PRESS RELEASE : Independent Expert Panel recommends suspending Neil Coyle MP for five days for breaching Parliament’s Bullying and Harassment Policy [March 2023]

Following two separate complaints and investigations by independent investigators, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards upheld two allegations of harassment against Mr Coyle. The first complaint was from a parliamentary assistant working for another MP, and the second from a parliamentary journalist and member of the Parliamentary press gallery.

Both complaints were made under Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS).

In the first case (BH22/1004) it was established that Mr Coyle had engaged in foul-mouthed and drunken abuse of the parliamentary assistant. The episode took place in Strangers’ Bar in the House of Commons. Mr Coyle did not appeal that decision so the IEP were left to consider sanction. The IEP sub-panel considering sanction found that Mr Coyle’s behaviour would have been:

[…] shocking and intimidating for any complainant, particularly a junior member of staff.

It recommended that Mr Coyle should be suspended from the House for two sitting days (and not on a Friday) and that he should make an apology on the floor of the House by way of a personal statement.

In the second case (BH22/1005) Mr Coyle was accused of bullying and harassment of a parliamentary journalist. On one of aspects of this episode, the respondent was found to have used abusive language with racial overtones. Mr Coyle appealed the Commissioner’s decision on several grounds. The sub-panel considered them carefully and gave detailed reasons for their rejection of all the grounds. It then went on to consider sanction for that case.

The Chair of the IEP, Sir Stephen Irwin states, “the most striking aggravating factor in [this case] was the racial overtone in the verbal abuse.” He added that “in relation to both episodes, it was clear that very marked abuse of alcohol was at the root of events”. The IEP sub-panel when considering sanction noted the abuse of alcohol in these incidents and concluded that Mr Coyle:

[…] made such comments while under the influence of excessive amounts of alcohol which, while undoubtedly contributing to his behaviour, in no way excuse it, as the respondent rightly accepts. Nonetheless, since the incident, the respondent has taken considerable steps to ensure no repetition of the behaviour, including informing us that he has stopped drinking alcohol.

It recommended that Mr Coyle should be suspended from the House for a further three sitting days (again, not on a Friday) and that he should make an apology on the floor of the House by way of a personal statement.

Mr Coyle has accepted the sub-panel’s decisions. The IEP’s report into the case sets out the sub-panel’s full decision and reasoning.

The Chair of the IEP regretted the fact that there had been breaches of confidentiality. He wrote that, on the day following making the complaint, in the second case “in full knowledge of his obligation to maintain confidentiality, this complainant made public all the details of his complaint, leading to wide publicity and to reputational damage to the respondent, before there had been any investigation or findings as to what had happened”.

The sub-panel considered such a breach, and commented that:

Breaches of confidentiality risk undermining this foundational ICGS principle by encouraging or implicitly condoning breaches in subsequent cases. The complainant’s breach of confidentiality also puts at risk the integrity of investigations and the effectiveness of the ICGS as a whole. Witnesses may not be willing to come forward and give evidence if confidentiality is not protected; or they may not feel able to give a full account; or their evidence may be tainted by the media coverage. This may result in valid claims not being brought, investigated, or sanctioned.