Members of Lords involved in serious misconduct at Westminster, watchdog warns
Peers have been behind serious misconduct against parliamentary colleagues, it has been revealed at Westminster, in the face of a Tory call to gag complainants.
Baroness Manningham-Buller, who chairs the House of Lords Conduct Committee, said a rule change argued for by Conservatives would serve only to prevent genuine victims of harassment from coming forward.
While in some instances details had not been made public, as the complainant wished to remain anonymous, the independent crossbencher and former MI5 chief told the House there had been 'serious cases' involving peers.
Lady Manningham-Buller made her comments as she rejected a bid to remove the entitlement of members of either House to bring a complaint of harassment against a peer, following a review of the conduct rulebook.
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' as they shared a taxi on an official trip.
Baroness Meyer had also touched a Labour MP's hair braids without her permission.
Lord Hamilton has claimed she was a victim of a 'miscarriage of justice' and suggested the complaints were politically motivated.
The Conservative peer 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.
'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 I can assure 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: 'Surely the presumption is that we 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: '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.'
Liberal Democrat Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer said she was 'disappointed but perhaps not surprised' by Lord Hamilton's proposal.
She said: 'It suggests that if we suffer or our colleagues suffer something that involves harassment we should just keep quiet.
'That smacks to me 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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Lammy holding talks on post-Brexit deal for Gibraltar
Mr Lammy held talks with Gibraltar's leaders, members of the opposition and the business community before leaving the British overseas territory to head to Brussels on Wednesday morning. Talks on rules governing the border of Spain and Gibraltar have been ongoing since Britain left the European Union in 2020, but an agreement has not yet been reached. The PA news agency understands that a deal has not yet been reached and there are still a number of sticking points. A Foreign Office source said: 'We're working to secure an agreement that works for the people and businesses in Gibraltar. 'An agreement that will protect British sovereignty, supports Gibraltar's economy and allows businesses to plan for the future.' Ministers have insisted no deal will be done without the full support of Gibraltar's government. Mr Lammy held talks with chief minister Fabian Picardo in Gibraltar along with the UK's overseas territories minister Stephen Doughty. Today, with @DavidLammy and @SDoughtyMP we held a Cabinet meeting in No6 Convent Place to agree final parameters for negotiation. We will now travel to Brussels to meet @MarosSefcovic and @jmalbares. It's time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship… — Fabian Picardo (@FabianPicardo) June 11, 2025 The ministers and Mr Picardo then travelled to Brussels for talks with the EU and Spanish representatives. In a post on X on Wednesday morning, Mr Picardo said it is 'time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship between Gibraltar and the EU/Spain which is safe, secure and beneficial'. But officials close to the talks said there were still 'hard negotiations ahead'. Gibraltar was ceded to the UK by Spain in 1713 and the population is heavily in favour of remaining a British overseas territory. The last time it voted on a proposal to share sovereignty with Spain, in 2002, almost 99% of Gibraltarians rejected the move. Gibraltar also hosts an RAF base at its airport and an important naval facility. The Government, in line with its Conservative predecessors, has said it will not sign up to a deal that gives sovereignty over Gibraltar to another country, or that the Gibraltarian government is not content with. The strategic defence review, released earlier this month, said the UK would maintain a military presence in Gibraltar, 'upholding the sovereignty of British Gibraltar territorial waters'.
Powys County Times
33 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Lammy holding talks on post-Brexit deal for Gibraltar
Foreign Secretary David Lammy will have talks with the European Union and Spain in Brussels as a post-Brexit deal on Gibraltar appears close. Mr Lammy held talks with Gibraltar's leaders, members of the opposition and the business community before leaving the British overseas territory to head to Brussels on Wednesday morning. Talks on rules governing the border of Spain and Gibraltar have been ongoing since Britain left the European Union in 2020, but an agreement has not yet been reached. The PA news agency understands that a deal has not yet been reached and there are still a number of sticking points. A Foreign Office source said: 'We're working to secure an agreement that works for the people and businesses in Gibraltar. 'An agreement that will protect British sovereignty, supports Gibraltar's economy and allows businesses to plan for the future.' Ministers have insisted no deal will be done without the full support of Gibraltar's government. Mr Lammy held talks with chief minister Fabian Picardo in Gibraltar along with the UK's overseas territories minister Stephen Doughty. Today, with @DavidLammy and @SDoughtyMP we held a Cabinet meeting in No6 Convent Place to agree final parameters for negotiation. We will now travel to Brussels to meet @MarosSefcovic and @jmalbares. It's time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship… — Fabian Picardo (@FabianPicardo) June 11, 2025 The ministers and Mr Picardo then travelled to Brussels for talks with the EU and Spanish representatives. In a post on X on Wednesday morning, Mr Picardo said it is 'time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship between Gibraltar and the EU/Spain which is safe, secure and beneficial'. But officials close to the talks said there were still 'hard negotiations ahead'. Gibraltar was ceded to the UK by Spain in 1713 and the population is heavily in favour of remaining a British overseas territory. The last time it voted on a proposal to share sovereignty with Spain, in 2002, almost 99% of Gibraltarians rejected the move. Gibraltar also hosts an RAF base at its airport and an important naval facility. The Government, in line with its Conservative predecessors, has said it will not sign up to a deal that gives sovereignty over Gibraltar to another country, or that the Gibraltarian government is not content with.
