Chapter 8: Analysis and findings
Behaviour Code
116.The complainants both allege that Lord Stone breached the Code of Conduct by his behaviour towards them. Paragraph 10 of the Code provides that:
“Members of the House should observe the principles set out in the Parliamentary Behaviour Code of respect, professionalism, understanding others’ perspectives, courtesy, and acceptance of responsibility. These principles will be taken into consideration when any allegation of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct is under investigation.”
117.The Behaviour Code is at Appendix A of the Code, and states:
“[W]hether you are a visitor or working in Parliament at Westminster or elsewhere, there are clear guidelines in place on how you should be treated, and how you should treat others:
- Respect and value everyone—bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct are not tolerated
- Recognise your power, influence or authority and don’t abuse them
- Think about how your behaviour affects others and strive to understand their perspective
- Act professionally towards others
- Ensure Parliament meets the highest ethical standards of integrity, courtesy and mutual respect
- Speak up about any unacceptable behaviour you see”
118.I start this section by considering Lord Stone’s behaviour against the principles in the Behaviour Code.
Respect and value everyone
119.Lord Stone’s attitude towards the Clerk of the Parliaments and, by implication, the staff member who had complained to the Clerk of the Parliaments as described in CD’s complaint suggests he failed to live up to this principle. CD’s complaint also suggests that he did not respect or value the opinion of CD or her colleague when talking to them at the Members’ Open Day.
Recognise your power, influence or authority and don’t abuse them
120.CD is clear that Lord Stone’s behaviour rested on an underlying assumption that as a member of the House he could speak and act with impunity.
121.GH felt that Lord Stone acted inappropriately towards her because of the relative power he had as a result of his age and status.
Think about how your behaviour affects others and strive to understand their perspective
122.CD’s complaint shows that Lord Stone did not consider how his behaviour at the Open Day or later in the restaurant affected CD or her colleagues. This is something Lord Stone recognised in his response to the complaint.
123.Lord Stone did not consider how his actions towards GH might make her feel uncomfortable, but has since recognised that they did.
Act professionally towards others
124.Lord Stone’s response to his discussion with the Clerk of the Parliaments—namely, criticising it to House staff—was not a professional approach.
Ensure Parliament meets the highest ethical standards of integrity, courtesy and mutual respect
125.Some of the comments on previous requirements also apply here.
Speak up about any unacceptable behaviour you see
126.This does not apply to Lord Stone in these complaints.
Bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct
127.At the preliminary assessment stage I concluded, with the assistance of Ms Evans, that in both cases the behaviour complained of could amount to bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, if proved on the balance of probabilities.
128.In both complaints Lord Stone acknowledged the behaviour alleged in the complaint, thereby proving the alleged behaviour more conclusively than on the balance of probabilities.
129.The criteria for bullying and harassment largely overlap, such that a finding of harassment will often automatically provide good evidence of bullying. However, as a matter of fairness, where behaviour meets both definitions, I have only made a finding on one of the definitions. No-one reading the report should be left with the impression that Lord Stone has been found to have breached the Code twice on separate matters arising out of a single incident.
130.I consider that where there is evidence that particular behaviour may meet the criteria for bullying and harassment, harassment is the more serious breach of the Code. The unwanted conduct relates to a protected characteristic and necessarily involves elements of targeting or discrimination based on a protected characteristic, which is, in my view, an attack on personal identity. Therefore, when Lord Stone’s behaviour appeared to meet both sets of criteria, which in both cases it did, my formal finding has been that he has harassed the complainant.
131.On each of the definitions, a crucial element is the perception of the conduct by, and the effect that the behaviour has on, the person on the receiving end of it, who is the only person allowed to make a complaint.
132.Harassment is defined as:
“[A]ny unwanted physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct that has the purpose or effect of either violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. Under the Equality Act 2010, harassment is related to one or more of the relevant ‘protected characteristics’ which include age, sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment.”
133.A further provision within the UK Parliament policy (supported by the ACAS guidance on bullying and harassment at work) is that:
“A person may also be harassed even if they were not the intended ‘target’ of harassment. For example, a person may be harassed by jokes about a religious group that they do not belong to, if these jokes create an offensive environment for them.”
The complaints in this report were of harassment, not bullying, although a finding of harassment will often meet the criteria for bullying as well.
134.Sexual misconduct is described in the Guide to the Code as incorporating “a range of behaviours including sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, voyeurism and any other conduct of a sexual nature that is non-consensual or has the purpose or effect of threatening, intimidating, undermining, humiliating or coercing a person.”
135.Behaviour that can constitute sexual misconduct includes “sexual remarks including those about appearance or clothing … verbal advances … touching, groping … Uncalled-for physical contact … Unwelcome and inappropriate touching … grabbing” where such behaviour occurs “inappropriately or without explicit full and freely given consent.”
CD’s complaint
136.CD complained that Lord Stone touched her several times while talking to her and made remarks about her dress that were unwelcome and inappropriate. This intrusion made her angry and anxious about future interactions with him.
