Appendix 3: Commissioner statement on role of Sam Evans
Basis for the use of an independent investigator
1.Paragraph 131 sets out:
“In cases involving bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, the Commissioner is supported by independent investigators. The Commissioner may delegate to the investigator to the extent she considers appropriate any of her investigatory functions under paragraph 130.”26
2.Paragraph 130 describes my investigatory functions and encompasses the whole process from the beginning of an investigation to my report to the Committee:
“Proceedings are not adversarial, but inquisitorial in character. The Commissioner is an independent and impartial investigator, appointed by the House, whose task is to establish the facts of a case. She produces a report on each case, which includes her conclusions as to whether or not there has been a breach of the Code. In fulfilling that task, the Commissioner will question the complainant, the member and any other witnesses to whatever extent and in whatever way she thinks necessary and appropriate to elicit and test the evidence in the case (see also in this regard paragraphs 133 and 144). If the complaint is upheld and no remedial action has been agreed with the member concerned her report, including a recommended sanction, is submitted to the Conduct Committee. If the complaint is not upheld or if remedial action has been agreed the Commissioner’s report is normally published only on her webpages on the parliamentary website. However, she has discretion to submit such a report to the Conduct Committee. This may be because of the particular seriousness of the allegation or because the case gives rise to matters of wider interest or relevance. In such instances the Conduct Committee reports the case to the House.”
3.For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 139 allows for the use of an independent investigator in cases involving questions of personal honour by clarifying that the provisions on bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct (which include the use of an independent investigator) are also engaged when such behaviour is being considered under personal honour provisions:
“If a complaint alleging a breach of the personal honour provisions involves bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, the process of investigation, reporting and appeal is the same as that followed for a case of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct that occurred after 21 June 2017.”
4.The report of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct that proposed the incorporation of the provisions relating to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct (including the use of independent investigators) described the role of the independent investigators and my responsibilities as follows:
“As with any complaint investigated under the Code of Conduct, the Commissioner for Standards has overall responsibility for the investigation. We recommend that for complaints involving bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, the Commissioner should be able to call upon the support of the team of independent investigators appointed by Parliament and that she may delegate to the extent she considers appropriate any of her investigatory functions. The Commissioner will retain sole responsibility for determining the outcome of complaints and, where a breach has been established, either agreeing remedial action or reporting the case with a recommended sanction to the Conduct Committee.”
5.When he presented that report to the House on 30 April 2019, the Senior Deputy Speaker summarised the purpose of the independent investigator as:
“The independent House of Lords Commissioner for Standards should continue to investigate complaints to establish whether there has been a breach of the codes of conduct. In cases of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, she will have the option of being assisted by independent investigators appointed by Parliament for this purpose.”
Use of investigators during this and other investigations
6.This case was the first investigation started after the Code introduced provisions relating to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. In each investigation of this type I have worked with an independent investigator. In several of them that investigator has been Sam Evans: for instance, in the investigations into complaints about the conduct of Lord Stone of Blackheath and Lord Lea of Crondall.
7.Whenever I have started working with an investigator with whom I have not previously worked I have explained that it is important that the investigator gives me his or her independent view on any matter under discussion, and that s/he can raise any issues about the investigation with me, but that the responsibility for making decisions about the investigation rests with me. I had this conversation with Ms Evans at the start of this investigation.
8.I am working, or have worked, with four investigators apart from Ms Evans. As it happens, the investigations involving these investigators are either not yet concluded or did not result in a report being published. In each case I worked, or am working, in the same way with them as I did with Ms Evans in this case.
9.In my reports into the conduct of Lord Stone of Blackheath and Lord Lea of Crondall I summarised Ms Evans’ involvement in these terms:
“In considering these complaints I have been supported by Sam Evans, Associate Practitioner, CMP Solutions, and James Whittle and Moriyo Aiyeola, 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.”
10.In this case, I wrote:
“We worked as a team throughout the investigation, including analysing the evidence, making findings of fact, and reaching conclusions on breaches of the Code. However, the responsibility for the report, and the recommended sanction, rests with me alone.”
