Chapter 6: Complaint by CD: account of the key facts and evidence
79.On 24 October 2019 CD wrote to me to make a complaint:
“At the Members’ Open Day on 19 June I was stood at [one of the stalls] with my manager [JK]. We were approached by Lord Stone of Blackheath. The conversation below is not exactly verbatim but it is our best recollection of what happened.
Lord Stone [approached the stall at which CD was stationed]. Initially we thought it was simply to [discuss the Open Day]. As I was stood closest to him, not entirely behind the desk, he began asking me about the Behaviour Code poster which was stuck on a whiteboard [nearby]. I began explaining what it was, saying that it was bicameral and for everyone in the parliamentary community to read and follow.
He then began saying that he was a tactile and ‘friendly’ person. That he wasn’t political and that his career was in business, where he was a ‘people person’. As he said this opening statement, he simultaneously touched my left arm, before my elbow, and under my shoulder area. His hand lingered for a few seconds before he let go and continued his point. I immediately felt uncomfortable. I later realised that this was him demonstrating his point. He later mentioned this himself.
As he continued, he said that the Clerk of the Parliaments had pulled him up to his office because a member of staff had complained about him touching her. By this point he was quite agitated and said he was offended by this, that the complainant was wrong, it was fine for him to be tactile towards people, ‘men, women, whoever’. As he said these points, he then touched my upper arm again as an example. By this point I was uncomfortable and now irritated, so I stopped giving him eye contact, repositioned myself so I was no longer facing him, making it very clear that I was uncomfortable by this conversation. I am also naturally expressive on my face, so I was no longer smiling or engaging in conversation and I clearly looked unamused. I tried to remain composed and looked over at [JK] who looked extremely uncomfortable.
Not reading our expressions, body language or lack of engagement, he continued for about 3–4 minutes, further emphasising his points.
[JK] tried to say that whilst he might not have meant anything by it (touching the complainant), it is possible for people to feel how they feel and that’s okay. He wasn’t interested in what [JK] had to say and he started to talk over her. He turned his attention back to me and pointed at my [religious garment] and said “It’s like you being made to wear that… I know you’re not trying to be sexy or whatever”. My facial expression changed at this point, conveying complete bewilderment and shock but he continued, rather obliviously, that he was offended by women wearing short skirts and lipstick. He said, ‘what do they expect when they wear short skirts and lipstick, of course we’re (men) going to be friendly’. He went on to say that he has to put up with women in lipstick and short skirts even though that offended him, so why should he have to put up with people being upset with and offended by him.
He also mentioned that the Behaviour Code as being an example of the sort of thing that ‘starts a war between the sexes.’
By now [JK] and I were both mortified and whilst we both tried to remain relatively composed and calm, it was very clear that we were uncomfortable. He knew we wouldn’t reassure him or express agreement, so he started saying ‘I know it’s not your poster or you both, but people are upset about all this (him) and I’m upset that they’re upset’. As he knew he wasn’t going to get much of a response from us, he eventually changed the subject and I offered him a Members Open Day feedback form. He said it was a good event and left.
Impact:
This made me feel angry that a man I do not know thought he had the permission/right/autonomy to touch me, and that he proceeded to do this twice to prove his point, as though he had any claim to my body or my personal space. I was angered by the fact that there was an obvious power dynamic here, him being a Member of the House of Lords, and that perhaps this made him think this was acceptable. I was also frustrated by the fact that as an employee of the House of Lords I didn’t know how I could respond. The way I would have handled this situation as a member of the public and as an empowered woman, vs how I handled it as a staff member, I know are two very different things and this is one of the reasons I have been upset about this whole incident.
Another grievance being that he thought his opinion on how a woman dresses was any of his business. Whether I choose to [dress in a certain 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. What’s more, a woman shouldn’t expect anything from anyone except basic human decency and respect, regardless of what they’re wearing or not wearing.
The initial incident was in June and we are now approaching November and the anxiety of possibly running into him hasn’t worn off. Long term impacts have been that 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.
