You are on page 1of 119

HOUSE OF LORDS

Committee for Privileges and Conduct

4th Report of Session 2010–11

The Conduct of Lord Paul

Ordered to be printed 18 October 2010

Published by the Authority of the House of Lords

London : The Stationery Office Limited


£17.50

HL Paper 37
2 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

The Committee for Privileges and Conduct


The Committee for Privileges and Conduct is appointed each session by the House to consider
questions regarding its privileges and claims of peerage and precedence and to oversee the
operation of the Code of Conduct. Detailed consideration of matters relating to the Code of
Conduct is undertaken by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct.

Current Membership
The Members of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct are:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Lord Brabazon of Tara (Chairman)
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
Baroness D’Souza
Lord Eames
Lord Graham of Edmonton
Lord Howe of Aberavon
Lord Irvine of Lairg
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Lord McNally
Baroness Manningham-Buller
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Strathclyde

The Members of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct are:


Lord Cope of Berkeley
Lord Dholakia
Lord Irvine of Lairg
Baroness Manningham-Buller (Chairman)
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve

The Code of Conduct and the up-to-date Register of Lords’ Interests are on the Internet at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg.htm.

General Information
General information about the House of Lords and its Committees can be found at
http://www.parliament.uk/lords/index.cfm.

Contacts
General correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Committee for Privileges and
Conduct, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW (telephone 020 7219 8796).

Correspondence relating to the work of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct should be


addressed to the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, House of Lords, London SW1A
0PW (telephone 020 7219 8750).
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 3

CONTENTS
Paragraph Page
The Conduct of Lord Paul 7
Introduction 1 7
Process 4 7
The Sub-Committee’s findings 9 8
Lord Paul’s appeal 18 10
The views of the Committee 21 10
Appendix: Report from the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct 13

EVIDENCE
Evidence considered by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct
Documents Relating to the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme
House of Lords Journals 25 July 1991 1
House of Lords Journals 10 November 2004 2
Members’ Reimbursement Allowance Scheme General Guide Fifth
Edition October 2005 2
Members’ Reimbursement Allowance Scheme Quick Guide September 2005 14
The Clerk of the Parliaments’ Guidance on the Investigation of Complaints
relating to Members’ Expenses published on 20 October 2009 15
Published Extract from the Minute of the House Committee Meeting of 26
January 2010 16
The Clerk of the Parliaments’ Report on Lord Rennard Published on 20
October 2009 17
The Clerk of the Parliaments’ Reports on Nine Members Published 9
February 2010 18
The Clerk of the Parliaments’ Reports on Four Members published 31
March 2010 21
Lord Paul’s Claim Forms
Table showing the pattern of Lord Paul’s claims for reimbursement of
travel expenses between January 2005 and July 2006 24
Calendars representing the days on which Lord Paul claimed for the
reimbursement of travel 25
Lord Paul’s Claim Forms 29
Article from the Sunday Times Newspaper 11 October 2009
Gordon Brown’s Millionaire and £38,000 expenses 38
Letter of Complaint
Letter from Mr Angus Robertson MP to Mr Brendan Keith, Registrar of
Lords’ Interest, dated 11 October 2009 39
4 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

Correspondence between Lord Paul, the House Authorities and the


Chairman of the Sub-Committee
Letter from Mr Michael Pownall, Clerk of the Parliaments to Lord Paul
dated 13 October 2009 40
Letter from Lord Paul to the Clerk of the Parliaments dated 19 October
2009 40
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Lord Paul dated 23 October
2009 41
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Manningham-Buller,
Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, requesting the Sub-
Committee’s assistance, dated 5 March 2010 41
Letter from the Registrar of Lords’ Interest to Lord Paul dated 11 March
2010 42
Letter from Lord Paul to the Registrar of Lords’ Interest dated 26 March
2010 43
Correspondence with the Sunday Times Newspaper
Letter from Mr Andrew Mackersie, Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’
Interests to Mr John Witherow, Editor of the Sunday Times newspaper,
dated 10 March 2010 45
Letter from Mr Jonathan Calvert and Ms Claire Newell of the Sunday
Times newspaper to the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests
dated 24 March 2010 45
Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone conversation between Ms
Claire Newell of the Sunday Times newspaper and Ms Prenusha Chetty,
a manager at Bignell Park Hotel on Friday 2 October 2009 46
Transcript of a covert recording of a second telephone conversation between
Ms Claire Newell and Ms Prenusha Chetty on Friday 2 October 2009 46
Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone conversation between Ms
Claire Newell and Mr Mark Stevens, the manager at Bignell Park Hotel
between 2002 and 2006 on Thursday 7 October 2009 47
Transcript of a covert recording of a second telephone conversation between
Ms Claire Newell and Mr Mark Stevens, the manager at Bignell Park
Hotel between 2002 and 2006 on Thursday 7 October 2009 48
Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone conversation between Lord
Paul and Jonathan Calvert of the Sunday Times newspaper Friday 2
October 2009 49
Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone conversation between Mr
Jonathan Calvert Lord Paul Thursday 8 October 2009 54
Correspondence with the Metropolitan Police Service
Letter from Mr Andrew Mackersie, Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’
Interests to Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police
Service, dated 19 March 2010 57
Letter from Detective Chief Superintendent Nigel Mawer, Economic and
Specialist Crime Unit, Metropolitan Police Service to the Clerk of the
Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct dated 27 May 2010 57
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 5

Witness Statements taken by the Metropolitan Police Service 58


Witness statement of Maureen Buck, Member Services Manager,
House of Lords Finance Department dated 20 October 2009 58
Written statement of Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance, House of Lords
Finance Department, dated 19 January 2010 61
Witness statement of Detective Constable Kirsty de St-Denis dated 2
February 2010 61
Witness statement of Detective Constable Kirsty de St-Denis dated 12
February 20101 62
Witness statement of Maureen Buck, Member Service Manager, House
of Lords Finance Department dated 2 February 2010 62
Witness statement of Ms Shanaaz Ali, sometime clerk in the House of
Lords Finance Department, dated 10 February 2010 64
Witness statement of Ms Christine Dale, sometime clerk in the House of
Lords Finance Department, dated 17 February 2010 67
Witness statement of Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance, House of Lords
Finance Department undated 70
Witness statement of Yvonne Mabs Francis, Landlord, dated 22 December
2009 71
Witness statement of Prenusha Chetty, Hotel Manager, Bignell Park Hotel
dated 12 January 2010 73
Letter from Mark Sly, Subpoena Unit, Companies House to DC Kirsty
de St-Denis, Metropolitan Police dated 12 January 2010 74
Witness statement of Mark Sly, Subpoena Unit, Companies House, dated
12 January 2010 74
Summary of exhibits provided by Mr Mark Sly, Subpoena Unit,
Companies House 74
Witness statement of Mr Erling Sorenson, Hotelier, dated 15 February
2010 78
Oral evidence, Thursday 17 June 2010 94
Supplementary memorandum by Lord Paul dated 19 July 2010 106
Evidence submitted to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct
Letter from Christopher Johnson, Clerk of the Committee for Privileges and
Conduct, to Lord Paul, dated 21 September 2010 107
Appeal by Lord Paul, dated 29 September 2010 108
Letter from Christopher Johnson to Lord Paul, dated 30 September 2010 109
Oral evidence, Monday 11 October 2010 110
THE CONDUCT OF LORD PAUL

Introduction
1. The Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct has investigated the conduct of
Lord Paul. The Sub-Committee’s report is printed as an Appendix to this
Report.
2. The Sub-Committee’s investigation into the conduct of Lord Paul should be
read in parallel with its investigations in the conduct of Lord Bhatia and
Baroness Uddin. All three cases arise out of articles originally appearing in
The Sunday Times, and each raises similar issues. Each of the Sub-
Committee’s reports contains similar background analysis (for instance, of
the rules governing the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme 1).
3. But, however similar the issues, the facts of each case are wholly distinct and
have required separate consideration. The Sub-Committee, and we
ourselves, have therefore prepared three separate reports.

Process
4. The process followed in this case is summarised in paragraphs 5–6 of the
Sub-Committee’s report. The original allegations against Lord Paul appeared
on 11 October 2009; a complaint was made the same day by Angus
Robertson MP. The initial investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the
Parliaments as Accounting Officer, but was then suspended while a separate
investigation was conducted by the Metropolitan Police Service. On 3
March 2010 the Metropolitan Police Service notified the Clerk of the
Parliaments that a decision had been made “to not proceed with the
investigation at this time”. The Clerk of the Parliaments resumed his own
investigation, and on 5 March asked the Sub-Committee “to investigate and
determine the facts of the case”.
5. The procedure in these cases follows that agreed by the House in December
2008 2, whereby the Clerk of the Parliaments can request the assistance of the
Sub-Committee in investigating complaints which he considers “complex or
serious”. As a Sub-Committee of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct,
the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct normally reports to the parent
Committee. But, as this case was referred to the Sub-Committee by the
Clerk of the Parliaments, the Sub-Committee reported to the Clerk of the
Parliaments. He, given the nature of the sanctions recommended by the Sub-
Committee, forwarded the report in turn to this Committee.
6. The Sub-Committee, following an investigation which had been interrupted
by the dissolution of Parliament, sent its report to the Clerk of the
Parliaments on 28 July. The Sub-Committee also recommended that, in
order to preserve confidentiality, the Clerk of the Parliaments should not
disclose the report to any other person until late in the summer recess. He

1 All references in this Report to the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme refer to the Scheme that applied up
until 30 September 2010. As a result of a motion agreed by the House on 20 July 2010, the day
subsistence, night subsistence and office costs elements within the Scheme were combined in a new daily
allowance, with effect from 1 October 2010.
2 The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members, Committee for Privileges, 4th
Report, session 2007–08 (HL Paper 205). Hereafter referred to as the “Report on procedure”.
8 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

accordingly forwarded the report to the staff of this Committee in late


September, and a copy was at once sent to Lord Paul, on 21 September. He
was at the same time notified of his right to appeal against the Sub-
Committee’s findings to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. He
submitted his appeal on 29 September, also indicating his wish to appear in
person before the Select Committee at its meeting on 11 October.
7. Although the Sub-Committee’s report was forwarded to this Committee in
its entirety, certain matters covered in it relate to the administration of the
Members’ Reimbursement Scheme (for instance, the changes which the Sub-
Committee indicates were made to the Scheme in April 2009, referred to in
paragraphs 20 and 42–43 of the Sub-Committee’s report), rather than to the
privileges of the House or the Code of Conduct. It is for the House
Committee, as the body responsible for the Members’ Reimbursement
Scheme, to take forward these matters, on which we make no
recommendations.
8. Our responsibility is to address the conduct of Members who are alleged to
have breached rules agreed by the House, and, where appropriate, to
recommend sanctions to the House as a whole. The House has previously
resolved that it “possesses the same disciplinary powers in respect of breaches
of the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme as in respect of breaches of the
Code of Conduct or of other rules of conduct adopted by the House”. 1 It is a
Member’s responsibility to ensure that claims for expenses are properly
made, which includes an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that
amounts being claimed are properly payable under the Scheme and that
information provided in connection with claims is complete and accurate. A
Member who makes a claim without taking such steps may be found to be
liable to sanction by the House.

