The House of Lords Conduct Committee has today published a report
by Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, the independent House of Lords
Commissioner for Standards, into the conduct of .
The report covers two separate complaints against Lord Stone. The
Commissioner found that Lord Stone breached the Code of Conduct
with behaviour that met the criteria for harassment related to
the protected characteristics of religion and sex in one
instance, and age and sex in another.
The new complaints about Lord Stone’s behaviour were made to the
Commissioner following her publication of a previous report in
October 2019 which found he had breached the Parliamentary
behaviour code by harassing complainants in relation to the
protected characteristics of age, sex and gender reassignment.
The new complaints related to behaviour which took place before
the previous report had been published and before Lord Stone had
begun a course of bespoke behaviour change training.
In publishing its report today the Conduct Committee support the
Commissioner’s recommendation that Lord Stone continue to take
part in the behaviour change training and it should be adapted to
reflect the specific aspects of the latest complaints. The
Committee also say: “We have also made clear that if Lord Stone
were to commit further similar breaches of the Code in the
future, the Committee would be inclined to apply a much more
severe sanction.”
The Conduct Committee’s full statement on its report and the
report itself can be found online here
Notes to Editors
The Parliamentary Behaviour Code was incorporated into the House
of Lords Code of Conduct in April 2019. The revised Code of
Conduct states that ‘behaviour that amounts to bullying,
harassment or sexual misconduct is a breach of the Code.’
In her report the Commissioner sets out principles she has
applied when investigating complaints in relation to bullying,
harassment or sexual misconduct. These are:
Proportionality – this includes the ability to propose remedial
action with the agreement of the complainant and the respondent.
This can include an apology or the respondent agreeing to
undertake appropriate training. Bespoke training and behaviour
change coaching was the outcome reached in this case. More severe
sanctions—including suspension, denial of access to the system of
financial support or the facilities of the House and
expulsion—can be recommended in serious cases but must be imposed
by the House.
Openness and transparency – including a requirement that if the
Commissioner upholds a complaint the respondent is named and
their behaviour and its effect on the complainant set out. The
Commissioner states that over time this will allow readers to
assess whether their own behaviour should change and other
possible victims to recognise they have a remedy. Publishing
details will also allow readers to recognise the types of
unacceptable behaviour that they should speak up about, as
required by the Behaviour Code.
Fairness and natural justice – the requirement of fairness
applies to both the complainant and respondent. The Commissioner
ensures this by conducting interviews with both parties in the
same way, seeking third party corroboration of any disputed
evidence and treating both parties’ evidence with equal weight.
The Conduct Committee becomes involved in cases under the Code of
Conduct where the Commissioner considers remedial action to be an
inappropriate outcome or where a remedial action cannot be agreed
between the parties.
The bespoke training and behaviour change coaching is provided by
an external supplier. It consists of one-to-one sessions with a
trainer who specialises in behaviour change coaching. The member
will be encouraged to look at their behaviour and its impact on
others, to achieve long-term change. The external provider will
report to the Commissioner for Standards on the member’s
participation and engagement with the process.