Scotsman
38 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Reform and SNP are two sides of the same coin
PA Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Like most political animals, I have always enjoyed the drama of by-elections. Whilst seldom making a difference to who actually governs us in the short-term, they can be clear indicators of the mood music amongst the public towards parties vying for power, particularly when the next national election is not so far away. That said, I didn't stay up for the result in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election last week, not expecting much in the way of drama. My expectation was that there would be a fairly comfortable SNP victory, with the only real interest being whether Reform would finish third or manage to beat Labour into second place. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I woke up in the morning to a WhatsApp message from a colleague expressing surprise at the outcome, and when I checked the numbers I had to share that sentiment. Few saw the Labour candidate Davy Russell's victory coming, and it is all the more to his credit, and that of his campaign team, that they were able to pull off a quite dramatic victory against the odds. So congratulations are due first of all to Labour in delivering a result which undoubtedly is a boost to Anas Sarwar. Having been written off by the pundits, and with a candidate widely ridiculed for his refusal to participate in TV debates, it demonstrated the importance of a strong, local narrative in winning votes. The Scottish Conservatives had an equally strong local candidate in Cllr Richard Nelson from Larkhall who fought an energetic campaign albeit one we knew never had any realistic prospect of victory. Fourth place was always the best place we could hope for in this seat, as our voters were squeezed to vote tactically either for Labour or for Reform to beat the SNP. On the doorstep we met loyal Conservative voters who told us that they would be using this by-election to 'send a message' to the SNP by voting tactically for whoever they thought was best placed to defeat them, but at next year's Holyrood election would be back voting for us again. That said, we know there is work to be done in presenting a compelling message to maximise our vote for Holyrood in 2026. The real losers on the night were, of course, the SNP. All the polls suggested that this is a seat that they would hold, and the party poured in resources, with numerous visits by leadership figures from the First Minister John Swinney downwards. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The SNP strategy appeared politically clever, if essentially dishonest, in attempting to portray the contest as a two-horse race between them and Reform. This was designed to squeeze Labour voters, in particular, into voting SNP as the lesser of two evils. It backfired spectacularly. The Reform vote was indeed substantial, but if we analyse the figures, it seems that Reform's gains were not so much at the expense of Labour, or even the Conservatives. The 26 per cent of the vote achieved by Reform, at a time when Labour's vote share hardly moved, can only be explained by looking at the 17 per cent drop in the SNP vote. There was a direct transfer from one party to another. Perhaps this should not surprise us. Both SNP and Reform are essentially parties of protest, who have spent years pointing the blame elsewhere for the country's troubles – in the case of Reform, to the EU and immigrants, and in the case of the SNP, to Westminster governments. I can well remember at a previous election meeting on a doorstep in Perthshire one voter who we had previously identified as a regular Conservative supporter, who came out red-faced and angry to lambast me for the failings of the Tory government. 'You've let me down', he shouted, 'letting far too many immigrants in. That's it, I've had it with you lot. From now on I'm voting SNP'. It was an encounter indicative of a particular type of individual who rages at the world around them. These will be some of the people who were motivated to vote for independence in 2014 on the basis that anything must be better than what we currently have. And it will be some of the same people who were amongst the 2 in 5 Scots who voted for Brexit in 2016. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad For years the SNP have played the part of a populist party, simultaneously in government and in opposition, blaming all Scotland's ills not on their own failings but on big, bad Westminster. Now we have the new entrants on the scene in Reform, singing a different song to the same tune. To change the metaphor, the two Parties are essentially opposite sides of the same coin. They are parties who seek not to find solutions to the complex issues that face our country, but rather resort to simplistic slogans appealing to the basest level. Little wonder, then, that voters have little difficulty in switching between the two. Swinney's claim that Reform's values are antithetical to Scotland now look ridiculous, when his Party was not only defeated in Hamilton, but finished a mere 869 votes ahead of Farage's. Scottish exceptionalism has never had such a rude awakening. Over the last 18 years, the SNP have demonstrated how far populist politics can take you. Now, the rise of Reform shows they have a significant competitor for that segment of the population who are content to blame others for the country's woes. Fortunately, there is an alternative: the serious parties prepared to do the heavy lifting in proposing credible solutions to fix the problems in our society.