The Sub-Committee’s findings


9. The focus of the investigation has been Lord Paul’s use of the Members’
Reimbursement Scheme from late 2005 onwards. In particular, the Sub-
Committee considered whether during this period Lord Paul correctly
designated two successive properties (until the end of July 2006, The
Cottage, Bignell Park Hotel, Chesterton, Oxfordshire, and from August 2006
The Grange, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire) as his “main residence” for the
purposes of the Scheme.
10. Notwithstanding its name, the Oxfordshire property is a one-bedroom flat in
the Bignell Park Hotel, which is owned by Lord Paul’s company, Caparo
Holdings. The minimum requirement endorsed by the House Committee for
determining whether a property could be designated as a Member’s “main
residence” under the Scheme is the requirement that it be visited for a
minimum of one weekend per month over the year when the House was
sitting and for periods during recesses. The Sub-Committee interpreted the
term “visit” in this context as requiring an overnight stay. Lord Paul has
freely admitted that he never spent a night at The Cottage. The Sub-
Committee therefore concluded that Lord Paul wrongly designated The
Cottage as his main residence.

1 The conduct of Lord Clarke of Hampstead, Committee for Privileges, 4th Report, session 2009–10, HL Paper
112, paragraph 8.
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 9

11. The Grange in Buckinghamshire is a family home, which Lord Paul


contracted to buy in March 2006, designating it as his main residence in
August of that year. Since that time Lord Paul has regularly spent weekends
at The Grange, and the Sub-Committee accepted that Lord Paul’s
designation of The Grange as his main residence through the period in
question met the minimum requirement endorsed by the House Committee.
12. As a result of his designation of the Oxfordshire property as his “main
residence”, Lord Paul was able to claim sums under two separate headings
within the Scheme. He claimed night subsistence in respect of overnight
accommodation in London while away from his “main residence”; he also
claimed travel expenses in respect of journeys between his “main residence”
and Westminster.
13. Immediately after the original allegations appeared, Lord Paul referred
himself to the Clerk of the Parliaments for investigation, and at an early stage
in this investigation he offered to repay any money wrongly claimed. With
the assistance of the Finance Department, Lord Paul calculated that he had
claimed £41,982 in night subsistence and travel expenses over the period
from January 2005 (when he first designated The Cottage as his main
residence) to July 2006. He repaid this sum (a greater sum than the House
could have required him to repay, given that the investigation was only able
to go back four years, to 11 October 2005) to the House in late 2009; there is
no further money owing to the House.
14. As the Sub-Committee acknowledged, as well as repaying the money Lord
Paul has also apologised, in his oral evidence, for his mistake in wrongly
designating the Oxfordshire property and claiming money on that basis (Q
150, p 103). At no stage since he was first contacted by The Sunday Times
has Lord Paul claimed that he ever spent a night in The Cottage.
15. Thus far there is broad agreement between the Sub-Committee and Lord
Paul. The difficulties in this case arise in determining the third issue
addressed by the Sub-Committee, namely whether, given that the
Oxfordshire property was wrongly designated, Lord Paul acted in good faith
in making his designation and claims.
16. The Sub-Committee’s view was that Lord Paul did not act in good faith.
The Sub-Committee stated that “no reasonable person could hold Lord
Paul’s understanding of ‘main residence’ in relation to the scheme”. The
Sub-Committee therefore concluded “that Lord Paul’s designation of the
Oxfordshire property was a deliberate misrepresentation of his domestic
arrangements made with the intention of enabling Lord Paul to make use of
the night subsistence element of the members’ reimbursement scheme”
(paragraphs 57-58). With respect to travel expenses, the Sub-Committee
concluded that “Lord Paul made the claims for the mileage allowance for
journeys by car from and to the Oxfordshire property with the intention of
adding verisimilitude to his designation of that property as his main
residence” (paragraph 60).
17. On the basis of these conclusions, the Sub-Committee’s recommendation
was “that the House sanction Lord Paul by requiring him to make a personal
statement of apology to the House and thereafter suspending him from the
service of the House for six months.” (paragraph 63).
10 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

Lord Paul’s appeal


18. Lord Paul has appealed against the Sub-Committee’s findings only on the
third issue, namely that he acted in bad faith. He states that, given his
apology, his co-operation with the investigation, and his prompt repayment
of the money, the Sub-Committee’s sanction is based solely upon the finding
that he acted in bad faith.
19. Lord Paul points to the absence of guidance during the period in question as
to the meaning of “main residence”; to his prompt and voluntary repayment
of the amount wrongly claimed and subsequent co-operation with the
investigation; and to his apology. He maintains that in the absence of an
agreed definition of “main residence”, and given his cultural background, his
interpretation was at the time a reasonable one; he further states that even if
his interpretation were to be found to be “unreasonable”, this would be a
“wholly inadequate basis” for the Sub-Committee’s finding that he acted in
bad faith, or engaged in “deliberate misrepresentation”. Finally, he compares
his case with that of Lord Clarke of Hampstead (as indeed does the Sub-
Committee at paragraph 62), from whom only an apology was required, and
argues that he is being treated harshly in comparison. He asserts that “there
are a number of [other cases], involving in some cases much greater amounts
of money, which have I believe not even been investigated”.
20. Lord Paul appeared before the Select Committee on 11 October 2010. A full
transcript of his evidence is printed in this volume (see p 110). The essence
of his appeal is set out in his opening statement:
“The basic facts are not in dispute. I made claims which, with the
benefit of hindsight, I should not have made. For that I apologise. As
soon as I appreciated my error, I volunteered and made repayments. I
never pretended to anyone that, in the event, I spent nights at the
property in question. It was, however, a residential property of mine that
was available to me. It is all a matter of interpretation as to what
constitutes a main home—a matter of interpretation that may differ
between persons with, for example, different cultural backgrounds. I am
now one of those who disagrees with my interpretation at the time both
in relation to the main residence and in relation to the journeys. But I
most steadfastly maintain that these were entirely honest interpretations
on my part.” (Q 2)

The views of the Committee


21. We agree with Lord Paul that the Sub-Committee’s finding that he acted in
bad faith is the key issue in the appeal and in the Sub-Committee’s report.
There is no question that Lord Paul should not have designated The Cottage
as his main residence, and that he was wrong to claim night subsistence and
mileage allowances in respect of that property.
22. Thus Lord Paul’s motivation lies at the heart of the case and his Appeal. The
Sub-Committee’s analysis of his motivation is set out in paragraphs 54–58 of
the report. The key conclusions are as follows:
57. Even if Lord Paul’s definition of “residence” were reasonable, his
lack of regard to “main” is unreasonable. We consider that no
reasonable person could hold Lord Paul’s understanding of “main
residence” in relation to the scheme.
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 11

58. We find that Lord Paul’s designation of the Oxfordshire


property was a deliberate misrepresentation of his domestic
arrangements made with the intention of enabling Lord Paul to
make use of the night subsistence element of the members’
reimbursement scheme.
23. In oral evidence before us, Lord Paul repeated his claim that “I genuinely
believe that a place that is available to me for living is my residence” (Q 7).
Such an understanding essentially empties the term of meaning.
Nevertheless, Lord Paul went so far as to apply this understanding even to
his current “main residence” in Buckinghamshire, which the Sub-
Committee, and we, accept satisfies the minimum criteria for designation: “I
still do not consider in real terms that my house in Beaconsfield is a main
residence. To me, it is a place where I love to go whenever I can and I like to
spend time with my children and grandchildren, but I do not differentiate
between my London home and that residence.” (Q 7) If this were true, it
would seem that Lord Paul’s designation of one or other residence as his
“main residence”, properly or improperly, is a matter largely of chance.
24. Lord Paul explained his interpretation of the term “main residence” by
reference to his cultural background. He insisted that “anyone coming out of
India would not understand what main residence means” (Q 8). He accepted
that he had “not once” looked at the guidance on the back of the claim forms
(Q 22). Yet he clearly had a good understanding of domiciliary status (QQ
11–17).
25. In summary, Lord Paul’s understanding of the term “main residence” is
barely an understanding at all; it demonstrates rather a continuing failure to
understand that the term has any specific meaning that may be applied to his
personal circumstances. We therefore endorse the Sub-Committee’s
conclusion that “no reasonable person could hold Lord Paul’s understanding
of ‘main residence’ in relation to the scheme”. The Sub-Committee’s further
conclusion that Lord Paul’s designation of the Oxfordshire property as his
main residence must have been done in bad faith is entirely understandable.
We therefore dismiss his appeal, except to the extent indicated below.
26. It is our responsibility, in reviewing the Sub-Committee’s findings, not only
to consider specific grounds of appeal, but to “decide whether, on the
balance of probabilities, we endorse the conclusions of the Sub-
Committee”. 1 On this occasion we have borne in mind, on the one hand, the
fact that Lord Paul’s definition of “main residence” was and is inherently
unreasonable, and that, as a Member of the House and a successful
businessman, he must be presumed to act as a reasonable person. On the
other hand, we are aware that he has at no stage since the allegations first
appeared sought to misrepresent his connection with the Oxfordshire
property, for instance to pretend that he ever stayed there. It is a matter of
fact that he immediately referred his case to the Clerk of the Parliaments and
has co-operated with the investigation throughout; that he has repaid all
money wrongly claimed (a larger sum than that covered by the Sub-
Committee’s investigation); that he has repeatedly apologised for his mistake;
and that he persists in applying the term “main residence” in ways that could
be interpreted unfavourably to himself. Lord Paul’s actions throughout the
investigation have been consistent and, so far as we can tell, honestly meant.

