Three Peers have been suspended after the House of Lords’ sleaze watchdog said that they had wrongly claimed tens of thousands of pounds in expenses.
Labour peers Baroness Uddin and Lord Paul, and crossbencher Lord Bhatia, were suspended after the upper chamber approved the judgments of its Privileges and Conduct Committee.
Lady Uddin was suspended until the end of the parliamentary session in 2012 and told to repay £125,349.10.
Lord Bhatia was sidelined for eight months and has already repaid more than £27,000.
Lord Paul was suspended for four months and has already returned £41,982.
Tough sanctions
The sanctions are the toughest imposed on misbehaving members for more than 300 years.
Lady Uddin and crossbencher Lord Bhatia were found to have acted “not in good faith” by incorrectly declaring their main homes in order to claim generous overnight allowances.
An initial investigation decided that Lord Paul had also acted “not in good faith” in his home designations.
However, the committee rejected this finding on appeal, accepting that although “utterly unreasonable” and “negligent”, he had not been “dishonest” and had already returned £41,982 last year.
The expenses abuses centre around the allowance of £174 a day that was, until recently, available to peers whose main home was outside the M25.
Claims
Lady Uddin claimed more than £100,000 between 2005 and 2010 by stating that her main residence was a small flat in Maidstone, Kent, rather than her family home in east London.
Lord Bhatia had claimed £27,446 in expenses on the basis that his main home was a small flat occupied by his brother in Reigate, Surrey, even though he and his wife were listed on the electoral roll at their long-standing address in Hampton, south-west London.
Lord Paul, a steel magnate and one of Britain’s wealthiest men, lived in London but designated a one-bedroom flat in an Oxfordshire hotel that he owned as his main home.
All three also claimed travel expenses.
Race question
Following the suspensions a prominent Labour peer raised the issue of racial bias.
It cannot have escaped your attention that the only three members of the House subsequently investigated were all Asian. Lord Alli
Labour’s Lord Alli said he had to raise the issue of “race”.
He told peers: “Let me say from the outset I don’t wish in any way to accuse any member of the committee or sub-committee of racism. That would be quite improper and wrong.
“But it cannot have escaped your attention that the only three members of the House who were referred to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and subsequently investigated under these procedures were all Asian.
“I have reviewed the list of members – some 20 in total – who had expenses complaints referred to the Clerk of the Parliaments and I cannot find any consistent pattern for the referrals.”
Inconsistency?
Lord Alli, a multimillionaire media entrepreneur, called for the Leader of the House, Lord Strathclyde, to look at the issue and “if there has been inconsistency on the basis of race or otherwise” allow peers to reconsider the sanctions.
He said: “I do recognise that members of the public do have the right to expect the highest standards of behaviour from members of this House and those that don’t meet them should rightly be punished.
“However, in the rush to apologise for the expense system for which we should all be embarrassed, it should not be at the cost of justice or fairness for all regardless of race.”
He also questioned the procedures adopted by the sub-committee which made recommendations which were subsequently altered by the main conduct committee. And he said that peers faced with serious charges should be allowed legal representation.