City of Westminster (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Westminster watchdog reveals serious misconduct by Lords members, raising outrage amidst Tory calls to gag complainants.
The House of Lords Conduct Committee’s head, Baroness Manningham-Buller, stated that a rule change supported by Conservatives would simply deter actual harassment victims from coming forward.
Although the complainant wanted to stay anonymous in certain situations, the independent crossbencher and former head of MI5 informed the House that there have been “serious cases” involving peers.
After reviewing the behavior code, Lady Manningham-Buller made her remarks while rejecting a proposal to eliminate the ability of members of either House to file a harassment complaint against a peer.
Lord Hamilton said:
“It’s no doubt in my mind that the code of conduct, as it’s now worded, is leading to miscarriages of justice and I think we should be very mindful of this.”
The proposal was made by Tory former minister Lord Hamilton of Epsom, after a Conservative colleague was suspended from the House for three weeks for twice calling a British-Asian peer “Lord Poppadom” while they shared a taxi on an official trip.
Additionally, Baroness Meyer had uninvitedly stroked a Labour MP’s braids.
She was the victim of a “miscarriage of justice,” according to Lord Hamilton, who also implied that the allegations were made for political reasons.
The Conservative peer said:
“Also the problems that, actually, there are party political politicians in this House.
I was recently told of a case by a colleague that actually there are people refusing to go on parliamentary trips now or indeed share a taxi with a member of the opposition party in case that can be used against them.
That is a problem. If the onus is actually put on the complainant to say that they’ve been upset by some remark that somebody’s made, this can be exploited very much in terms of party political advantage.”
But Lady Manningham-Buller said:
“I would like to assure the House that the members of the conduct committee are fully alive to the possibility of politically motivated complaints, as are the commissioners.
We understand that we work in a political environment and we have robust processes for identifying and rejecting frivolous or vexatious complaints.
But in truth I suggest the risk identified by Lord Hamilton is more imaginary than substantial.”
She added:
“I would suggest that all Lord Hamilton’s amendment would achieve would be to prevent genuine victims of such harassment from complaining.
And let me be clear, there are victims. Even though allegations by members of either House against noble Lords are extremely rare, there have been cases where serious misconduct has occurred.”
In some cases the details are not in the public domain, because the complainant wished to remain anonymous, but she assured the House there have been serious cases involving noble Lords.”
Earlier in the debate, other Tory peers had likened the case of Lady Meyer to a playground argument.
Conservative former Cabinet minister Lord Lilley said that surely the presumption is that they are old enough and sensible enough to deal with offensive remarks made by other colleagues without running off to teacher and saying ‘please miss, please miss, Ginny insulted me on the playground’.
He added that it’s ridiculous that one member should bring that sort of minor incident before this procedure.
Tory peer Lord Balfe said:
“I was appalled by the report on Baroness Meyer, where really it seemed that a playground scrap had been elevated into a great controversy.”
Lord Hamilton’s plan left liberal Democrat Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer “disappointed but perhaps not surprised.”
She said that it suggests that if they suffer or our colleagues suffer something that involves harassment we should just keep quiet.
That smacks to her of the worst aspects of English public school life, hopefully a thing of the past in schools now, but in Lord Hamilton’s mind where not grassing on one’s fellows is more important than ensuring intimidating behaviour is stopped.
Cruel or bad behaviour thrives in a culture of secrecy and we should have none of it in this House.
What measures are in place to protect complainants from retaliation?
Organizations create explicit, documented policies that forbid retaliation. All staff members should be informed of these policies, which include instances of retaliatory behavior, preventative measures, and sanctions for violating them.
Maintaining the privacy of grievances lessens the possibility of reprisals. The complaint should only be shared with those who need to know.
Resolving concerns promptly and carrying out in-depth investigations show that they are taken seriously. This may discourage possible reprisals.
Particularly in delicate circumstances, using outside investigators can guarantee objectivity.
To stop retaliation, some organizations provide protection mechanisms such as witness protection programs or special protections for whistleblowers.
Teaching staff members about retribution and its repercussions promotes an environment of transparency and respect.
After an inquiry, it’s critical to follow up with complainants on a regular basis to make sure they are not facing reprisals. Sustaining trust can be achieved by offering continuous assistance.