1 Report on procedure, paragraph 35.


12 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

27. We do not feel justified in finding, on the balance of probabilities, that


Lord Paul acted dishonestly or in bad faith. However, his actions were
utterly unreasonable, and demonstrated gross irresponsibility and
negligence. They therefore render him liable to sanction by the
House.
28. In mitigation, Lord Paul has apologised and repaid the money wrongly
claimed.
29. We recommend that Lord Paul be suspended from the service of the
House for four months, starting on the date on which any suspension
motion is agreed by the House.
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 13

APPENDIX: REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS’


CONDUCT

Members’ reimbursement scheme: the conduct of Lord Paul

Introduction and summary


1. This report replies to a letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments dated 5 March
2010 which, following the Report from the Committee for Privileges on the
procedure for considering complaints against members 1 (“the report on
procedure”), invited the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests 2 to help him
investigate a complaint about Lord Paul’s use of the members’ reimbursement
scheme.
2. We find on the facts that the Oxfordshire property designated by Lord Paul as
his main residence for the purpose of the members’ reimbursement scheme from
11 October 2005 to the end of July 2006 did not meet the criteria endorsed by the
House Committee on 26 January 2009 (p16E 3); and that Lord Paul did not make
his designation and claims for night subsistence away from that property and for
the mileage allowance in good faith. We recommend that, despite Lord Paul’s
swift repayment of the whole amount wrongly claimed (£41,982), the House
sanction Lord Paul by requiring him to make a personal statement of
apology to the House and thereafter suspending him from the service of
the House for six months.

The allegation, complaint and process of investigation

Allegation and complaint


3. On 11 October 2009, the Sunday Times newspaper alleged that Lord Paul had
designated as his main residence a flat in which he had never spent the night
(p38):
“A multi-millionaire ally of Gordon Brown pretended that a small flat
occupied by one of his employees was his main home so he could claim
£38,000 in expenses from the Lords. Lord Paul, one of Labour’s biggest
donors and a friend of the prime minister, has admitted he never even
slept in the flat, despite stating it was his main residence. The one-
bedroom flat was occupied by a manager from one of Paul’s hotels who
confirmed last week that the peer had never lived there while claiming
the expenses. Paul, who has a family fortune of £500m, was actually
based in London, where he has lived for more than 40 years.”
4. Mr Angus Robertson MP complained about Lord Paul’s alleged conduct the
same day (p39); and Lord Paul referred himself to the Clerk of the Parliaments for
investigation on 12 October (p40B).

1 The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members, 4th Report from the Committee for
Privileges, session 2007-08, HL Paper 205, paragraph 11 bullet 2. Report agreed to by the House on 18
December 2008. Hereafter referred to as “the report on procedure”.
2 In the last Parliament, the Sub-Committee was styled the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests; it is now
styled the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct.
3 The references in this report to the printed evidence are in the form “p16E” and “Q114”. The former
refers to page 16 of the printed evidence at letter E; the latter to question number 114 in the transcript of
oral evidence.
14 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

Procedure for investigation of allegations about expenses


5. The House Committee is the principal domestic committee of the House and is
responsible for the members’ reimbursement scheme (p5B). On 20 October 2009,
the Committee endorsed a procedure for dealing with complaints relating to the
scheme (p15H). It involved investigation by the Clerk of the Parliaments as
Accounting Officer; reference to the Sub-Committee in “complex or serious”1
cases; report by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the House Committee; and
sanctioning by the Committee for Privileges if appropriate (p16B). On 6 July
2010, the Clerk of the Parliaments and House Committee agreed to stand aside in
this and two other cases where this Sub-Committee had been involved: thus this
report goes via the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Committee for Privileges and
Conduct, to whom lies Lord Paul’s right of appeal 2.

Procedure in this investigation


6. After 11 October 2009, Lord Paul met and corresponded with the Clerk of the
Parliaments, correspondence which concluded with his repaying £41,982 to the
House (p41D 3).The Metropolitan Police had meanwhile decided to investigate
whether Lord Paul had committed an offence under section 17 of the Theft Act
1968 or the Fraud Act 2006. The Clerk of the Parliaments suspended his own
investigation into Lord Paul until the criminal process had concluded. On 3
March 2010 a joint Crown Prosecution Service / Metropolitan Police Service
panel decided not to prosecute Lord Paul and the Clerk of the Parliaments
resumed his own investigation. On 5 March 2010, he asked the Sub-Committee
“to investigate and determine the facts of the case” (p41E).

Investigation by the Sub-Committee


7. The report on procedure says that we may not accept for investigation a
complaint going back more than four years 4: we may thus examine conduct in this
case from 11 October 2005. We have not limited our investigation to the allegation
made by the Sunday Times newspaper but have instead generally investigated Lord
Paul’s use of the members’ reimbursement scheme. We have focused on Lord
Paul’s claims for night subsistence and travel. Lord Paul’s claims for day
subsistence, office costs, and Select Committee expenses are not at issue.
8. Our investigation was interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament on 12 April
2010. The new House met on 18 May and appointed the Committee for Privileges
and Conduct on 2 June. The Committee appointed this Sub-Committee on 7
June. We reported to the Clerk of the Parliaments on 28 July with the
recommendation that, to retain confidentiality during the summer recess without

1 Report on procedure, paragraph 11 bullet 2: “Matters relating to the Members’ Reimbursement Allowance
Scheme are the responsibility of the Clerk of the Parliaments, as Accounting Officer for the House of
Lords. In exceptional circumstances he may request the Sub-Committee to assist him in investigating a
complex or serious complaint”.
2 House of Lords Code of Conduct, 2 July 2001, paragraph 19(e): “If after the investigation the Sub-
Committee finds the allegation proved, the Member complained against has a right of appeal to the
Committee for Privileges”; the report on procedure paragraphs 32-37 sets out the appeal procedure.
3 The Clerk of the Parliaments’ letter to Lord Paul of 23 October 2009 refers only to the repayment of night
subsistence. Lord Paul then volunteered a further payment of £2,535 for the repayment of travel expenses;
the amount calculated by him and confirmed by the Finance Department. We have no correspondence
relating to this latter payment though the Finance Department assures us that the full amount has been
paid.
4 Report on procedure, paragraph 11 bullet 4.
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 15

affecting the timetable for any appeal, he should forward the report to the
Chairman of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct only towards the end of
the summer recess.

Evidence
9. The Sub-Committee had as written evidence the amounts claimed by Lord Paul
since April 2003 1 (p24) and his claim forms since March 2006 2 (pp29-37);
correspondence between the House authorities and Lord Paul (pp40-4); a letter
from the Sunday Times and transcripts 3 of telephone conversations and interviews
on which their article was based (pp45F-56); and witness statements taken by the
Metropolitan Police Service in the course of their investigation of Lord Paul
(pp58-93). We welcome the constructive approach of the police in taking the
difficult decision to release to us the material they gathered. The officers of the
Sub-Committee corresponded with Lord Paul. We took oral evidence in private
from Lord Paul (pp94-105), to whom we had earlier disclosed the written
evidence. The report on procedure says4:
“Procedural safeguards
25. The Code of Conduct states that “in the investigation and
adjudication of complaints against them, Members of the House have
the right to safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and
professional disciplinary bodies.” They may be accompanied to any
meeting by a colleague, friend or legal adviser, but every effort is made
to keep proceedings informal, and there is no expectation that they
should be so accompanied. If they do choose to bring a friend or adviser,
they will nevertheless be expected to answer for themselves (and not
through their friend or adviser) any questions put to them.”
10. Lord Paul co-operated fully with the investigation. He brought with him to the
evidence session his secretary, Ms Elizabeth Allan.
11. We recommend that all of this evidence be published, subject only to
giving the police sufficient time to allow them to inform those from whom
they took statements.

The facts
12. The report on procedure says5:
“Assessing the evidence
26. When its investigation is concluded, the Sub-Committee assesses the
evidence. In order to find against a Member, the Sub-Committee
requires at least that the allegation is proved on the balance of
probabilities.

1 Printed in evidence are the amounts from January 2005, when Lord Paul first designated a property
outside London as his main residence.
2 The House of Lords Finance Department has retained the amounts claimed each month by members
under each head since 2003 but has retained claim forms only from March 2006; all members’ earlier
claim forms have been disposed of in accordance with the department’s disposal policy.
3 The Sunday Times also supplied the Committee with the recordings on which their transcripts were based.
We did not rely on the newspaper’s transcripts but commissioned our own. Those published as evidence
were either corrected or created by the clerks.
4 Report on procedure, paragraph 25.
5 Report on procedure, paragraphs 26 to 28.
16 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

27. If the investigation has uncovered material evidence that is at


variance with the Member’s version of events, this will be put to the
Member, who will have a chance to challenge it. Before reaching its
conclusions, the Sub-Committee will also share with the Member a draft
of those parts of its report dealing with issues of fact, so that the
Member has an opportunity to comment on them.
28. If there remain significant contested issues of fact, the Sub-
Committee will agree its own account of the facts of the case, while
drawing to the attention of the Committee for Privileges and the House
any challenge to this account made by the Member concerned.”
13. To fulfil these paragraphs, we showed Lord Paul a draft of our account of the
facts set out in paragraphs 14 to 37 below. He accepted the account of the facts
but made a further point to which we draw attention (p106).
14. The facts of the case are as follows.

The members’ reimbursement scheme


15. The members’ reimbursement scheme is founded on resolutions of the House
and is explained in a General Guide published by the Finance Department and in a
Quick Guide set out on the reverse of the claim form. The Clerk of the Parliaments
is responsible for administering the scheme, subject to direction by the House
Committee on points of difficulty or doubt (p5B). The relevant resolutions and
guidance are set out in full at pp1-15 of the printed evidence but we must here
quote some relevant passages.

