Chapter 9: Overview and recommended sanction
Overview
550.Lord Ahmed denied from the start that he had breached the Code of Conduct but I have found against him on a number of matters. As Lord Ahmed denied wrongdoing, it is not possible to be sure of his motives and thinking during this period. However, the findings in Chapters 3-5 suggest a coherence in what happened that accounts for all the findings and seems worth setting down. I consider this account to be more likely than not to explain the events that led to my findings, but as I accept that there could be other explanations, I do not put this forward as a finding in itself.
551.Before and at the meeting on 21 February 2017 Lord Ahmed was willing to help Ms Zaman and subsequently wrote to Commissioner Dick on 2 March 2017. When he received Ms Zaman’s account of her experiences he would have known that she had been taken advantage of sexually and that she was psychologically vulnerable. Lord Ahmed sent the letter on 2 March, then asked Ms Zaman to dinner the same evening and she agreed.
552.At the dinner he flirted with her and after the dinner he made an unwelcome sexual advance, amounting to a sexual assault. The assumption must be that he was sexually attracted to her and hoped for a sexual encounter. Ms Zaman rejected him and in a subsequent conversation was highly critical of his behaviour, as was Ms Butt, the mutual friend who had introduced them, and who had been told of the assault by Ms Zaman. This must have been unpleasant for Lord Ahmed.
553.Later in March 2017 the police contacted Lord Ahmed in response to his letter to Commissioner Dick. At this point he closed down any possibility of an investigation of Ms Zaman’s concerns by saying that Ms Zaman would not speak to them. He told us that this was because Ms Zaman had told him she was not willing to be identified to the police as the complainant, but I found that this was not true. As the only relevant events between him sending the letter and receiving the reply were the dinner, the assault and the condemnation of his behaviour from Ms Zaman and Ms Butt, it seems more likely than not that Lord Ahmed was motivated by the sexual rejection and criticisms that he had received.
554.After her conversation with him about the sexual assault Ms Zaman blocked him from her phone, and both of them said that they had no contact until after Ms Zaman texted him on 14 July 2017, asking if he had had a reply to his letter of 2 March.
555.He never informed her that he had told the police she would not meet them, and he did not contact her when he received the reply from the police of 3 May 2017, offering a meeting to Ms Zaman and assuring her that she would not be identified to S if she spoke to them.
556.However, he responded to her July text, and then sent her the letter from the police. He then used the prospect of arranging a meeting with the police to lure her to his house, where he finally managed to have sex with her. He continued the sexual relationship for a couple of months but then ended it in disputed circumstances, which we did not investigate as ending a sexual relationship does not engage the Code of Conduct.
557.During the course of the sexual relationship Lord Ahmed continued to say to Ms Zaman that he would arrange the meeting suggested in the letter from the police of 3 May 2017, although he actually made no attempt to do so.
558.After the end of their relationship Ms Zaman stayed in contact with an associate of his, X, and when they met on 24 December 2017 X either deleted, or made Ms Zaman delete, all the text and WhatsApp messages between her and Lord Ahmed. Immediately after this X broke off his relationship with Ms Zaman.
559.Ms Zaman made a complaint to me in January 2018. I did not accept her complaint for investigation under the Code of Conduct, as it did not meet the eligibility criteria then in force. I suggested she could contact the police, and, at her request, made a referral to the unit that deals with allegations against parliamentarians. Ms Zaman made her complaint to the police in March and also circulated a letter to parliamentarians about the conduct of S and Lord Ahmed.
560.The police interviewed Ms Zaman and Lord Ahmed, and decided the evidence against him did not meet the threshold for prosecution.
561.Ms Zaman also contacted the BBC, which broadcast a programme on 14 February 2019, making the allegation that Lord Ahmed had used the offer of help with her complaint as a way to have sex with her.
562.On 30 April 2019 the Code of Conduct was revised, and the eligibility criteria for making a complaint were revised.
563.Ms Zaman re-presented her complaint, and the investigation took place.
564.During the investigation it became apparent, because of the availability of robust corroborative evidence, that Lord Ahmed had lied to Ms Zaman in offering to help her after he had told the police she would not speak to them, and using the prospect of arranging a meeting with the police to lure her to his house with an intention of having sex with her; lied to the police in 2017 and when he was interviewed by them in 2018; and lied to me during the investigation. He also used every opportunity to try, unsuccessfully, to show that Ms Zaman was a liar.
565.We examined all the allegations of dishonesty or unreliability that Lord Ahmed made and tested her evidence when it was inconsistent. Although we looked at a number of inconsistencies, most of these were on matters of detail, and there were explanations for them other than lying. On all the important elements of her account she was consistent.
