Baroness Manningham-Buller:

Moved by Baroness Manningham-Buller

That the Report from the Select Committee The conduct of Baroness Meyer (2nd Report, HL Paper 58) be agreed to.

My Lords, I rise to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, but I shall speak to both reports from the Conduct Committee.

I shall begin with the report on the conduct of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I am of course aware that some noble Lords have criticised the committee’s findings, and this is reflected in the Amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, tabled last Friday, which was then retabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. I shall therefore take a few minutes to explain our findings. I shall not address wider procedural issues, such as Standing Order 68. It is clear that Motions such as this, as we heard from the Chief Whip, are not to be debated, but our report on the reform of the code, which we expect to publish later this month, will allow the House to debate these issues of procedure in full, and any changes that the committee will recommend to the House for approval.

In outline, the Commissioner for Standards upheld two complaints of harassment against the noble Baroness made by fellow members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The first complaint was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The commissioner, having heard evidence from two witnesses, who both had clear recollections of the incident, unlike the noble Baroness herself, concluded that the noble Baroness had twice referred to the noble Lord as “Lord Poppadom”.

The second complaint arose from an occasion when the noble Baroness complimented a Member of the House of Commons, Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, on her braids. She then asked whether she should touch them and, without waiting for Ms Ribeiro-Addy’s reply, reached out and lifted her braids.

Both incidents were mortifying and upsetting for those involved, and both met the test of harassment—a test that, I remind the House, replicates that contained in Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The commissioner also found that in the case of the noble Baroness’s words to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the harassment had a racial element. It would be hard to deny the racial overtones of the words “Lord Poppadom”, as addressed to the noble Lord. The commissioner concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no racial element to the second incident, relating to Ms Ribeiro-Addy’s braids. The commissioner accordingly recommended that the noble Baroness undertake bespoke coaching to support her in reflecting on her behaviour in both incidents. He also recommended, with specific reference to his finding of racial harassment in the first incident, that she be suspended from the House for three weeks.

Both the noble Baroness and the complainants were given two weeks in which to appeal against either the commissioner’s findings or, in the case of the noble Baroness, the recommended sanction. There were no appeals. The Conduct Committee’s role was therefore to review the recommended sanction: we had no discretion to revisit the commissioner’s findings in the absence of an appeal. We considered the sanction with great care over two meetings and reflected carefully on a letter submitted by the noble Baroness, along with supporting materials, which set out some mitigating factors, but ultimately we decided to uphold the commissioner’s recommendations.

I appreciate the gravity of any suspension from the House, however short. We never recommend suspension lightly, but the finding in this case is clear: the noble Baroness twice addressed the noble Lord—a senior Member of this House with 25 years’ standing, a fellow member of the Joint Committee, and a privy counsellor —as “Lord Poppadom”.

I hope the noble Lord does not press his amendment, but if he does, I invite the House, by rejecting it and agreeing to our report, to confirm that the use of such offensive language is simply not acceptable.

I now turn to the report on the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath. The noble Lord was found to have bullied two security officers at the subway entrance. They had asked him to move his suitcase, which he had left unattended by the entrance, and I hope the whole House will agree that his abusive response was unacceptable. The commissioner recommended that the noble Lord be suspended for six months, and despite the noble Lord’s appeal, the Conduct Committee endorsed this recommendation.

There are two reasons for such a long suspension. First, there is the noble Lord’s total lack of insight into his behaviour. He continues to deny that there is a power imbalance between him, a Member of this House, and junior security staff, and this, combined with his self-confessed inability to control his temper, makes him a continuing risk to those on the Parliamentary Estate.

Secondly, this is the third time that the noble Lord has been found in breach of the rules on bullying and harassment. On the two previous occasions, he was sent on bespoke training courses, and he has undertaken 14 coaching sessions at the House’s expense. We made it clear in our last report on the noble Lord that any further breach would be met with “much more severe sanction”.

In conclusion, I hope the House will agree that a long suspension is merited, and I invite the noble Lord to use the coming months to reflect on his behaviour and to seek professional support which will help him manage it more effectively in future. I beg to move.