Conduct Committee

Motion to Agree

15:54:00

Moved by

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.

16:00:00

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.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out from “that” to end and to insert “this House declines to agree the Report from the Conduct Committee The conduct of Baroness Meyer.”

I apologise to the House, because the only way that I can possibly speak in defence of my noble friend Lady Meyer is by putting down an amendment. I can reassure the noble Baroness, the Chairman of the Conduct Committee, that I will not press it to a Division. We are talking here about a total miscarriage of justice. My noble friend’s reputation has been completely shredded by the verdict that has come from the Conduct Committee. She has been accused of being a racist, and I cannot imagine anybody less racist than my noble friend. Let us look at the two cases which have been mentioned by the noble Baroness. The first is the accusation that she touched somebody’s hair and said at the time, “Is it all right if I touch your hair?” and touched their hair without waiting for their response. For that, she has been held up to be responsible for harassment. It almost defies credibility that harassment should take the form of somebody saying, “Is it all right if I touch your hair?” and then just touching a braid of somebody’s hair. The more serious accusation against my noble friend is of racism, connected with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and her reference to “Lord Poppadom” when she was coming back from a dinner which had been held on the last day of the visit to Rwanda. Everybody had been drinking, apparently, and she had been drinking too. I am afraid the reality is that alcohol affects us differently, and certainly my advice to my noble friend Lady Meyer would be that it is not the best time to crack jokes, which is what she said she was doing when referring to “Lord Poppadom”. At the same time, you cannot accuse her of racism. This is nothing to do with racism. My noble friend Lady Meyer has a daughter-in-law who is half Eritrean; she has not got a racist bone in her body. She has been subjected to an extraordinary kangaroo court which is held in secret—

Oh!

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is now trying the patience of the House. He should withdraw that remark and focus on the Motion in hand.

All right, I am happy to withdraw my remarks about the kangaroo court, but it seems to me that this is a committee that meets in secret. We are unable to debate the issues afterwards because of the convention of the House, which is why I have had to put down this amendment today. This is a very serious matter for my noble friend Lady Meyer. Her reputation has been completely blackened by this verdict. All I would say to noble Lords is that it may be Catherine Meyer today, but it could be you tomorrow. I beg to move.

My Lords, I much regret the characterisation of the works of the Conduct Committee—set up by your Lordships’ House, obeying the Code of Conduct agreed by your Lordships’ House and focusing on a Standing Order agreed by your Lordships’ House—as a total miscarriage of justice. In his defence of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, made no mention of the effect on the people concerned—the complainants—of her comments, so I do not agree that this is a total miscarriage of justice, nor do I agree with his concern about the fairness of the question. The noble Baroness changed her story. She had ample time to question and challenge the evidence of the complainants and the witnesses. The only redactions in the material provided to her were those needed to protect the identities of the witnesses. I return to the fundamental point that the noble Baroness addressed twice the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, as “Lord Poppadom”, and he subsequently complained about this. To say this was just a joke was not how it was received. She was given two weeks in which to appeal against the commissioner’s findings; she did not do so. The facts are clear and uncontested. Given the weight of the evidence, I do not see how the commissioner could have come to a different conclusion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, for indicating that he will not press his amendment, which simplifies the decision before the House. I therefore once again invite the House, by agreeing our report, to confirm that the use of such offensive language is simply not acceptable. I add that, of course, the committee meets in private because sometimes it will dismiss complaints, and it is essential that that continues to happen.

My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Motion agreed.

Motion to Resolve

Moved by

That, in accordance with Standing Order 11, Baroness Meyer be suspended from the service of the House for a period of three weeks; and that, in accordance with section 1 of the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, in the opinion of this House, the conduct giving rise to this resolution occurred after the coming into force of that Act.

Motion agreed.