Whistleblowing Allegation 8 October 2022: Corruption of Green Party Internal Democracy

As an ordinary member, I write to blow the whistle on evidence of serious wrongdoing in the Green Party of England and Wales and I believe it to be both in the interest of the Party and the wider public interest to do so.

The main headings under which this submission is made, in accordance with the Whistleblowing policy, are:

• Covering up wrongdoing

• Failure to comply with an obligation in law

I believe there may have been multiple breaches of our governance, including but not limited to breaches of:

• Constitution

• Standing orders for Conduct of Conference (SOCC)

• Code of conduct for members

The party has a general obligation, in law, to maintain the integrity of its governance and ensure that its processes comply with Equalities law. Relevant laws and regulations that the Party, officers and elected representatives are bound by that may have been, directly or indirectly, breached include:

• Equality Act 2010

• Nolan Principles of Public Life

• Registration of Political Parties Act 1998

• Representation of the People Act 2000

The substantial piece of evidence to which this whistleblowing allegation relates is the fact that the Late motion “Solidarity with Drag Queen Story Time/Hour” was taken without due authority of conference. On 2 October 2022, DQSH was taken in the final plenary of Autumn Conference 2022 at Harrogate. There are multiple grounds to believe that this was part of a determined effort by some to pass the motion “at all costs”, the chief obstacle to doing so being to make sure that plenary time was made at conference for it.

Just to give a sense of proportion with respect to how elevation of this motion defies explanation, very few motions were taken in other sections, other than where business needed to be completed (Sections A and C) or motions were fast-tracked in E. For example, the number of motions taken in section D Organisational motions was 3 out of 22. 4th on that list was “A toolkit for healing divisions in the Green Party”, which was not heard, although it clearly resonated with the recommendations of a recent EDI report commissioned by the Party.

No Emergency motions were taken either. According to the members’ site where Emergency motions needed to garner support from at least 50 co-proposers, the following reached and comfortably exceeded the threshold:

• Government attack on Nature (Jenny Jones)

• Supporting Iranian Protesters Resisting Compulsory Veiling Laws

• Decoupling Electricity Costs from Gas

• Support Truth About Zane (TAZ) Campaign petition hand-in to 10, Downing Street

Why was not a single Emergency motion taken ahead of a Late motion, let alone a second late motion that should not have been taken second in that section anyway? This is contrary to the practice of previous conferences, where Emergency motions are timetabled into plenary business, albeit in competition with Late motions.

I used the speaker slip system at the final plenary to put in a request for a procedural motion to take an Emergency motion, once Late motions were begun. This was well before even a second Late motion was attempted. This speaker slip, by all accounts, looks to have been ignored. (I have a time-stamped receipt for this speaker slip.)

According to C2.2 of SOCC: “Other than in exceptional circumstances, the topic of the Late Motion must have arisen or changed since the Pre-Agenda deadline.” That already marks out this type of motion as outside the core agenda and unable to benefit from the usual scrutiny process facilitated by proposal of amendments. However, there is a process for amendments to be put from the floor. As far as I can tell, no announcements were made about that process, either on the members’ site or at plenary.

The order in which motions are ordered in the final agenda is subject to a detailed process of rules, right down to the count methodology that should be used when seeking input from members in a prioritisation ballot. Great time and effort is put into making sure that prioritisation reflects the will of the membership and additional opportunity is available at the start of conference to fast-track or re-prioritise the order of motions as they appear in the final agenda – subject, indeed, to the will of conference.

In the case of Late motions, an on-line process was instigated by Standing orders committee to prioritise those late motions that were deemed in order to an advertised deadline. Proposers of those late motions were also seen promoting that prioritisation system. The final prioritisation for those late motions, put the top three as follows:

1. Affiliate to Enough is Enough (264)

2. Removing subsidies for fossil fuel consumption from the "fairer, greener bills" campaign + Ensuring that sufficient energy is affordable to all (247)

3. Solidarity with Drag Queen Story Time/Hour (191)

This prioritisation reflects a clear will of the membership, over a short space of time, to rank late motions on social justice and energy ahead of a highly controversial motion on DQSH. The prioritisation was not followed at conference. Even if the taking of a second, let alone first, late motion was justified ahead of a single emergency motion (featuring topics on environment, energy and human rights in Iran), DQSH was not the second late motion that should have been taken.

The chairing and discussion of the DQSH motion itself was itself problematic on a number of grounds:

• Procedural motions not taken

• Additional round of speeches refused following inaudible contribution from a speaker against

• Multiple questionable uses of inclusion card to attack a speaker

Even prior to that, the main proposer for DQSH got to co-chair two previous plenaries and was given a lot of time ostensibly to introduce former Deputy Leader, Amelia Womack. This does raise questions about bias and the level of access he was given to the stage. In particular, at the second of the plenaries he co-chaired, on Saturday, he sought to have a late motion heard. This clearly would have increased the chance of having any subsequent late motions heard later on and presents a clear conflict of interest for him to double as the proposer of one of those motions. In the event, following an intervention from Caroline Lucas and a decision by the second co-chair, a late motion was not taken.

I am calling for an urgent, independent investigation into the facts surrounding the means by which a late motion on DQSH was taken, at all, at the final plenary of conference. This investigation should take into account, but should not be limited to:

• Why the prioritisation for Late motions was ignored or subverted

• Why it was falsely stated by a chair in plenary that a Late motion was withdrawn, which was not in the gift of the proposers to do, and was since contradicted by a late motion proposer

• What decisions were taken, by whom and with what level of engagement with motion proposers, prior to and at the final plenary on order of motions

• Why no Emergency motion was taken

• Why certain procedural motions were not taken

• How plenary co-chairs were decided

• Whether quoracy for each and every plenary was met

• What collaboration has taken place after conference on the emerging crisis of internal confidence

This crisis of internal confidence has already spilled over into the public domain. The purpose of this whistleblowing complaint is primarily to ascertain the truth and to safeguard our reputation. It cannot be assessed ahead of establishing the full facts what further reputational damage could be caused to the Party.

There is reputational damage caused by prioritising and seeking to pass a controversial motion on DQSH ahead of what others might consider to be the core business of the party on energy, environment and human rights. There is also reputational damage caused by appearance of cover-up or collusion in what appears to be a serious breach of trust of members in the conduct of conference; the supreme decision-making body of our Party. If there has been misconduct and manipulation of party process this goes to the heart of our very ability to function as a democratic political party. It is only by tackling this head-on that we can restore our credibility, and ultimately our reputation, to claim to be a party unlike any other.

Alongside this whistleblowing allegation, I am appending links to relevant announcements and discussion on the internal members’ site, Green Spaces, and a further detailed representation I have received in confidence from an officer member. [not put into public domain]

In the absence of a full, independent investigation I believe this motion must be recalled – one way or another. Other motions were deprived of the time, or opportunity for advancement, that this motion on DQSH was wrongly given, which represents a totally unprecedented breach of trust of our governance. It is certainly unprecedented in the twenty years I have been active as a member of this esteemed party of ours.

It is with a heavy heart that I must submit this Whistleblowing allegation.