The resolutions of the House and published guidance


16. The principal resolution of the House in relation to day and night subsistence
is that of 25 July 1991 (p1D). It reads:
“(1) Members of this House, except any Lord who receives a salary under the
Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal
Deputy Chairman of Committees, shall be entitled to recover (in addition to
the costs of travel for which other provision is made) expenses certified by
them as—
(a) expenses incurred (otherwise than as mentioned in sub-paragraph (b)
below) for the purpose of attendance at sittings of this House or of
Committees of this House, or
(b) expenses incurred in staying overnight away from their only or main
residence where it is necessary to do so for that purpose.”
17. The principle that a member may claim a separate allowance towards the
recovery of the cost of travel by car for the purpose of parliamentary duties was
established by a resolution of the House of 17 May 1961 (p1A). The current
resolution relating to travel by car is that of 10 November 2004 (p2C). It reads:
“That this House approves the following proposals with respect to payments of
car, bicycle and motorcycle allowances to Lords for journeys which they have
commenced on or after 10 November 2004—
(1) The maximum allowance payable in respect of a journey by car,
motorcycle or bicycle should be payable at the rate which is applicable to
that kind of vehicle under subsection (2) of section 230 of the Income
Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as amended from time to time.
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 17

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the reference in that subsection to
“the first 10,000 miles” is to the total number of miles of travel by car by
the Lord claiming the allowance, which is either—
(a) undertaken for the purpose of attending this House for the
purposes of his parliamentary duties, or
(b) undertaken while on parliamentary duties within the United
Kingdom.”
18. It is clear from the resolutions that the purpose of the scheme is the
recovery of expenses necessarily incurred in attending the House.
19. As to the guidance, the 2005 edition of the General Guide read (pp2-14):
“1.2.1 Members of the House of Lords do not, in general, receive a salary in
respect of their parliamentary duties. However, Members may be reimbursed
actual expenses arising out of these duties, in accordance with the rules of the
Members’ Reimbursement Allowance Scheme. The Members’ Reimbursement
Allowance Scheme is governed by Resolutions of the House. Rules for the
recovery of Members’ expenses are administered by the Clerk of the
Parliaments who also has limited discretion to deal with matters that arise on
claims. Points of particular difficulty or doubt may be referred to the House
Committee, which supervises the arrangements for the reimbursement of
expenses ...
1.3 Taxable status
1.3.1 All amounts paid in settlement of claims as detailed in this guide
represent reimbursement of actual expenses arising out of unpaid
parliamentary duty, rather than income from employment. Consequently, they
are not subject to income tax, and need not be included on a tax return ...
4 ATTENDANCE AT SITTINGS AT WESTMINSTER
4.1 General - Expenses Related to Attendance
4.1.1 The basic principle underlying the scheme is that the entitlement to
recover expenses arises only in respect of attendance at sittings of the House or
its committees at Westminster …
4.1.3 Members who wish to claim attendance expenses must complete and sign
the attendance expenses claim form and forward it as soon as convenient after
the end of each month, or period of claim, to the Members’ Expenses Section.
A Member’s signature effectively certifies that the amount claimed has been
spent for the purposes of parliamentary duties as set out above. Receipts are
not required ...
4.2 Travelling Expenses
General
4.2.1 Claims may be made only for journeys over five miles between a
Member’s main place of residence in the United Kingdom and Westminster.
Claims for incidental travel costs (e.g. those arising from short distance
journeys within a five mile radius of Westminster, tolls and car parking
charges) are covered by the day subsistence allowance (4.5).
4.2.2 Members seeking to receive travel costs must register their main place of
residence with the Members’ Expenses Section. Members with more than one
main place of residence may register an alternative main residence with the
18 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

Members’ Expenses Section for the purpose of claiming travelling expenses.


Registration is subject to the approval of the Clerk of the Parliaments ...
4.2.4 Members may recover the cost of fares incurred by them for travel by any
public railway, sea, and air or bus service, or the costs of journey made by
private car ...
Road
4.2.8 Claims in respect of journeys by private car are payable at:
x 40p per mile up to 10,000 miles in the year ending 31 March; and
x 25p per mile for mileage in excess of 10,000 miles in the same year.
No other claims in respect of motoring expenses are reimbursable under the
travelling expenses heading. Incidental travel costs such as tolls, congestion
charges and car-parking charges can be claimed against the daily limit of the
day subsistence allowance (4.5).
4.4 Night Subsistence
4.4.1 Members whose main residence is outside Greater London may claim for
expenses of overnight accommodation in London while away from their only or
main residence. The maximum daily limit is £154.50.
4.4.2 A Member whose main residence is outside Greater London and who
maintains a residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the
House may claim this allowance towards the cost of maintaining such a
residence.
4.4.3 Claims for night subsistence are only permissible in respect of nights
actually spent in London either immediately preceding or following attendance
at a sitting or meeting described in paragraph 4.1.1 above. For example, a
Member who necessarily travels to London on a Sunday and attends sittings of
the House on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and then returns
home on Friday or later may claim night subsistence for a maximum of 5
nights at up to a maximum of £154.50 per night (i.e. a maximum of £772.50
for the week). However, if the Member returned home on the Thursday
evening, the maximum claim for night subsistence would be 4 nights at up to a
maximum of £154.50 per night (i.e. a maximum of £618 for the week).
4.4.4 Members who choose to travel home each night or whose main residence
is within Greater London cannot claim the night subsistence allowance.”
20. The General Guide was updated in January 2007, October 2008 and April
2009. The language used to describe the scheme was materially the same in each
edition until 2009, which left out the word “allowance” in several places, including
in the title of the guide 1 and in paragraph 4.4.2 in relation to night subsistence.
21. The claim form used until October 2008 read (p29):
“I certify that during the month of ............ I have attended a sitting of the
House or of a Committee of the House on the under-mentioned dates and
claim reimbursement of:
(a) Night subsistence incurred in such attendance or in respect of the
maintenance of a London residence (other than a main residence) used
for the purpose of attending the House (see note (i)) ...

1 Until April 2009, the guide was entitled “Members’ reimbursement allowance scheme general guide”.
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 19

(d) Travelling Expenses (please ensure all travel dates are entered) (see
note (v))”
Thereafter paragraph (d) read (p35F):
“(d) Travelling Expenses see note (v)”
22. At the bottom of the form, the claimant has to print his name, sign, date the
claim and enter his main place of residence.
23. Notes (i) and (v) refer to the Quick Guide printed on the reverse of the claim
form which in 2005 read (pp14-15):
“(i) Night Subsistence – Members whose main residence is outside Greater
London may claim expenses, within a daily limit of £154.50 (from 1 August
2005 to 31 July 2006), for nights spent away from their only or main residence
for the purpose of attending sittings of the House a) where they have incurred
expenses of overnight accommodation in London or; b) as a contribution
towards the costs of maintaining a London residence in connection with their
parliamentary duties. Claims can only be made in respect of days of attendance
...
(v) Travelling Expenses - These may be claimed for journeys between main
place of residence in the United Kingdom and London by any public railway,
sea, air or bus service. Claims in respect of journeys by private car are restricted
to an allowance of 40p per mile up to 10,000 miles then 25p thereafter. Claims
in respect of journeys undertaken by motorcycle are paid at the rate of 24p per
mile and by bicycle at the rate of 20p per mile.”
24. The rates changed over the period. In August 2006 paragraph (v) read:
“(v) Travelling Expenses - Claims may be made only for journeys over five
miles between a Member’s main place of residence in the United Kingdom and
Westminster by any public railway, sea, air or bus service. Claims in respect of
journeys by private car are restricted to an allowance of 40p per mile up to
10,000 miles then 25p thereafter. Claims in respect of journeys undertaken by
motorcycle are paid at the rate or 24p per mile and by bicycle at the rate of 20p
per mile. Claims for incidental travel costs are covered by the day subsistence
allowance (see section (ii)).”
25. In August 2009 paragraph (i) had a sentence added to the end: “When
claiming Night Subsistence dates of travel must be shown on the claim form.” As
did paragraph (v): “Members are required to provide receipts or vouchers when
submitting claims for ticketed travel in excess of £50 per return journey (£25 per
single journey).”
26. Although the Quick Guide says “Members are encouraged to contact the
Finance Department, House of Lords for general assistance, or to discuss any
particular points that arise from their claims”, in practice the onus on interpreting
the scheme has fallen on the individual member. Save for the Lord President
(Lord Soames) speaking of the member’s “usual residence” 1 when moving the
motion which first set up the night subsistence regime in 1979, there was no
guidance on the meaning of “main residence” other than the two words
themselves until March 2010 2.

1 HL Deb 26 July 1979 col 1135-37.


2 Financial Support for Members of the House: Declaration of Principal Residence and Publication, 3rd Report from
the House Committee, session 2009-10, HL Paper 89. Report agreed to by the House on 22 March 2010.
20 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

Lord Paul’s designated main residences


27. Lord Paul successively designated two main residences in the period from 11
October 2005 to the end of the last Parliament on 12 April 2010. Until the end of
July 2006, it was The Cottage, Bignell Park Hotel, Chesterton, Oxfordshire. Since
October 2006 it has been The Grange, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire.

Facts relating to the Oxfordshire property


28. Lord Paul’s company, Caparo Holdings, bought the Bignell Park Hotel,
Chesterton, Oxfordshire in July 2001 (p40J). In January 2005, Lord Paul
designated The Cottage, Bignell Park Hotel as his main residence (p40L). We may
examine conduct back to 11 October 2005, four years before the complaint of 11
October 2009.
29. The House of Lords Finance Department has retained the amounts claimed
each month by members under each head since 2003 but has retained claim forms
only from March 2006; members’ earlier claim forms have been disposed of in
accordance with the department’s disposal policy. Lord Paul’s claims for the short
period March to July 2006 show claims for night subsistence away from his
designated main residence for every day’s attendance at the House and the mileage
allowance for journeys by car from and to the main residence every weekend when
the House was sitting with the exception of 29-30 April 2006 (p24H). The
amounts claimed indicate a similar pattern of claims since designation of the
Oxfordshire property as his main residence in January 2005 (p24D), a position
confirmed by Lord Paul (Q114). He claimed £39,447 in night subsistence and
£2,535 in travel expenses throughout the period that the Oxfordshire property was
his designated main residence (i.e. January 2005 to July 2006), a total of £41,982.
30. The Oxfordshire property is a one bedroom flat within the hotel, with a
separate entrance (p73D) but without a separate postal address (p73E). It was
occupied throughout the period by the manager of the hotel (p73J; p47D). Lord
Paul was financially responsible for the hotel in so far as he owns the company
which owns the hotel. The running costs, including utilities, were subsumed into
those of the hotel (QQ111-12).
31. The manager of the hotel recalls Lord Paul visiting the hotel for board
meetings (p47F); the assistant manager recalls him visiting 6-7 times a year for a
day at a time (p73H). Lord Paul did not confirm how often he visited the hotel
(Q76 et seq). We do not need to find how often Lord Paul visited the Oxfordshire
property because he admits that he never spent a night at the property (Q35) or at
the hotel (p73L; Q35). Nor did he stay overnight in the area (QQ101-3). This is
despite claiming for journeys to the main residence usually on a Friday or Saturday
and a return journey to London on a Sunday (pp25-8).
32. In relation to the journeys, Lord Paul admits that he did not make the journeys
on the days stated on his claim forms (QQ36, 90-1; 171-2) though he says that he
did travel to the hotel and/or surrounding area most weekends when the House
was sitting (p44C; QQ37; 98-9). Indeed, he may have made more journeys than
those for which he claimed, but he only claimed for one return journey a week
(Q93).
33. Defending the designation, Lord Paul says that having bought the hotel in
2001 he wanted first to test whether he wished to live in the country or remain in
London (Q79); then considered developing part of the hotel as a residence for his
family, making use of the hotel amenities (p40K; QQ80-1; 145). Having decided
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 21

in favour of the country but against such a development, he used the hotel as a
base for looking for a country house closer to London (QQ83-4; 106).
34. He found the desired country house on 28 February 2005, namely The
Grange, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire. He contracted to buy the
Buckinghamshire property in March 2006; and designated it as his main residence
in August 2006 (p41B). Having contracted to buy the Buckinghamshire property,
he stopped house hunting but continued to travel to and from that property (not
the Oxfordshire property) each weekend (QQ128-9; 166-7). The
Buckinghamshire property is 30 miles closer to London than the Oxfordshire
property. The Oxfordshire property remained his designated main residence and
subject to claims for night subsistence and travel until August 2006.