Ironically, he has again come into my personal space in these interactions, on one occasion squeezing between me and a female colleague in the line at a restaurant to reach some confectionary. He didn’t say excuse me, but just out of nowhere lunged between us, making us jump back and gasp back in shock. He didn’t apologise, he just picked up his confectionary and then slammed a pound down on the counter before walking off. We both found it very unnerving and rude, and were a little shaken.”
80.In accordance with the requirements of the Code, I carried out a preliminary assessment and concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish there was a prima facie case to be investigated.
81.I wrote to Lord Stone on 31 October 2019, enclosing a copy of CD’s complaint, informing him of the outcome of my preliminary assessment, and requesting his written response to the complaint.
82.Lord Stone replied to ask, in the light of his experience during my previous investigations, what assistance might be available to support him during this investigation. With Mr Whittle in attendance, I spoke on the phone to Lord Stone on 6 November 2019 to explain that respondents to complaints may be assisted and may be accompanied to any interviews, as set out in paragraph 132 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct:
“Members are expected to co-operate with any investigation into their conduct … They may be accompanied to any meeting by a colleague, friend or legal adviser”.
83.In previous investigations, respondents had been assisted by other members of the House or external support.
84.Lord Stone requested additional time to reflect on the session he had had as part of his behaviour change coaching before composing his formal written response. I agreed and on 14 January, following some correspondence between us, Lord Stone emailed my office with his considered written response to both complaints. The parts relating to CD were as follows:
“Thank you for your email. I am sorry that I was not sufficiently clear about my acceptance of the complaints, please let me say now unambiguously that I do accept the complaints and I apologise unreservedly for the effects of my behaviour. I have addressed each in turn below.
[…]
Whilst, as I have stated above, I do accept that my behaviour has been inappropriate, what I tried to emphasise in my previous email, albeit clumsily, was that my intentions were always entirely honourable. I did not approach the people whom I upset with any desire to embarrass them.
[…]
I now realise that many of my actions and interactions with staff and people who do not know me well may be construed as invading of peoples’ ‘personal space’. I accept that it is my responsibility in future to ensure that I am not inappropriately tactile.
I understand how some references and comments that I have made have been misconstrued as derogatory or inappropriate when they were tactless and clumsy (as in the case of [CD]) and the result of my difficulty in expressing myself. I will try to be mindful of this in future and will not assume that other people understand that references that I make. I will also not try to be humorous, as I can see that I can sometimes be tactless and often this can be misinterpreted. I have already begun to change this behaviour.
[…]
I would now like to address the particular nature of the two complaints.
Complaint by [CD]
[CD] chose to complain after an incident in the restaurant when she and a colleague were in the queue at lunchtime. I was rushing in to get some throat pastels and I squeezed in and picked up the sweets and put the £1 down to pay. I accept that my behaviour was discourteous and apologise for this.
In the account I think they have mis-interpreted what I said about [religious garments]. I was trying to make the point (clumsily) that if there is mistrust between men and women so that any friendly response from a man- like touching an arm between the wrist and shoulder is seen as sexual harassment, then I could see a possible reaction might be that the ‘authorities’ (which are usually male) might then be to require that women wear [religious garments]. Although my comment was certainly not intended to offend I can see now that it was not appropriate to make light of this issue and that wearing a [religious garment] is entirely a personal matter and should not attract comments from others.”
85.Lord Stone sent a further response on 10 April in which he summarised matters he had been reflecting on as a result of his behaviour change coaching. He said that as a result of that coaching and “much internal reflection and mindful, mediation, in solitude and in retreats”, he had accepted that:
“my behaviour to others must change.
It has been a long difficult internal battle that I have had to win—but I feel I have.
A large part of me was saying
- ‘it’s unfair’
- ‘They weren’t crimes’
- ‘My intention was good’.
However I now know that my words and actions WERE upsetting to others and in each case—these persons—who don’t know me—were sufficiently disturbed to take the action they did.
I now realise that those who know me well have been ‘tolerating’ my bad behaviour all my life and giving me leeway as they know I behave in an unusual way—but they know that my intentions are good and that they say ‘that’s just the way Andrew is’.
I know now that that is not good enough and am determined to change.
There are three ways I will do this
I list them in an order of how swiftly, I believe, they will become effective over time.
(1)When contact is necessary with people who do not know me—I will give greater consideration to the words and actions I use and will approach people with more formality and without invading their personal space . This will start straight away.
(2)For the longer term and more deeply, I am undergoing a course of mindfulness and meditation and learning from ‘spiritual’ teachers, to connect to a higher consciousness that will perhaps rid me of most of my egocentric behaviours and enable me to approach people with more sensitivity and compassion.
(3)Even post ‘lock-down’ I will reduce contact with people I don’t know—I have moved out of London and am coming into the Lords far less frequently and am reducing my involvements in the various projects and charities I was connected to. So also immediately—less contact.”
86.Lord Stone’s responses were sent to CD.
87.On my behalf, Mr Whittle spoke to CD to discuss next steps. As Lord Stone had not contested her description of events or his conduct she agreed that she had nothing further to add to her complaint.
88.Sam Evans and I interviewed Lord Stone on 27 April, with Mr Whittle in attendance.
89.We started by asking him whether he accepted the facts of CD’s complaint and he confirmed that he did, although he had a different recollection of his comments about “short skirts and lipstick”:
“COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS: Okay, but just on this thing of short skirts and lipstick, she was very specific in her complaint that that was a topic of conversation and you said that you found it offensive; you are making a comparison between people being offended by your touching, and you were saying, “Well, I find this offensive”. Do you remember that?
LORD STONE OF BLACKHEATH: No, I don’t find it offensive.
COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS: I was going to ask you if you found it offensive, but you might have just been making a point.
LORD STONE OF BLACKHEATH: I was making a point but not in the way that she has interpreted it.
COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS: We can come on to that later. Let us try to nail down the facts. Did you raise short skirts and lipstick?
LORD STONE OF BLACKHEATH: Yes.”
90.When we asked about his reasons for touching CD’s arm, Lord Stone told us:
“I was trying to make a point, yes, I was trying to show that what I was doing was not—harassment, bullying or sexual misconduct. I was trying to show that all I was doing was holding an arm. It shows what my thought was at that time about touching people’s arm, that it was not sexual misconduct. I mean, surely that is obvious, that if I am standing in a room with a hundred other people in a room under a poster which says “sexual harassment”, or whatever, and that there is somebody in a [religious garment] and I touch her arm and say, “Look, that is all I was doing”, then, yes, my intention was to make the point that this is not sexual harassment; this is just me being human. But obviously I am wrong—I am totally wrong”.
91.When questioned about why he had not recognised his touching of CD’s arm was making her uncomfortable, he explained:
“A lot of my friends over the past year or so started off by saying “these people should understand that is Andrew”, you know, and they know my intent is to help people, to be kind, you know, to be good to all beings at all times, and my entire life has been to try to make people happy and be a servant. And my friends have said, “That’s Andrew”, and I thought they were saying, “They should understand that Andrew is really nice and how he behaves is good”, when what they are actually saying is, “We know Andrew is sometimes intolerable; he does these things; he breaks boundaries; he does not understand that you should not do these things”, and they tolerate it.”
92.Lord Stone explained further the reasons behind his comments about the [religious garment]:
“Remembering everything I have said about my point of view at that time and that I thought the sets of rules about whether you could touch or send a kiss or whatever was some set of fine rules which should not exist, I felt that what was happening was that we were in danger of going back to behaviours where, you know, in novels, like Pride and Prejudice of those eras, where, as I say, you wore crinoline, you were not allowed to say anything and you had to have a chaperone, and all of a sudden there would be a set of rules. And I said what would be awful is if those sets of rules were set up by the men who think that they think are running the society, in which case women would be made to wear this, behave like that, even to the point of making people wear [religious garments]. I realise that that was wrong thing to say.”
93.Lord Stone finished the interview by talking about some of the ways he has changed since beginning his bespoke training and behaviour change coaching. Those comments are included at the end of the next chapter.