11.I changed the wording from the earlier reports because I thought it was more informative. However, Ms Evans’ involvement in the investigation was exactly the same in this case as in the others where she has supported me, and exactly the same as the support given to me by the other investigators with whom I have worked. We worked together, with Ms Evans providing me valuable support, but the responsibility for the report, and the recommended sanction in particular, rests with me.
Ms Evans’ involvement during this investigation
12.I led the investigation throughout. I did not delegate any of my investigatory functions to Ms Evans. Her role was to provide support to me. We worked together on that basis.
13.The distinction between our shared investigatory role and my sole decision-making role is reflected in the report which refers repeatedly to “our investigation” but also to “my findings” and “my recommended sanction” (emphasis added).
During the evidence-taking phase
14.Ms Evans supported me in the following ways:
(1)I invited her to comment on drafts of letters prepared during the investigation, either by me or by my office under my direction, and considered her comments before finalising any drafts. I did not feel bound to accept any suggested amendments.
(2)In preparation for interviews, I drafted questions for the interviewees, and invited Ms Evans to suggest any further questions or comment on my proposed questions. I considered all her suggestions, and where I thought that they would improve the quality of the evidence obtained from the interview, I included them..
(3)I suggested which of us should ask which questions at interview, and, to the best of my recollection, Ms Evans agreed with my suggestions.
(4)We both interviewed the complainant and the respondent in August 2019, in accordance with scripts that I had produced and shared with Ms Evans.
(5)I carried out subsequent interviews, both face-to-face and on the phone with the complainant on my own (supported by my office).
(6)Ms Evans was not able to attend the formal interviews I had with other witnesses, but supported me by looking at my proposed questions and making suggestions, as had happened with the initial interview with the complainant, and the only interview with the respondent.
(7)I also spoke to people on the phone in pursuit of evidence, with my office in attendance and taking a note.
15.Ms Evans did not make any phone calls on my behalf.
16.Ms Evans did not conduct any formal interviews on her own.
17.Ms Evans did not draft any correspondence.
During the report writing phase and findings of fact
18.Ms Evans’ role during the report writing phase of the investigation was to provide support to me in my work. I led the report writing and analysis of evidence. I did not delegate any part of this work to her.
19.I drafted the factual report which was sent to the respondent in December 2019. Before finalising the draft, I invited Ms Evans to comment on it. I accepted her suggestions where appropriate, after discussion if necessary.
20.I drafted replies to the respondent’s responses to the factual report, and asked Ms Evans to comment on my drafts. I accepted her suggestions where appropriate, after discussion if necessary.
21.I undertook the analysis of the evidence, and invited Ms Evans to comment on my drafts. I accepted her suggestions where appropriate, after discussion if necessary.
22.I made findings of fact based on the evidence and analysis, and discussed these with Ms Evans. I accepted her suggestions where appropriate, after discussion if necessary.
23.Although I carefully considered Ms Evans’ views, the contents of the report, the analysis of the evidence and the findings of fact were entirely my responsibility.
In my findings of breaches and my recommended sanction
24.Ms Evans’ expertise includes the interpretation of definitions of the bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. Her support and advice was therefore valuable in assisting me in establishing whether the findings of fact supported conclusions that some of Lord Ahmed’s conduct constituted sexual misconduct.
25.Although Ms Evans provided advice when considering whether some aspects of Lord Ahmed’s conduct constituted sexual misconduct, she played no role in considering whether this should be considered a failure by Lord Ahmed to act on his personal honour. Similarly, where other elements of the complaint did not relate to bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, Ms Evans played no role in considering whether a finding of a failure by Lord Ahmed to act on his personal honour was supported. Questions of what ought to be considered consistent with personal honour do not fall within her expertise.
26.Ms Evans played no role in my decision on my recommended sanction.
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff CBE
Commissioner for Standards
20 July 2020
26 My investigation into the conduct of Lord Ahmed was launched in June 2019 when the seventh edition of the Code of Conduct was in operation. This was the edition of the Code that introduced provisions relating to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.
An eighth edition of the Code was published in July 2019 and this was the edition of the Code in operation for the majority of the period when my investigation was underway. References to the Code in this paper are to the eighth edition.