Facts relating to the Buckinghamshire property


35. In August 2006, Lord Paul designated the Buckinghamshire property as his
main residence and claimed night subsistence away from that main residence for
his attendance at the House from when it resumed in October. His claim forms
show claims for every day’s attendance and the mileage allowance for journeys by
car from and to the main residence every weekend when the House was sitting
with the exception of 4-5 November 2006, 17-18 March 2007 and 2-3 November
2007. The property is a 250 acre estate in Buckinghamshire (p44E).
36. In correspondence with the Registrar, Lord Paul says that “I spend a lot of
time at the Grange (almost every weekend) with my wife and family” (p44E). He
owns the Buckinghamshire property personally and no one other than his family
uses it. He says that he spent part of the Easter, Whitsun and summer recesses of
2007-09 at the property but cannot confirm the exact periods (p44F). As far as he
can recall, he travelled as indicated by his claim forms and stayed overnight at the
property.

Lord Paul’s residence in London


37. When in London, Lord Paul lives in a flat in a block of flats on Portland Place
in which he and his wife have lived since 1966 (Q11); he owns the building (Q15);
other members of his family live in other of the flats (Q14) but about half of the
flats are rented by private tenants (Q21). We have not asked and he has not
volunteered what expense he incurs in maintaining that residence.

The issues
38. The case raises three issues: 1) whether Lord Paul’s two designated main
residences in the period under investigation meet the criteria endorsed by the
House Committee for these investigations; 2) whether Lord Paul correctly claimed
for travel from and to those main residences; and 3) if the facts identify one or
more wrongly designated main residences, whether Lord Paul acted in good faith
in making his designations and claims for night subsistence and travel.

Issue 1: whether Lord Paul’s designated main residences in the period


under investigation met the criteria endorsed by the House Committee
39. On 26 January 2010, the House Committee endorsed the Clerk of the
Parliaments’ approach to determining allegations about the members’
reimbursement scheme, as recorded in the published extract of the minutes of that
meeting (p16E):
22 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

“He [the Clerk of the Parliaments] emphasised that he was operating


under the current scheme, one of the weaknesses of which was that there
was no clear definition of a main residence. He had however taken the
view, within the context of the individual assessment of each case, that
there needed to be a minimum threshold beyond which it would be
inappropriate for a Member to designate a property as a main or only
residence, and consequently claim overnight subsistence when staying in
London.
He sought the endorsement of the Committee of the criteria which he
was incorporating into his assessment of cases where frequency of visits
was an issue: i.e. that the main residence had to be visited for a
minimum of one weekend per month over the year when the House was
sitting and for periods during recesses. These factors would be taken
into account, along with other evidence, when assessing the validity of
the designation of a main residence. He drew the attention of the
Committee to the fact that it was probable that more stringent
requirements would be a feature of the new scheme for Members’
expenses.
He also raised the issue of whether a property that was occupied by a
relative other than a spouse or partner could in any circumstances be
designated as a main residence under the current scheme. It was felt that
this could in very specific circumstances be appropriate, subject to the
thresholds established and depending on the detail of the Member’s
connection with the property, including relevant financial
responsibilities.”
40. We consider the criteria endorsed by the House Committee to be
binding on us: it is the principal domestic committee of the House and
explicitly responsible for the members’ reimbursement scheme (p5B).
41. “Visit” is used in the context of “weekend”. We consider that “visit”
must include an overnight stay. We also consider that “one weekend per
month” is not a minimum threshold set by the House Committee, but the
minimum frequency of occupation when the House was sitting subject to
“other evidence”: it is a necessary but not sufficient criterion.
42. The Committee for Privileges’ and our own report on Lord Clarke of
Hampstead’s use of the members’ reimbursement scheme, agreed to by the House
on 6 April 2010, is also relevant 1. In that report, we found that:
“17. It is clear to us that a member may only claim under the scheme i)
if they have stayed overnight away from their main residence; and ii)
they have attended the House. There is no ambiguity about these
conditions ...
23. Our interpretation of the resolution, General Guide and Quick
Guide taken together is that a member who maintained a residence in
London for the purpose of attending the House could reasonably claim
that the night subsistence provision was a flat rate allowance intended to
reimburse the member for the costs of maintaining such a residence
(General Guide paragraph 4.4.2). A member who did not maintain a
residence in London was however entitled only to claim for the recovery

1 The conduct of Lord Clarke of Hampstead, 4th Report from the Committee for Privileges, session 2009-10,
HL Paper 112.
4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 23

of actual expenses (General Guide paragraph 4.4.1). The former is no


longer the case as the word “allowance” was removed from the guidance
in April 2009.”
43. The report from the Committee for Privileges was agreed to by the
House and is binding.

Recent cases
44. In the period since the House Committee endorsed the criteria for determining
a main residence for the purpose of these investigations, the Clerk of the
Parliaments has determined a number of complaints raising similar questions
(pp17-23) and a further number of media allegations against members who were
not subsequently complained about.

Opinion of the Sub-Committee

Oxfordshire
45. The fact that Lord Paul admits that he never stayed overnight at the
Oxfordshire property is sufficient for us to find that his designation did not
meet the criteria endorsed by the House Committee. Lord Paul wrongly
designated the Oxfordshire property as his main residence.
46. With the assistance of the Finance Department, Lord Paul calculated that he
claimed £39,447 in night subsistence in respect of nights away from the
Oxfordshire property from January 2005 to July 2006. He has voluntarily repaid
this sum to the House. This is a greater sum than the House could have required
him to repay, as we may only investigate the four years of conduct back to 11
October 2005.

Buckinghamshire
47. The Buckinghamshire property is a home owned by Lord Paul and
regularly used by Lord Paul and his wife when the House was sitting and in
the recess. Lord Paul’s designation meets the criteria endorsed by the
House Committee.

London
48. In terms of the amount of night subsistence claimed by Lord Paul for his
accommodation in London, our report on Lord Clarke of Hampstead (agreed to
by the House on 6 April 2010) made clear that the scheme provided a flat rate
allowance intended to reimburse the member for the costs of maintaining a
residence in London until April 2009 when the word “allowance” was removed
from the guidance (General Guide paragraph 4.4.2); since then it has been a
reimbursement scheme. Lord Paul legitimately claimed the full amount of
available night subsistence as an allowance when away from the Buckinghamshire
property until 6 April 2010. Since that date, Lord Paul should only have claimed
reimbursement of the actual cost of maintaining his London residence. Lord Paul
claimed the full amount of night subsistence in April 2010 but has not yet
submitted a claim in the new Parliament.
24 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

Issue 2: whether Lord Paul should have claimed for travel from and to his
main residence

Oxfordshire
49. Lord Paul should not have designated the Oxfordshire property as his main
residence. Claims for travel may only be made for journeys made between a main
residence and Westminster in respect of parliamentary duties (pp6K; 15B). As the
Oxfordshire property was not his main residence, Lord Paul was not
eligible to claim for travel from and to Oxfordshire. We do not need to find
whether he made the journeys for which he claimed, though he admits that he did
not make them either from or to his designated main residence or on the dates for
which he claimed.
50. Lord Paul calculated that he had claimed £2,535 under the mileage allowance
for journeys by car from and to Oxfordshire from January 2005 to July 2006 1 and
he has voluntarily repaid this sum to the House. Again, this is a greater sum than
the House could have required him to repay, as we may only investigate the four
years of conduct back to 11 October 2005.

Buckinghamshire
51. Lord Paul confirmed that he travelled from and to the Buckinghamshire
property as indicated by his claims for the mileage allowance for journeys by car
(p44F). He was entitled to make those claims.

Issue 3: if the facts identify one or more wrongly designated main


residences, whether Lord Paul acted in good faith in making his
designation and claims
52. Having found that Lord Paul wrongly designated the Oxfordshire property as
his main residence and that he made claims for night subsistence and travel to
which he was not entitled, we now turn to the issue of good faith. If Lord Paul did
not act in good faith when making his designation and claims for night subsistence
and travel, then he is liable to sanction. If however Lord Paul had good reason to
believe that his designation and claims were valid, sanction might be
inappropriate.
53. In correspondence with the Clerk of the Parliaments, Lord Paul says (p41B):
“I recognise that claiming during the Bignall interlude has been
perceived as having been on the wrong side of the line. I acted on entire
good faith throughout.”

Understanding of the scheme, designations and claims for night subsistence


54. In testing Lord Paul’s good faith, we are not assessing his conduct against the
criteria endorsed by the House Committee but against any natural understanding
of the scheme and “main residence” that might be held by a reasonable person.
This is because the criteria endorsed by the House Committee were not designed
retrospectively to define “main residence” for the purpose of the scheme but were
designed only as criteria to be applied to the retrospective examination of certain
members’ claims.

1 The Finance Department confirmed his calculation.


4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 25

55. Lord Paul makes his assertion of good faith on the basis of his understanding
of the rules. In relation to “main residence”, Lord Paul says (p43L):
“At the time there was no definition of “main” or “principle” [sic]
residence and it was my understanding (which prevailed in the House
from 2004 to 2009) that if one owned a second home outside of London
a claim could be made for overnight subsistence in London when the
House was sitting and also for travel to and from the second home. I
accept now, that due to the lack of guidance at the time, my
understanding may have been mistaken.”
In Lord Paul’s account, it was ownership not residence that was essential (QQ 61
to 65; 69; 147); indeed there was no need to reside (Q155). The word “main” in
“only or main residence” had no effect on the definition (Q161).
56. Such a misconception might still be justified if Lord Paul had studied the
guidance and come to such a conclusion, but he had not. He never read the Quick
Guide on the reverse of the claim form, telling us that he often signed forms
without reading the detail (Q141). He did not consider his obligation when he
himself completed his claim form each month (Q113) and signed his name above
the address he had filled in as his “main place of residence” (Q153). Nor did he
seek anything other than very general advice from colleagues (QQ70; 107-10;
143). He did not even read the rules when certain of his claims were rejected
(QQ148-9). We find this attitude to the making of a claim upon public funds to be
inexcusable.
57. Even if Lord Paul’s definition of “residence” were reasonable, his lack of
regard to “main” is unreasonable. We consider that no reasonable person could
hold Lord Paul’s understanding of “main residence” in relation to the scheme.
58. We find that Lord Paul’s designation of the Oxfordshire property was a
deliberate misrepresentation of his domestic arrangements made with the
intention of enabling Lord Paul to make use of the night subsistence
element of the members’ reimbursement scheme.