Lord Ahmed’s submission in mitigation
566.In March 2020, the Conduct Committee recommended to the House that the following paragraph be added to the Guide to the Code of Conduct:
“After preparing her own account of the facts of a case, the Commissioner will consider whether the Code has been breached. If she finds that the Code has been breached and that remedial action is inappropriate, she will inform the member of the breaches she has found with a summary of the relevant parts of her report. The member will then be invited to present any material they would wish the Commissioner to take into account when considering her recommended sanction.”21
567.The House agreed.
568.I wrote to Lord Ahmed asking for material he wished me to take into account when considering the sanction to recommend to the Conduct Committee. Lord Ahmed replied on 7 May. My letter and his response are included in Appendix 11.
569.Lord Ahmed’s submission was presented under five headings of matters that he considered should be taken into account in determining the sanction:
- Background and character;
- Any previous breaches of the Code;
- The effect of these findings;
- The length of time that has passed since the incident; and
- The appropriateness of the sanction to the breach.
570.As I have set out in previous reports, the principles I take into account when considering an appropriate sanction are, briefly:
- Proportionality;
- Openness and transparency; and
- Fairness and natural justice.
571.Though I would not wish to set a precedent by accepting that all factors set out by Lord Ahmed should be considered relevant, each deserves a response.
Background and character
572.In his submission, Lord Ahmed described his early working life and his political career and interests. He provided five letters from friends and associates to attest to his good character.
573.All appointed members have backgrounds that reflect their efforts and achievements. As all members specifically sign up to abide by the Code of Conduct, that is the baseline against which their behaviour is judged. It would be invidious to treat members differently in setting a sanction by reason of their character or background.
Any previous breaches of the Code
574.In his submission, Lord Ahmed said:
“In my long and distinguished career I have not been subject to any complaint whatsoever, let alone a complaint of the nature made by the complainant, or any investigation or any finding. The present complaint must, therefore, be seen to be out of character and not in my nature. I would suggest that this, of itself, is indicative of there being no risk of repetition and, therefore, should be viewed as an isolated incident and one which should place it in the lower category of any sanction that might be recommended.”
575.Previous breaches of the Code are relevant in considering whether a sanction for a relatively minor breach is adequate, or whether a more significant sanction should be imposed to reflect a repeated breach. However, the fact of no previous findings of a breach cannot be used to reduce the appropriate sanction for a first breach.
576.Further, Lord Ahmed says that the breach is out of character and unlikely to be repeated. However, he has denied the allegations made against him; his deception of Ms Zaman lasted from March until November 2017, and he has continued to deny any wrongdoing throughout the investigation. I therefore do not accept that there is no risk of repetition.
The effect of these findings
577.In his submission, Lord Ahmed said that my report would “undoubtedly have devastating consequences for my personal and matrimonial life”. He noted the ill-health of his wife and the impact on his grandchildren and others.
578.In earlier reports I have said that:
“Publication is not a sanction, but the effect of publication is, in my view, a matter that I can take into account when considering the proportionality of any sanction I may impose, as publicity may itself be a very effective catalyst for change in the respondent’s behaviour”.22
579.In cases where the breach is minor, acknowledged and remedial action may be considered an appropriate outcome, the impact of publication is a relevant factor to take into account. However, throughout this investigation Lord Ahmed has denied any wrongdoing and my findings are of serious breaches.
580.I accept that the report will have a devastating effect on Lord Ahmed’s personal and family life, and that innocent third parties will be adversely affected. I am very sorry that Lord Ahmed’s family will suffer through his behaviour, but I cannot allow that to affect my judgement on what is a proportionate sanction. To do so would be to set up a hierarchy in which members with close families are given advantages that more solitary members are denied.
The length of time that has passed since the incident
581.In his submission, Lord Ahmed says “The events giving rise to the complaint took place in 2017”, and notes that the Guide to the Code requires that “the longer ago the conduct occurred, the more certain the Commissioner should be of the need for such a sanction before recommending it.”
582.Paragraph 152 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct says:
“In deciding upon the sanction to recommend and in particular whether in respect of conduct occurring before 26 June 2015 to recommend suspension for a particular period longer than the remainder of the current Parliament or, more severe still, expulsion, the Commissioner should bear in mind the retrospective effect of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 and that, the longer ago the conduct occurred, the more certain the Commissioner should be of the need for such a sanction before recommending it.”
583.The Guide to the Code refers to 26 June 2015 as this is the date from which the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 was in force. The Act provides statutory power for a member of the House of Lords to be suspended or expelled from the House for conduct that “occurred after the coming into force of this Act” or “occurred before the coming into force of this Act and was not public knowledge before that time”.
584.It is clear that the provisions of the Guide are to be read in the context of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015. The conduct considered in this report took place around two years after the Act came into force. The provisions of paragraph 152 therefore do not apply.
585.Lord Ahmed also noted that the sexual assault on 2 March 2017 took place before the specific provisions in the eighth edition of the Code of Conduct applied and that “It is wrong, therefore, to make findings and recommend sanction to an event which is outside the ambit of the Code.”
