When you take part in a card game like Bridge, even the best players have to work with the hand they are dealt. However bad a hand is, you must use your skill to achieve the optimum result.

In the same vein, the current parliamentary commissioner for standards has had to deal with the rules he inherited when he took up the job in 2022. Yet the simple fact is that these rules are not fit for purpose. They breach all reasonable views of natural justice, flying in the face of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. They must be reformed as a matter of urgency.

Under the current rules, an MP can face trial by media and the public, who base their views on the very limited information released by the commissioner’s office. Inevitably, this can lead people to make assumptions about those under investigation that often bear no relation to reality. This happened to me recently, when the commissioner announced that I was under investigation over, as one report vaguely put it, ‘a possible failure to declare an interest’. In truth, someone took issue with my support for Israel and was trying to imply I had been ‘bought’.

The system operates as follows. The decision to announce that an investigation into an MP is underway and whether to notify the media is in the personal gift of the commissioner. This means he can effectively play God with an MP’s reputation. The commissioner will notify an MP if they are under investigation, but he is under no obligation to tell him or her whether this fact will be released to the public or not. If his decision is to launch an investigation, he will not warn the MP in advance.

Incredibly, MPs are not supposed to respond publicly to news that they are the subject of an inquiry. They are expected to remain silent.

In my case, I was told on 28 July that I was under investigation. I was not told whether – or when – this information would be made public. Was it a coincidence that the commissioner’s office then decided to release details of the inquiry to the media on 3 August at about 10.15am, just 45 minutes before a major Reform UK press conference in London? And was it a coincidence that the BBC chose to announce it via a national push notification at exactly 11am, potentially disrupting our press conference and changing the headlines?

This announcement followed a weekend of totally unrelated press stories about donations involving Reform UK and myself. Many members of the public will have put two and two together and made five: the practical effect of the commissioner releasing this news was to erroneously suggest to the mainstream media that I was being investigated for the contents of the weekend’s press coverage.

The story was running within a few minutes on all mainstream broadcast, digital and print media, with wild inaccuracies being perpetrated, especially as the media did not bother to get in touch for clarification.

I was supposed to suck it up, stay silent, but I refused. If I am attacked, I will defend myself – especially against inaccuracies that could defame or damage me. If I had not clarified the situation on social media, those inaccurate headlines and stories would have run for days.

So I must ask: was this part of a deliberate stitch-up? It certainly felt like it. Or was it genuinely a total coincidence?

I have written to the commissioner asking why he decided to publish news of my investigation, why I was not given warning of it and why it was released at that particular moment. I also want to know whether any heads-up was given by the commissioner’s office to the press at the time or just beforehand. I have alerted the Commons speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to my concerns. I do wonder if the time has come for the investigator to be investigated.

This episode was completely unacceptable for me personally, but more widely, it proved the rules need root-and-branch reform.

I would strongly suggest there needs to be a standard set of rules on what is published by the commissioner and when. MPs should be notified in advance. In a sane world, surely the fact of an investigation would be publicised with sufficient details to steer the media, just as media outlets reporting on active criminal cases are able to follow a standard set of details that do not prejudice a criminal inquiry.

Secondly, investigations are not currently subject to a timetable. This means they can run for many months, despite relating to simple matters. One sitting MP has been under investigation for almost a year over a single letter in one tweet. Even the Parliamentary Committee on Standards has no requirement to meet on a regular or timely basis to consider recommendations from the commissioner. I have heard it can take months for the committee to meet. Again, unacceptable.

Inquiries should be limited to, say, two months, barring exceptional circumstances. This is crucial because at present, any MP who is under investigation can always be referred to publicly in media reports as being ‘under investigation’. The cloud of suspicion hangs heavily over them, regardless of the outcome.

Furthermore, because of the way the system operates, the commissioner’s office is itself being abused. It has become a sort of ‘smear service’ in which vexatious complaints are lodged against an MP and then immediately publicised by the complainant, regardless of whether the commissioner considers them worthy of investigation. This happened to me two weeks ago when a vexatious complaint was made by a Liberal Democrat MP, working in conjunction with the Guardian, which splashed on the story at the moment of submission of the complaint; even though it was rapidly rejected, the damage was done by more lurid headlines that were not then corrected or apologised for.

Ultimately, the current system means that MPs are presumed guilty until the commissioner decides they are innocent. The cards of this parliamentary standards game are stacked against MPs in a way that defies any reasonable form of justice. It needs reform.