Claims for the mileage allowance for journeys by car


59. In relation to travel, Lord Paul suggested that he was entitled to the mileage
allowance for a return journey from and to his main residence irrespective of
whether he had made the journey (QQ91-3). The wording of the Quick Guide is
clear: “Members of the House of Lords... are entitled to recover the costs of
travel... incurred in connection with their parliamentary duties... Travelling
Expenses - These may be claimed for journeys between main place of residence in
the United Kingdom and London” (p15B). The members’ reimbursement scheme
did not exist to subsidise Lord Paul’s weekend house-hunting (Q106) but to
facilitate his attendance in the House if that involved him being away from his
main residence. We consider that no reasonable person could believe that the
scheme enabled a member to claim for journeys he did not make and for purposes
unconnected with attendance at the House.
60. On the balance of probabilities, we consider that Lord Paul did not truly hold
the understanding of the provision for the mileage allowance for journeys by car
with which he presented us. Not only could no reasonable person hold such an
understanding, but the fact that he claimed for journeys to the main residence
usually on a Friday or Saturday and a return journey to London on a Sunday,
when he admits that (a) the journeys were not made on the days stated; and (b) he
never stayed overnight in the Oxfordshire property, the hotel or in the surrounding
26 4TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT

area, indicates to us that Lord Paul made the claims for the mileage
allowance for journeys by car from and to the Oxfordshire property with
the intention of adding verisimilitude to his designation of that property as
his main residence.

Conclusion
61. We find that Lord Paul did not act in good faith in designating the
Oxfordshire property as his main residence and in claiming night
subsistence and travel expenses from and to that property.

Sanction
62. We are conscious that this case is similar to that of Lord Clarke of Hampstead
(in which an apology was sufficient) in that both members deliberately made false
claims over a sustained period of time; referred their own conduct for
investigation; quickly repaid the wrongly-claimed money; cooperated with the
investigation; and apologised. Lord Paul’s case is however different from that of
Lord Clarke. Lord Clarke wrongly claimed for 61 days’ night subsistence when he
had in fact returned to his main residence, but his (only) residence was genuinely
in Hertfordshire. Lord Paul’s wrong is greater in scale: he did not have a main
residence outside London; none of his claims for night subsistence away from that
residence was valid; he did not make the journeys for which he claimed on the
days claimed; and the quantum wrongly claimed is greater. In addition, despite his
apology to the Sub-Committee, Lord Paul has continued to present his case as a
reasonable interpretation of the scheme honestly held. It was not. Not only did he
make false claims but he presented the Sub-Committee with an understanding of
the scheme which no reasonable person could hold in an attempt to disguise the
deliberate nature of his deception.
63. We recommend that the House sanction Lord Paul by requiring him to
make a personal statement of apology to the House and thereafter
suspending him from the service of the House for six months. His apology
must be unconditional, and agreed in advance with the Chairman of the
Sub-Committee, to be sufficient.
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE MEMBERS’ REIMBURSEMENT A

SCHEME
House of Lords Journals 17 May 1961
Peers’
Travelling It was moved by the Lord Glassary (Earl B
Expenses:
Resolution of Dundee) to resolve, “That this House
respg.
“approves the proposals contained in the
“answer made on behalf of Her Majesty’s
“Government yesterday for enabling mem-
“bers of the House to recover the cost of
“travel by rail, sea and air in attending C
“the House for the purposes of their par-
“liamentary duties and allowances in
“respect of the cost of travel by road for
“that purpose.”
The same was agreed to.
D
House of Lords Journals 25 July 1991
18. Lords Expenses—It was moved by the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington) that as from 1st August
1991:
(1) Members of this House, except any Lord who receives a salary under the Ministerial and E
other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees,
shall be entitled to recover (in addition to the costs of travel for which other provision is made)
expenses certified by them as—
(a) expenses incurred (otherwise than as mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) below) for
the purpose of attendance at sittings of this House or of Committees of this F
House, or
(b) expenses incurred in staying overnight away from their only or main residence
where it is necessary to do so for that purpose.
(2) The amount which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1)(a) of this Resolution shall
not exceed the maximum daily amount for each day of attendance at a sitting of this House or G
of a Committee of this House.
(3) In paragraph (2) of this Resolution and this paragraph “the maximum daily amount”
means—
(a) for a day in the year beginning with 1st August 1991, £29, and
H
(b) for a day in any subsequent year, the amount obtained by increasing what was
the maximum daily amount for a day in July of the immediately preceding year
by the percentage (if any) by which the rate of day subsistence allowance payable
for an absence of more than ten hours in the case of a member of the Home Civil
Service of the highest subsistence classification was increased as from the end of
that July. J
(4) The amount which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1)(b) of this Resolution shall
not exceed the maximum daily amount for—
(a) each day of attendance at a sitting of this House or of a Committee of this House,
and
K
(b) each other day which falls immediately before a day of attendance at a sitting of
a Committee of this House if the Lord incurs expenses in staying overnight away
from his only or main residence before the sitting and it is necessary for him to
do so for the purpose of attendance at the sitting.
(5) In paragraph (4) of this Resolution and this paragraph “the maximum daily amount” means— L
(a) for a day in the year beginning with 1st August 1991, £68, and
(b) for a day in any subsequent year, the amount obtained by increasing what was
the maximum daily amount for a day in July of the immediately preceding year
by the percentage (if any) by which the highest Inner London rate of night
2 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
subsistence allowance payable to a member of the Home Civil Service was
increased as from the end of that July.
(6) For the purposes of this Resolution—
(a) any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph (3)(B) or (5)(b)
B shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than fifty pence, but shall
otherwise be disregarded.
(b) references to a sitting of this House or of a Committee of this House do not
include references to a judicial sitting, and
(c) “year” means a year beginning with 1st August;
C
after debate, the motion was agreed to.

House of Lords Journals 10 November 2004


15. Car, bicycle and motorcycle mileage expenses—It was moved by the Lord President (Baroness Amos) to
D resolve that this House approves the following proposals with respect to payments of car, bicycle and
motorcycle allowances to Lords for journeys which they have commenced on or after 10th
November 2004—
(1) The maximum allowance payable in respect of a journey by car, motorcycle or bicycle should be
payable at the rate which is applicable to that kind of vehicle under subsection (2) of section 230
of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as amended from time to time.
E
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the reference in that subsection to “the first 10,000 miles” is
to the total number of miles of travel by car by the Lord claiming the allowance, which is either—
(a) undertaken for the purpose of attending this House for the purposes of his parliamentary
duties, or
F (b) undertaken while on parliamentary duties within the United Kingdom;
the motion was agreed to.

Members’ Reimbursement Allowance Scheme General Guide

G Fifth Edition October 2005

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Summary Table
H 1.2 Background
1.3 Taxable status
2. HOW TO CLAIM
2.1 The Finance Department
3. GENERAL CONDITIONS RELATING TO CLAIMS AND ALLOWANCES
3.1 Eligibility to claim expenses
J
3.2 Time limit
3.3 Publication of information relating to Members’ claims for expenses
4 ATTENDANCE AT SITTINGS AT WESTMINSTER
4.1 General—Expenses Related to Attendance
4.2 Travelling Expenses
K 4.3 Spouses’and Children’s Travel
4.4 Night Subsistence
4.5 Day Subsistence
4.6 Office Costs
4.7 Other Expenses
L 5. TRAVEL ON UK PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
5.1 Definition
5.2 Industry and Parliament Trust and Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
6 TRAVEL TO EU INSTITUTIONS
6.1 Definition
privileges and conduct: evidence 3

A
6.2 Advance Notice
6.3 Travelling expenses
6.4 Subsistence expenses
7 SELECT COMMITTEE VISITS
7.1. Travel B
7.2 Day Subsistence
7.3 Office Costs
7.4 Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home
7.5 Night Subsistence
7.6 Insurance Costs
C
8 PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
8.1 Travel and Subsistence
8.2 Office Costs
8.3 Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home
8.4 Night Subsistence
D
8.5 Expenses of a Rapporteur
8.6 Insurance Costs
9 BRITISH-IRISH INTER-PARLIAMENTARY BODY(BIIPB)
9.1 Travel and Subsistence
9.2 Office Costs
9.3 Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home E
10 TRAVEL AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HOUSE
10.1 Travel and Subsistence
10.2 Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home
10.3 Insurance Costs
11 LAW LORDS F
11.1 Travelling Expenses
12 MINISTERS AND PAID OFFICE HOLDERS
12.1 Secretarial Expenses
12.2 Spouses’ and Children’s Travelling
13 TRAVELLING EXPENSES FOR BODIES NOT SUPPORTED G
13.1 Specific Bodies
14 MEMBERS’ PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE
14.1 Summary
14.2 Cover on the Parliamentary Estate or travelling between home and Westminster
14.3 Cover whilst Travelling H
14.4 Exemptions
15 FREE POSTAGE
15.1 Envelopes and Postcards
16 BROADBAND COSTS
17 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO OPPOSITION PARTIES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS J
“CRANBORNE MONEY”
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Summary Table
K

L
4

Accommodation
Spouse and Maintenance Insurance
Member Overnight Day Office/Secretarial Childrens’ Allowance for a cover
category Types of claim Subsistence Subsistence Costs Travel Second Home Travel provided
Sittings of the House max £154.50 per max £77 per day max £67 per day 6 journeys each No Yes Yes
night per year
Select Committee meetings at max £154.50 per max £77 per day max £67 per day No No Yes Yes
Westminster night
Select Committee Visits met directly met directly max £67 per day No max £103 Yes Yes
Members of parliamentary Foreign & Foreign & max £67 per day No max £103 Yes Yes
delegations Commonwealth Commonwealth
Office rates Office rates
Additional Office Costs N/A N/A max 40 days w £67 per N/A N/A N/A N/A
day
Backbench UK travel on parliamentary business No No No No No Yes Yes
Members
Travel to EU Institutions Foreign & Foreign & No No No Yes Yes
Commonwealth Commonwealth
Office rates Office rates
British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary from House of from House of max £67 per day No max £103 No Yes
Body Commons Commons
Travel as a Representative of the met directly met directly max £67 per day No max £103 Yes Yes
House
Salaried Law Lord No No No No No Yes Yes
Members !
Minister No No max £5,025.50 pa 15 journeys each No No Yes
privileges and conduct: evidence

per year
Office Holder No No max £5,025.50 pa 15 journeys each No Yes Yes
per year
privileges and conduct: evidence 5