586.However, the Code of Conduct makes clear that “Behaviour that took place before this date [21 June 2017] may still constitute a breach of the personal honour provision if undertaken in the performance of the member’s parliamentary duties and activities.” I have found that Lord Ahmed's action on 2 March 2017 amounted to sexual misconduct, constituted a failure to act on his personal honour and therefore was a breach of the Code.
The appropriateness of the sanction to the breach
587.In his submission, Lord Ahmed argued that none of the allegations on which I have found him to have breached the Code were sufficiently serious to warrant a severe sanction. He said that:
- the sexual misconduct on 2 March 2017 was “a fleeting, spontaneous and momentary incident” which led to no criminal charges;
- his failure to progress Ms Zaman's complaint did not ultimately prevent Ms Zaman from taking her complaint to the police;
- his sexual relationship with Ms Zaman was a consensual one; and
- I did not uphold some of Ms Zaman's allegations.
588.I accept that:
- the sexual misconduct did not lead to any criminal charges and that, taken on its own, might be considered a relatively minor breach of the Code;
- ultimately Ms Zaman was able to take her complaint to the police despite Lord Ahmed's failure to progress the case on her behalf; and
- their sexual relationship was consensual.
589.However, Lord Ahmed does not address the finding that he deliberately deceived Ms Zaman over a period of months by purporting to help her in his position as a member of the House of Lords, with the object of having a sexual relationship with her. His deliberate deception from March to November 2017 damages the reputation of the House of Lords, as does his subsequent denial of his actions.
590.Finally, Lord Ahmed argued:
“that my account and my memory of the events under scrutiny did not accord with the complainant’s should not—and cannot in this case—be assumed to be the result of dishonesty. There are many reasons why two individuals may not experience a particular moment in time in the same manner. At each stage of the investigation, I have sought to provide my version of events as best as I could remember them.”
591.He also said that:
“it would be wholly improper to characterise any challenges I have made to the complainant's evidence and/or the way in which you have conducted the investigation in a negative way. I have made such challenges and comments as I considered appropriate (almost invariably with the assistance of legal advice) in order to ensure that the investigation is conducted in a thorough and fair manner and in accordance with the Code.”
592.I accept, and have always accepted, that memories can be faulty and people’s accounts can vary without dishonesty. Any findings of dishonesty are based on solid evidence, including documents and accounts of the police and other reputable people. Where I have found aspects of Lord Ahmed's accounts to be due to dishonesty, I have set this out in the report.
593.I accept that evidence should be challenged if it is not accepted, and I do not complain of this. However, the requirements of paragraph 9 of the Code23 are not suspended during an investigation into alleged breaches of the Code. If Lord Ahmed chose to lie during the investigation, and to make unsubstantiated allegations to undermine the evidence of the complainant, he has to accept the consequences of this approach.
594.Lord Ahmed is correct to say that it would be improper for me to characterise his challenges to the way I have conducted the investigation in an unfairly negative way. There is nothing in the report to suggest I have done so, and my recommended sanction has not been influenced by such challenges.
Recommended sanction
595.As well as making findings on the allegations, my role is to recommend a sanction to the Conduct Committee where the circumstances of an investigation make any remedial action unsuitable.
596.The breaches of the Code of Conduct are too severe for me to attempt to agree remedial action with Lord Ahmed and Ms Zaman, and, in any event, such an outcome is not possible because Lord Ahmed denies wrongdoing.
597.The range of penalties that I can recommend to the Conduct Committee includes suspension, denial of access to the system of financial support or facilities of the House of Lords and expulsion. In reaching a decision on what sanction to recommend, I am guided by the principle of proportionality.
598.Lord Ahmed sexually assaulted Ms Zaman in March 2017 and then engaged in a sustained period of deception and manipulation of Ms Zaman between July and November 2017 in order to gain sexual favours from her. He promised to help her and failed to do so. During this investigation he has given misleading and inaccurate accounts on important matters to try and show he has not breached the Code of Conduct.
599.Inevitably, because he denies any wrongdoing, he has shown no remorse. I therefore have to assume that he is unrepentant about his behaviour towards Ms Zaman and during the investigation.
600.His use of his parliamentary status to offer illusory help to a vulnerable Ms Zaman undermines the reputation of the House of Lords as a whole, as it undermines trust in the honesty and trustworthiness of its members.
601.His dishonesty during the investigation shows that he has no respect for the standards of the House of Lords or its processes.
602.There is no evidence that he will change his behaviour or beliefs.
603.The proportionate sanction is therefore expulsion from the House of Lords, and this is my recommendation.
21 Conduct Committee, Progress report and amendments to the rules of conduct (1st Report, session 2019–21, HL Paper 34). At time of writing, this change has not been incorporated into a ninth edition of the Code.
22 The conduct of Lord Stone of Blackheath (published on 23 October 2019)
23 To observe the seven general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.