Chapter 3: Process and chronology
24.Following the receipt of each complaint I carried out a preliminary assessment to establish if the complaints engaged the Code of Conduct, and concluded that both did so.
25.I informed Lord Stone of both complaints, sent him the details that the complainants had provided to me, and asked for his written response. I forwarded each response to the relevant complainant.
26.CD was content to have her complaint dealt with by correspondence since the facts of the complaint were not contested, so I did not conduct an interview with her.
27.Sam Evans and I, with James Whittle supporting us, interviewed GH in January, and Lord Stone in April.
28.In accordance with paragraph 147 of the Guide to the Code, I produced separate draft reports of the facts in relation to each complaint. I sent the relevant factual reports to each complainant and sent both to Lord Stone. In relation to the complainants, I not only asked them to let me know if they disputed any of the facts in the draft report, but also if they were satisfied that I had protected their anonymity sufficiently.
29.I discussed next steps with each complainant, explaining that I considered that individually tailored training, as provided for under paragraph 140 of the Guide to the Code, was the proportionate sanction in response to each of the complaints. However, as Lord Stone was already attending such training as a result of my earlier report and the conduct complained of pre-dated that report, I considered it inappropriate to impose further training. I therefore proposed that Lord Stone continue the bespoke training and behaviour change coaching required as a result of my previous report and that training take into account the conduct described in CD and GH’s complaints.
30.GH agreed with this approach (although she was aware that she could disagree). CD did not and wrote to explain her reasons.
31.On 3 July I wrote again to Lord Stone to explain my findings and the positions taken by CD and GH in relation to remedial action.
32.Lord Stone agreed to remedial action in relation to GH’s complaint, so this was the outcome of her complaint.
33.Lord Stone would have agreed to remedial action in the case of CD but, that option having been declined by CD, the parts of this report dealing with CD’s complaint are referred to the Conduct Committee for final decision.