A
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Members of the House of Lords do not, in general, receive a salary in respect of their parliamentary
duties. However, Members may be reimbursed actual expenses arising out of these duties, in accordance with
the rules of the Members’ Reimbursement Allowance Scheme. The Members’ Reimbursement Allowance
Scheme is governed by Resolutions of the House. Rules for the recovery of Members’ expenses are B
administered by the Clerk of the Parliaments who also has limited discretion to deal with matters that arise
on claims. Points of particular difficulty or doubt may be referred to the House Committee, which supervises
the arrangements for the reimbursement of expenses. The Senior Salaries Review Body carries out regular
reviews of parliamentary allowances. Its most recent report on the House of Lords was issued in October 2004
(Cm 6354). Subsistence allowances are updated on 1 August each year in line with the Retails Price Index.
C
1.2.2 Members not in receipt of a parliamentary salary are able to recover expenses for:

— daily and overnight subsistence expenses, office costs and travel expenses incurred in attending a
sitting of the House or a Committee meeting at Westminster—see section 4;

— travel in the UK on Parliamentary Business—see section 5; D

— travel to EU Institutions—see section 6;

— participation in select committee visits—see section 7;

— participation in official Parliamentary delegations—see section 8; E

— certain limited expenses for participation in the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body visits—see
section 9;

— travel as a representative of the House—see section 10. F


1.2.3 Sections 11 and 12 provide information on the reimbursement allowances available to salaried Members
of the House, ie the Law Lords, Ministers and paid Office Holders.

1.3 Taxable status G


1.3.1 All amounts paid in settlement of claims as detailed in thisguide represent reimbursement of actual
expenses arising out ofunpaid parliamentary duty, rather than income from employment. Consequently, they
are not subject to income tax, and need not be included on a tax return.

H
2. HOW TO CLAIM

2.1 The Finance Department


2.1.1 The reimbursement scheme is administered by the Members’ Expenses Section in the Finance
Department, House of Lords which also has access to a full record of Members’ attendances at the House.
J
2.1.2 The Members’ Expenses Section is housed in Room 645 on the sixth floor of Millbank House. The
postal address is:

Finance Department House of Lords London SW1A 0PW


K
A dedicated telephone number for Members to contact the office is 020 7219 6096.

The FAX number is 020 7219 2369 and the Finance Department’s generic email address is
findeptwparliament.uk.

2.1.3 All forms are available from the Members’ Expenses Section (unless otherwise stated) and from the L
Finance Department’s Intranet page.

2.1.4 It would not be possible to incorporate in this guide every circumstance under which Members may be
able to reclaim expenses. Members are therefore encouraged to contact the Members’ Expenses Section, on the
above telephone number, for general assistance or to discuss any particular points that arise from their claims.
6 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
3. GENERAL CONDITIONS RELATING TO CLAIMS AND ALLOWANCES

3.1 Eligibility to claim expenses


3.1.1 No Member may claim expenses unless they have taken the oath of allegiance or affirmed. Members on
leave of absence are also ineligible to claim.
B
3.2 Time limit
3.2.1 Expenses claims should be submitted within three months of the expense arising.

C 3.3 Publication of information relating to Members’ claims for expenses


3.3.1 Information on the expenses claimed by each Member is published annually on the Parliamentary
website.

4 ATTENDANCE AT SITTINGS AT WESTMINSTER


D
4.1 General—Expenses Related to Attendance
4.1.1 The basic principle underlying the scheme is that the entitlement to recover expenses arises only in
respect of attendance at sittings of the House or its committees at Westminster. These are defined as:
— sittings of the House (excluding attendance at the State Opening of Parliament and sittings for
E judicial business)
— meetings of committees and sub-committees of the House (except judicial business)
— meetings as a member of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
— meetings as a member of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL).
F 4.1.2 Members travelling on parliamentary business away from Westminster may only be reimbursed their
expenses under the specific arrangements set out in sections 5 to 10. Costs incurred in respect of an attendance
at any other meeting, whether held at Westminster or not, cannot be recovered unless the Member attends a
meeting falling within paragraph 4.1.1 on the same day.
4.1.3 Members who wish to claim attendance expenses must complete and sign the attendance expenses claim
G form and forward it as soon as convenient after the end of each month, or period of claim, to the Members’
Expenses Section. A Member’s signature effectively certifies that the amount claimed has been spent for the
purposes of parliamentary duties as set out above. Receipts are not required.
4.1.4 Claims for subsistence (4.4 and 4.5) and office costs (4.6) must not exceed the daily maxima for that
category of expenses aggregated over the period of the claim. For example, if a Member claims for 10 days’
H office costs it is possible to claim more than the normal maximum of £67 for any specific day(s) providing that
the overall maximum of £670 (10 x £67) is not exceeded.
4.1.5 The latest version of the attendance expenses claim form is always available from the Printed Paper
Office and the Members’ Expenses Section. The form can also be found on House of Lords Intranet under
Offices & Administration, Finance Department, Members’ Services.
J 4.1.6 The reverse of the attendance expenses claim form contains a “quick guide”. This includes the current
maxima of the allowances and the names of the staff to contact in the Members’ Expenses Section. The “quick
guide” is updated regularly and whenever the maxima of the allowances are increased, currently in August of
each year.

K 4.2 Travelling Expenses

General
4.2.1 Claims may be made only for journeys over five miles between a Member’s main place of residence in
the United Kingdom and Westminster. Claims for incidental travel costs (eg those arising from short distance
journeys within a five mile radius of Westminster, tolls and car parking charges) are covered by the day
L subsistence allowance (4.5).
4.2.2 Members seeking to receive travel costs must register their main place of residence with the Members’
Expenses Section. Members with more than one main place of residence may register an alternative main
residence with the Members’ Expenses Section for the purpose of claiming travelling expenses. Registration
is subject to the approval of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
privileges and conduct: evidence 7

A
4.2.3 If a Member’s main place of residence is outside the UK, travel costs may be reimbursed from the point
of entry into the UK in accordance with 4.2.4 to 4.2.14.
4.2.4 Members may recover the cost of fares incurred by them for travel by any public railway, sea, and air
or bus service, or the costs of journey made by private car.
B
Rail and Air
4.2.5 Members are entitled to claim the cost of first class tickets when travelling by rail and business class
tickets when travelling by air. However, Members are expected to take advantage of any available cheap ticket
facilities. The cost of “rail cards”, for example a senior citizen rail card, can be reimbursed. The Travel Office
(020 7219 4232) is available as a service for members of both Houses to book tickets, and significant discounts C
are available on many routes.
4.2.6 Claims for rail travel may include the cost of sleeping berths and seat reservations. Costs of meals and
refreshments are redeemable as day subsistence.
4.2.7 Claims for air travel may include fares for travel by coach between the airport and air terminal. D

Road
4.2.8 Claims in respect of journeys by private car are payable at:
— 40p per mile up to 10,000 miles in the year ending 31 March; and E
— 25p per mile for mileage in excess of 10,000 miles in the same year.
No other claims in respect of motoring expenses are reimbursable under the travelling expenses heading.
Incidental travel costs such as tolls, congestion charges and car-parking charges can be claimed against the
daily limit of the day subsistence allowance (4.5).
F
4.2.9 In certain circumstances claims for double journeys will be admitted, eg when a Member’s car takes him
or her to, or fetches him or her from, a railway station or airport and is thereby necessarily involved in a
double journey.
4.2.10 Claims in respect of hired cars/taxis may only be made on the same basis as for a privately owned car, ie
Members can be reimbursed the normal mileage allowance for the miles actually travelled in the hired car/taxi. G
4.2.11 Travel by private car is considerably more expensive than by public transport and Members should
therefore use public transport wherever practicable.
4.2.12 Claims in respect of journeys undertaken by motorcycle are paid at the rate of 24p per mile.
4.2.13 Claims in respect of journeys undertaken by bicycle are paid at the rate of 20p per mile. H

Recall of the House


4.2.14 Should the House be recalled during a Parliamentary recess, Members who are away from their main
place of residence may recover the costs necessarily incurred in attending a sitting of the House, including the
cost of travel from overseas. A separate claim form is available from the Members’ Expenses Section to recover J
travel costs in those circumstances.

4.3 Spouses’ and Children’s Travel


4.3.1 A Member may recover the costs incurred by a wife or husband for up to six return journeys per calendar K
year between home and Westminster to attend Parliamentary occasions. A Member may also recover the costs
incurred by each of their children, up to the age of 18, on the same basis. Such costs are reimbursed on the
same basis as those for Members travel (4.2).
4.3.2 Claims under this heading should be included on the Members’ claim form. The form should clearly
indicate whether the claim relates to the spouse or a named child. L

4.4 Night Subsistence


4.4.1 Members whose main residence is outside Greater London may claim for expenses of overnight
accommodation in London while away from their only or main residence. The maximum daily limit is £154.50.
8 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
4.4.2 A Member whose main residence is outside Greater London and who maintains a residence in London
for the purpose of attending sittings of the House may claim this allowance towards the cost of maintaining
such a residence.
4.4.3 Claims for night subsistence are only permissible in respect of nights actually spent in London either
B immediately preceding or following attendance at a sitting or meeting described in paragraph 4.1.1 above. For
example, a Member who necessarily travels to London on a Sunday and attends sittings of the House on
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and then returns home on Friday or later may claim night
subsistence for a maximum of 5 nights at up to a maximum of £154.50 per night (ie a maximum of £772.50
for the week). However, if the Member returned home on the Thursday evening, the maximum claim for night
subsistence would be 4 nights at up to a maximum of £154.50 per night (ie a maximum of £618 for the week).
C
4.4.4 Members who choose to travel home each night or whose main residence is within Greater London
cannot claim the night subsistence allowance.

4.5 Day Subsistence


D 4.5.1 Members may claim day subsistence costs within a daily limit of £77.00 for each day of attendance.
4.5.2 This allowance is intended to cover such items as the cost of meals and incidental travel costs not
separately recoverable (eg short distance journeys within a five mile radius of Westminster, taxi fares, tolls and
car parking charges). It also includes an element to cover the costs of providing refreshments for a Member’s
visitors to the House on official business.
E

4.6 Office Costs


4.6.1 Members may claim office costs within a daily limit of £67.00 for each day of attendance.
4.6.2 Such claims may include the cost of secretarial help, research assistance, and additional expenses (eg
F
domestic costs, purchase of books and periodicals and professional subscription charges that arise out of
parliamentary duties).
4.6.3 Office costs may also be recovered in respect of a maximum of 40 days per year when the House is not
sitting, or the House is sitting but a Member does not attend.
G
4.7 Other Expenses

Disablement
4.7.1 Members who are disabled may recover the additional expenses of attending the House incurred by them
H because of their disablement and not recoverable within the normal daily limits. This may include the
additional cost of travel, specialist assistance or equipment etc. Each case is considered on its merits.
Applications should be submitted to the Members’ Expenses Section, and are subject to the approval of the
Clerk of the Parliaments.

