Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Flather (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 21 October 2010. It occurred during Debate on select committee report on Privileges and Conduct Committee: Fourth Report.


Privileges and Conduct Committee: Fourth Report

My Lords, I, too, want to say a few words, but they are rather different from those of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. This is a very sad day for me personally, because the three Peers are all Asians. When you are a member of a minority and you read in the press that three members of the same minority have been found to have cheated on their expenses, it is hard to bear. I do not say this to suggest that the committee and sub-committee behaved in any way incorrectly; I do not mean that. I have looked at the reports and I have no complaint to make. What I want to say is how distressing it is for me personally to find the 80th richest man, the noble Lord, Lord Paul, saying that he did not understand what ““main”” and ““residence”” meant. When I made my submission to the SSRB, I said that perhaps he did not understand the English language and the meaning of ““main”” and ““residence””. Those words are fairly straightforward; we all know what they mean. If we do not, I suggest that we should not be sitting in this Chamber, as all the proceedings are conducted in the English language. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, says that the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has been treated badly and that things have not been looked at properly. As far as I remember, the Chairman of Committees said that she had herself admitted that the two places that she called her main residence were bolt-holes. The basis on which the decision was taken was possibly what she herself admitted about that. We ought to let this matter rest. I think that it is very sad. Frankly, I do not have any sympathy for the two very rich gentlemen, the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Paul. I do have sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, but this is how things have come out. I have looked at the reports fairly carefully. They are clear and readable and they answer nearly all the questions for me. We call ourselves ““noble Lords””. When I came here in 1990, the behaviour of Members of the House of Lords was expected to be above this kind of thing; we were not expected to do this sort of thing. I remember clearly that, if I did not understand anything, I went to the finance department or to the clerks to the Parliament and asked them what I should do. They were always available to us to give advice. If we are in doubt, clearly we should take advice. We should not just carry on and say that we did not understand. I do not accept that someone cannot understand that, if they never stay somewhere, that place is not their main residence. I am disappointed and distressed and I am sad that this involves three Asian Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Paul, said something about Indian culture. I do not know which Indian culture he was speaking of; I do not know of that culture. The only Indian culture that I know of in this regard is buying honours, which certainly is Indian culture. I hope that it does not apply to him.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
721 c900-1 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conduct Allowances Housing House of Lords Peers Bhatia, Lord Paul, Lord Uddin, Baroness Peers' suspension
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk