Chapter 2: Executive summary
Complaint by CD4
7.Complainant CD reported that on 19 June 2019 she and a colleague were working at a Members’ Open Day at which members of the House are able to speak to staff from a variety of member-facing teams within the House Administration to discuss the services they provide. Lord Stone stopped to speak to CD and her colleague and began to speak to them about the Parliamentary Behaviour Code, which was something being promoted at the Open Day. In the course of that conversation Lord Stone told CD that that he was a “tactile” person, and touched CD’s arm. He explained that he had been spoken to by the Clerk of the Parliaments about being tactile with members of staff and that this had offended him, again touching CD’s arm. Lord Stone went on to talk about CD’s wearing of religious clothing and about other women’s modes of dress.
Immediate and longer-term effect on CD
8.CD said that incident had made her feel angry “that a man I do not know thought he had the permission/right/autonomy to touch me” and that the interaction relied on an “obvious power dynamic” in which his membership of the House meant he could consider his behaviour acceptable.
9.CD also found it unacceptable that he felt it was appropriate to comment on how she dressed, saying “[w]hether I choose to [dress in a particular way] as part of my religious observations or whether another woman chooses to wear a short skirt, it isn’t for any man to comment on or think over.”
10.The effect of the incident had been to make CD anxious about interacting with him again:
“I feel extremely uncomfortable when I have found myself around him again, in lifts, corridors, cafeterias etc. I do worry about where he will pop up and what I will do if I see him, whether I go a different way, ignore him, or fake politeness so that he will leave me alone.”
11.She also described a further incident of Lord Stone pushing in between CD and a colleague in a queue at one of the work restaurants, which she and her colleague had found “very unnerving and rude”, leaving them both a little shaken.
Lord Stone’s response
12.Lord Stone said he was “very sorry my comments have been giving offence to people”. He explained that he had been trying to make a point about the Behaviour Code, having just been reprimanded by the Clerk of the Parliaments for being too “tactile”, but accepts now that this was inappropriate.
13.He also explained the steps he had been taking since the publication of my previous report on his conduct to learn “how my behaviour can have detrimental effects on other people”.
Finding
14.Lord Stone’s behaviour met the criteria for harassment associated with the protected characteristics of sex and religion, and was a breach of the Code of Conduct.
Outcome
15.I proposed that Lord Stone continue the bespoke training and behaviour change coaching he has been attending as a result of my earlier report on his conduct and for that work to take into account the conduct described in this report. CD was not content to agree remedial action as the only outcome of this complaint, so the matter was referred to the Conduct Committee for final decision.
Complaint by GH
16.GH was a young woman who had met Lord Stone at a dinner where he offered to give her a tour of Parliament after hearing of her interest in politics. She said that during this tour, to which she brought her cousin, Lord Stone greeted her in an overfamiliar manner, kissing her on both cheeks near her mouth, and repeatedly touched her arms and her waist during the tour and while having tea in one of the House’s restaurants. He also made comments about her physical appearance. He did not treat her cousin in a similar fashion.
Immediate and longer-term effect on GH
17.GH told us that she “was incredibly disturbed by what had happened and found it hard not to think what “could have” happened” if she had been alone. GH said that “this still troubles me today, over a year later.”
18.She told us that she “searched for many sexual harassment support outlets following this incident” and “was always anxious that this was happening to other people but [she] was afraid to share [her] story in case it wasn’t valid enough.”
Lord Stone’s response
19.Lord Stone told us that he had met GH at a dinner and had maintained contact, as he often did with young people he met who were interested in careers in matters where he felt he could help. He was “upset by the inference that [his] behaviour toward GH was anything other than to try and assist”. He accepted that “her account is factually accurate” but insisted that “the connotations of inappropriate behaviour that she makes are wholly inaccurate and seem to me be the product of her imagination.”
20.However, during the course of his interview with us, he did accept that, while it had not been his intention to make GH feel uncomfortable, his actions had had that effect and he was sorry for that.
21.Lord Stone was keen to assure us that the actions he has taken since the last report into his conduct mean that these sorts of situations would not arise again.
Finding
22.Lord Stone’s behaviour met the criteria for harassment associated with the protected characteristics of age and sex, and was a breach of the Code of Conduct.
Outcome
23.I proposed that Lord Stone continue the bespoke training and behaviour change coaching he has been attending as a result of my earlier report on his conduct and for that training to take into account the conduct described in relation to GH’s complaint. Lord Stone and GH agreed to this, so the matter was concluded by way of remedial action, in accordance with paragraphs 139 and 140 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct.
4 The initials of complainants and others used in this report bear no relationship to their names.