 41 Has Lord Singh’s conduct created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for Ms Kaur Gill/the perception of Ms Kaur Gill? 41 The other circumstances of the case 41 Is it reasonable for the conduct to have that effect? 42 Finding 42 Does Lord Singh’s behaviour amount to bullying? 42 2 THE CONDUCT OF LORD SINGH OF WIMBLEDON Finding 43 Conclusion 43 Appendix 1: Factual report 44 Appendix 2: Lord Singh’s response to the draft factual report 99 The Conduct of Lord Singh of Wimbledon SUMMARY In July 2019, Preet Kaur Gill MP made a complaint about the conduct of Lord Singh of Wimbledon. In brief, her complaint was that Lord Singh’s conduct towards her as Chair of the APPG for British Sikhs constituted a breach of the Code of Conduct. She alleged that his behaviour had been rude and bullying. She said that his behaviour towards previous chairs of the APPG, all of whom had been men, had been professional. She therefore considered that his conduct towards her was as a result of her sex, and therefore constituted harassment. Ms Kaur Gill provided various examples to support her complaint. These included articles published by the Network of Sikh Organisations (of which Lord Singh is the Director), a press article on the website barficulture.tv, and a chain of emails between Lord Singh and Ms Kaur Gill’s office. Lord Singh rejected Ms Kaur Gill’s allegations. He considered that Ms Kaur Gill had misused her position as Chair of the APPG to support the Sikh Federation (UK) (an organisation which provides the secretariat to the APPG but whose work Lord Singh objects to) and to promote a policy view with which he fundamentally disagreed. The issue at the heart of their disagreement concerned how Sikhs are recorded on the census for England and Wales. Since 2001, the census has collected data on religious affiliation, for which a specific Sikh “tick box” is included. Ms Kaur Gill, and others, have campaigned that a Sikh “tick box” ought also to be an option available in the section of the census on ethnicity. She considered that the inclusion of a Sikh “tick box” would allow for more accurate data collection about the Sikh community in England and Wales which, in turn, would affect how public funding might be spent to support Sikh-related issues. Lord Singh, and others, object to the inclusion of a Sikh “tick box”. He considered that recording “Sikh” as an ethnicity would be wrong and contrary to the tenets of Sikhism. Following investigation, I concluded that a finding of harassment could not be supported by the evidence. While there was discourteous conduct demonstrated towards Ms Kaur Gill, the evidence did not demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that this could reasonably be ascribed to Ms Kaur Gill’s sex. For example, Ms Kaur Gill noted that one reason for Lord Singh’s approach might be that since her election he was no longer the leading Sikh voice in Parliament. Lord Singh explained that he had treated previous APPG chairs differently as they had not been Sikhs. Once Ms Kaur Gill had been elected, he considered the APPG and its policy positions a matter worth being involved with. Similarly, I concluded that a finding of bullying could not be demonstrated on the balance of probabilities. Essential to a finding of bullying is evidence of a misuse or abuse of power, typically arising out of an imbalance of power between the two parties. In this instance, both Lord Singh and Ms Kaur Gill had a similar level of power: both were parliamentarians (which I consider to the most important factor in this parliamentary context) and both were supported by external organisations (Ms Kaur Gill, the Sikh Federation (UK); Lord Singh, the Network of Sikh Organisations). As a result, I have dismissed Ms Kaur Gill’s complaint. THE CONDUCT OF LORD SINGH OF WIMBLEDON 5 CHaPter 1: INTRODUCTION 1. This report deals with a complaint made about Lord Singh of Wimbledon by Preet Kaur Gill MP under the provisions of the Code dealing with bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. 2. In considering this complaint I have been supported by Quentin Colborn, Independent Investigator, Andrea Adams Consultancy, and Moriyo Aiyeola and James Whittle, two of the Clerks who assist me in my work. I wish to place on record my thanks to them for all their help, while also acknowledging that I am solely responsible for the conclusions reached and the decisions made in this investigation. 3. By its nature, any report into allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct will include content that some readers may find upsetting or offensive. My aim is to reflect fairly and fully the evidence I gather in the course of an investigation and not to censor or in any way minimise views expressed or material uncovered. I believe this transparency is essential to helping the House of Lords to be a workplace where everyone is valued and respected, and where it is clear that bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct are not tolerated. This means that reports into allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct will often make for difficult reading. 4. The findings and discussions in this case relate to bullying, and to harassment associated with the protected characteristic of sex. 5. The report includes language that some readers may find offensive. Chronology and process 6. Following the receipt of Ms Kaur Gill’s complaint I carried out a preliminary investigation to establish if the complaint engaged the Code of Conduct, and concluded that it did so. 7. On 13 September 2019, I informed Lord Singh of the complaint, sent him the details Ms Kaur Gill had provided to me, and asked for his written response.