Did Lord Stone’s behaviour amount to harassment?
Was Lord Stone’s behaviour unwanted physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct?
137.Yes, it was verbal and physical conduct, and unwanted.
Did it have the purpose or effect of either violating CD’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her?
138.Yes. CD described immediate and longer-term effects including feelings of anger, frustration, upset, an obvious power dynamic and anxiety about possible future contact with Lord Stone.
Was the behaviour associated with one or more protected characteristic?
139.Lord Stone’s conversation with CD, particularly where he discussed her [religious garment] and the clothing of other women, was clearly associated with her sex and religion.
140.On the basis of the evidence, I consider it more likely than not that Lord Stone’s behaviour was associated with CD’s sex and religion. I find therefore that his conduct amounted to harassment related to sex and religion.
Did Lord Stone’s behaviour meet the criteria for sexual harassment amounting to sexual misconduct?
Was his conduct of a sexual nature?
141.CD does not allege this and there is no indication that there was a sexual motivation.
142.I do not consider that Lord Stone’s behaviour met the criteria for sexual harassment and there is no evidence to support a finding of sexual misconduct.
Did Lord Stone’s behaviour meet the criteria for bullying?
143.I have explained above why I do not intend to make two findings on the same facts, and therefore, although it is likely that Lord Stone’s behaviour towards CD also meets the criteria for bullying, I have not carried out an analysis to establish whether this is the case.
Conclusion
144.Harassment is a breach of the Behaviour Code and the Code of Conduct. I therefore uphold CD’s complaint that Lord Stone’s behaviour breached the Code of Conduct.
GH’s complaint
145.GH complained that Lord Stone repeatedly touched her arm and her waist, greeted her with kisses too close to her mouth, and made comments about her physical appearance that were unwelcome and inappropriate. These actions made her uncomfortable.
Did Lord Stone’s behaviour amount to harassment?
Was Lord Stone’s behaviour unwanted physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct?
146.Yes, it was verbal and physical conduct, and unwanted.
Did it have the purpose or effect of either violating GH’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her?
147.Yes. GH described her discomfort, confusion and concern at the time about Lord Stone’s over-familiar, unnecessary and repeated physical contact throughout her visit to the House. Her complaint also made clear that her discomfort with Lord Stone’s behaviour stayed with her for some months afterwards.
Was the behaviour associated with one or more protected characteristic?
148.Lord Stone made references to GH being “young and beautiful” which, although he said were made in the context of talking about Queen Victoria, I consider related to the complainant’s age and sex.
149.On the basis of the evidence, I consider it more likely than not that Lord Stone’s behaviour was associated with GH’s age and sex. I find therefore that his conduct amounted to harassment related to age and sex.
Did Lord Stone’s behaviour meet the criteria for sexual harassment amounting to sexual misconduct?
Was his conduct of a sexual nature?
150.GH felt that Lord Stone’s behaviour towards her was sexually motivated and described finding it hard “not to think what “could have” happened if [she] had been alone”. She described how she “searched for many sexual harassment support outlets following this incident”.
151.Lord Stone insisted that he had no sexual motivation, but simply wanted to put her at ease and that his comments were in the context of giving her a tour and speaking about a young Queen Victoria.
152.The sexual misconduct definition, as with the other definitions, looks at the “purpose or effect” of behaviour in deciding whether sexual misconduct has occurred. So, if GH felt threatened, intimidated, undermined, humiliated or coerced, this would meet the relevant criterion, even if Lord Stone had not intended to have this effect.
153.However, the requirement that the conduct has to be of a sexual nature does not have this subjective element. It is necessary to establish whether, objectively, the behaviour was more likely than not to be of a sexual nature.
154.It was perfectly reasonable and understandable for GH to consider that Lord Stone’s behaviour towards her during her visit to Parliament was sexually motivated.
155.However, Lord Stone denied this, and gave a ‘non-sexual’ explanation that is plausible, although, as he now admits, inappropriate.
156.In considering the plausibility of Lord Stone’s explanation, I bear in mind his previous response to other complaints, and his previous views about physical contact between people who are not friends, or even known to each other. I have therefore concluded that his behaviour, although crass, upsetting and wrong, cannot be shown, on the balance of probabilities, to have been sexual on this occasion.
157.Lord Stone’s behaviour did not meet the necessary criteria for sexual misconduct, so there is no finding that he engaged in sexual misconduct.
Did Lord Stone’s behaviour meet the criteria for bullying?
158.I have explained above why I do not intend to make two findings on the same facts, and therefore, although it is likely that Lord Stone’s behaviour towards GH also meets the criteria for bullying, I have not carried out an analysis to establish whether this is the case.
Conclusion
159.Harassment is a breach of the Behaviour Code and the Code of Conduct. I therefore uphold GH’s complaint that Lord Stone’s behaviour breached the Code of Conduct.