Sarah Wollaston: Why am I being blamed for Nigel Evans sex case?

Exclusive: Sarah Wollaston has been vilified for her role in the Nigel Evans sex case. Here, she explains why she was unwilling to be a hypocrite and turn a blind eye

Dr Sarah Wollaston, the MP for Totnes, said that she believed that Downing Street had shelved the idea of open primaries over fears that they may favour “outspoken” candidates.
Dr Sarah Wollaston is the Conservative MP for Totnes Credit: Photo: JAY WILLIAMS

Following his acquittal on nine charges of rape and sexual assault, Nigel Evans – the former Deputy Speaker – has claimed that I “had it in for him”. Others have demanded that I apologise, and reflect on my role in the case.

To them, I ask this: what would you do if, in a social setting, someone told you that they had been sexually assaulted by one of your most popular colleagues? Would you have laughed off the allegation, or brushed it aside?

In truth, Nigel Evans is guilty of nothing more than behaving like a drunken fool

Nigel Evans

I did not. Instead, I offered to discuss it in a more appropriate setting, once the complainant had taken the time to decide whether he wished to do so. He took me up on my offer, came to my office and set out a very serious allegation: not only that he had been sexually assaulted, but that this had been swept under the carpet by the Whips Office, the only body to which he was able to take his concerns other than the MP about whom he was complaining.

Another young man, a 21-year-old student, then called me to allege that he had been raped. Neither wanted to go to the police, but both asked for my help, as they wanted a disciplinary process to take place – in their words, because they felt other individuals were at risk.

Since the Whips Office is hopelessly conflicted when it comes to investigating serious complaints against MPs – and since one of the complaints was about its original handling of the allegation – I made appointments for both men to see the Speaker, John Bercow. After the first meeting, he took legal advice, then sent a member of his staff to tell me that he could not become involved. The messenger repeatedly told me that his job was to protect the Speaker. So the only avenue open to the complainants was to go to the police.

The specific allegation against me, from some colleagues and commentators, has been that I pressured them to do so. This is a very serious charge. As a former forensic medical examiner, I am completely aware that the decision to report sexual violence to the police must be made solely by the complainants. That is why, when I was approached by the police following the first appointment with the Speaker, I declined to pass over the men’s names or contact details. I did, however, pass the officers’ contact details to the two young people concerned.

In response to the allegations about my role, and since the verdict, I have spoken to them and offered to stand down as an MP if they feel that I pressured them to take the complaint forward. Both are clear that I did not do so, and that I discussed with them the risks of doing so as well as their own concerns about protecting others.

I have set these facts out not to defend my own reputation, but because there are far more important issues at stake. Since the jury delivered its verdict, a backlash has begun.

The police have been criticised for their investigation, and the Crown Prosecution Service for its decision to put the evidence before a jury. Mr Evans has questioned whether such complainants should retain a right to anonymity, given that he feels his reputation has been traduced at no cost to theirs. Others have said that those accused of sexual violence should remain anonymous until conviction, to give them the same protection as their accusers. There have also been demands that prosecutors should not be able to use previous alleged offences when building their case.

I do not question the verdict. But equally, other MPs should not use this case as a pretext to interfere with the independence of the CPS. In particular, it would be completely wrong for politicians to respond to a colleague’s experience by making it even harder for potential victims to come forward.

It is worth revisiting the evidence: according to Rape Crisis, just 15 per cent of women and girls who experience sexual violence ever report it to the police. The barriers for men also include the fear of exposing their sexuality and how that will be handled by those conducting any investigation. Few cases make it to a courtroom and fewer still result in a conviction. Changing the rules on anonymity would slash reporting rates even further.

As for me, was I right to listen to the complainants and pass on their allegations?

As a member of the Health Select Committee, I listened to the evidence from the Francis Inquiry into the Mid Staffs scandal. In response, we told the General Medical Council that doctors ought to be struck off if they looked the other way and failed to report serious allegations about colleagues. It would have been rank hypocrisy to demand that standard from my fellow doctors, while failing to be prepared to do so myself.

This process was never going to be easy. But I have been truly shocked by the rank hostility since Mr Evans’s acquittal, from those who seriously feel I should have done nothing.

How can it be acceptable for a third of the 70 researchers interviewed by Channel 4 News to have experienced sexual harassment at Westminster? The people who truly have questions to answer are those who have for so long turned a blind eye to the reports of such harassment.

I didn’t, and don’t, want to be one of them.

Dr Sarah Wollaston is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Totnes