J 5. TRAVEL ON UK PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS

5.1 Definition
5.1.1 In addition to the normal travel arrangements, the cost of journeys made on parliamentary business
elsewhere within the United Kingdom may also be recovered. Claims for such travel are subject to the prior
K approval of the Clerk of the Parliaments and to the following conditions:
— the purpose of the visit is clearly related to the work of Parliament and does not include party
political, personal or private business;
— claims are subject to the limitations outlined in paragraphs 4.2.4–4.2.13;
L — the expenses are not recoverable from any other source;
— application for reimbursement must be submitted to the Members’ Expenses Section at least one
week before the date of the proposed journey;
— Members must confirm the actual travelling expenses incurred after the journey has been undertaken.
privileges and conduct: evidence 9

A
5.2 Industry and Parliament Trust and Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
5.2.1 The costs of journeys on business connected with the Industry and Parliament Trust (IPT) or Armed
Forces Parliamentary Scheme (AFPS) may be claimed, so long as they meet the terms scheme set out above.
All other claims should be addressed to the IPT or AFPS.
B
6 TRAVEL TO EU INSTITUTIONS

6.1 Definition
6.1.1 Members are able to recover the costs of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United
Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national C
parliament of a European Union state or a candidate country. This is subject to a limit of two return journeys
in any year from 1 April to 31 March.

6.2 Advance Notice


D
6.2.1 Members seeking reimbursement must obtain advance approval for the visit from the Clerk of the
Parliaments. Applications should be submitted at least one week in advance of the visit, giving details of:
(i) the visit’s purpose;
(ii) its destination(s);
E
(iii) its duration; and
(iv) the persons or organisations to be met.
Application forms are available from the Members’ Expenses Section or the Clerk of the Parliaments’ Office.
F
6.2.2 The Members’ Expenses Section will advise the Member whether or not the visit has been approved by
the Clerk of the Parliaments, enclosing a claim form to be submitted after the visit. Claim forms should be
completed and returned to the Members’ Expenses Section together with bills and receipts for any travel
expenses incurred.

G
6.3 Travelling expenses
6.3.1 The amount payable in respect of travel, by any means, out of and into the United Kingdom is restricted
to a maximum of the business class return fare between a station or airport serving London or the area of the
Member’s main residence and a station or airport serving the city visited. Travel costs to and from the point
of exit from and entry to the UK can be claimed on the same terms as for expenses in attending sittings of
H
the House.

6.4 Subsistence expenses


6.4.1 Members are entitled to a subsistence allowance limited to two nights (48 hours) calculated at the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office Class A standard subsistence rate current at the time of the visit. The J
standard subsistence rate is deemed to cover all costs for accommodation, taxis, meals and refreshments.
Information on these rates is held by the Members’ Expenses Section.
6.4.2. Subsistence is calculated from the time that a Member leaves Westminster or their main residence until
their return. Subsistence rates are set in the local currency of the country being visited, but reimbursement will
be paid in sterling. K

7 SELECT COMMITTEE VISITS

7.1. Travel
L
7.1.1 Travel arrangements for select committee meetings held away from Westminster, in the UK or overseas,
are made by the Committee Office, which meets the costs directly. Costs of travel from home to the starting
point for a visit (see 4.2 above), and of any necessary overnight stay at the start or end of the visit (see 7.5.1
below), should be reclaimed through the committee clerk. Travel and subsistence claim forms are available
from the Committee Office.
10 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Day Subsistence
7.2.1 Day subsistence costs for select committee meetings held away from Westminster are met directly by the
Committee Office or paid at standard Government subsistence rates appropriate to the location. Members are
not entitled to claim their subsistence costs under the arrangements in place for attendance at Westminster.
B
7.3 Office Costs
7.3.1 Office costs are recoverable on the same basis as for attendance at the House (4.6).

7.4 Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home


C
7.4.1 Members who maintain a second residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the House
may claim an allowance of up to £103 per night whilst on a committee visit away from Westminster for
continuing accommodation costs incurred, on the same basis as the Night Subsistence Allowance (4.4.2).

D 7.5 Night Subsistence


7.5.1 If a Member needs to spend a night in London immediately before or after a committee visit and is not
able to attend the House on that day a claim for night subsistence in the terms set out in Section 4.4 may be
made. Such claims are subject to the prior approval of the clerk of the committee. Claims for reimbursement
should be made on Travel and Subsistence forms available from the Committee Office.
E
7.6 Insurance Costs
7.6.1 Details of the group personal accident insurance covering Members are given in section 14. As this cover
is limited Members are advised to also make their own private insurance arrangements for losses not provided
by the group policy. Any relevant insurance cost incurred for a specific visit may be reimbursed to the Member
F who should submit the claim to the clerk of the committee for approval. Claims for reimbursement should be
made on Travel and Subsistence forms which are available from Committee Office.

8 PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS

G 8.1 Travel and Subsistence


8.1.1 The payment of travel and subsistence costs incurred in the United Kingdom or overseas by members
of the official parliamentary delegations to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe, the Western
European Union, NATO and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, is administered by
the House of Commons Overseas Office in accordance with the rules agreed by both Houses. Full details of
H these arrangements are set out in the Administrative Guide for Members of the United Kingdom Delegations,
a copy of which is provided, on the appointment of a delegate, by the Overseas Office in the House of
Commons. Parliamentary Delegation claim forms are available from the House of Commons.
8.1.2 Whilst travelling on or participating as a member of a parliamentary delegation, Members are not
entitled to claim their subsistence costs under the arrangements in place for attendance at Westminster.
J
8.1.3 For meetings held away from Westminster, in the UK or overseas, travel is arranged by the Delegation
Secretary. Costs are normally met directly by the House of Commons Overseas Office. Costs of travel from
home to the starting point for a visit may be claimed as detailed in 4.2 above. Claims for reimbursement should
be made on Parliamentary Delegation claim forms which are available from the House of Commons
Overseas Office.
K

8.2 Office Costs


8.2.1 Office costs are recoverable from the House of Lords on the same basis as for attendance at the
House (4.6).
L
8.3 Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home
8.3.1 Members who maintain a second residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the House
may claim an allowance of £103 per night whilst on a Parliamentary Delegation away from Westminster for
continuing accommodation costs incurred, on the same basis as the Night Subsistence Allowance (4.4.2).
privileges and conduct: evidence 11

A
8.4 Night Subsistence
8.4.1 If a Member needs to spend a night in London immediately before or after a delegation visit and is not
able to attend the House on that day a claim for night subsistence in the terms set out in Section 4.4 may be
made. Such claims are subject to the prior approval of the Clerk of the Overseas Office. Claims for
reimbursement should be made on Travel and Subsistence forms available from the House of Commons B
Overseas Office.

8.5 Expenses of a Rapporteur


8.5.1 If a member attends a delegation in the capacity of Rapporteur then only office costs and the
accommodation maintenance allowance for a second home may be claimed (8.2 to 8.3) above. Other expenses C
are met by the organisation which appointed the Rapporteur.

8.6 Insurance Costs


8.6.1 Details of the group personal accident insurance covering Members are given in section 14. As this cover
is limited Members are advised to also make their own private insurance arrangements for losses not provided D
by the group policy. Any relevant insurance cost incurred for a specific visit may be reimbursed to the Member
who should submit the claim to the Clerk of the Overseas Office (020 7219 3130) for approval prior to the visit.
Claims for reimbursement should be made on Travel and Subsistence forms which are available from the
House of Commons Overseas Office.
E
9 BRITISH-IRISH INTER-PARLIAMENTARY BODY (BIIPB)

9.1 Travel and Subsistence


9.1.1 The House of Lords has no responsibility for meetings and visits organised by the BIIPB and claims for
travel and subsistence expenses are dealt with by the House of Commons. Contact details are available via the F
Parliamentary Intranet Index page.

9.2 Office Costs


9.2.1 Office costs are recoverable on the same basis as for attendance at the House (4.6).
G

9.3 Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home


9.3.1 Members who maintain a second residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the House
may claim an allowance of £103 per night whilst attending meetings of the BIIPB away from Westminster for
continuing accommodation costs incurred, on the same basis as the Night Subsistence Allowance (4.4.2). H

10 TRAVEL AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HOUSE

10.1 Travel and Subsistence


10.1.1 All expenses are met by the Overseas Office which has responsibility for travel by Members overseas as J
representatives of the House. Details may be obtained from the Clerk of the Overseas Office (020 7219 3130).

10.2 Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home


10.2. Members who maintain a second residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the House
may claim an allowance of £103 per night whilst travelling as a representative of the House away from K
Westminster for continuing accommodation costs incurred, on the same basis as the Night Subsistence
Allowance (4.4.2).

10.3 Insurance Costs


L
10.3.1 Details of the group personal accident insurance covering Members are given in section 14. As this
cover is limited Members are advised to also make their own private insurance arrangements for losses not
provided by the group policy. Any relevant insurance cost incurred for a specific visit may be reimbursed to
the Member who should submit the claim to the Clerk of the overseas Office for approval. Claims for
reimbursement should be made on Travel and Subsistence forms which are available from the Overseas Office.
12 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
11 LAW LORDS

11.1 Travelling Expenses


11.1.1 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the “Law Lords”) are able to claim travel expenses between their main
residence and Westminster at any time during the law term.
B

12 MINISTERS AND PAID OFFICE HOLDERS

12.1 Secretarial Expenses

C 12.1.1 Ministers and other paid Office Holders in the House of Lords are able to recover expenses for
secretarial assistance certified as incurred by them in the performance of Parliamentary duties. The maximum
amount recoverable in the twelve month period commencing 1 August 2005 is £5,025.50.
12.1.2 A certificate should accompany the evidence of expenditure. Templates of documents required are
provided by the Members’ Expenses Section.
D
12.2 Spouses’ and Children’s Travelling
12.2.1 A Lords’ Minister or paid Office Holder who maintains a permanent home outside Greater London
may claim for the cost of journeys undertaken between home and Westminster by his or her spouse and
dependant children, up to a limit of 15 return journeys for each spouse or child per calendar year.
E
13 TRAVELLING EXPENSES FOR BODIES NOT SUPPORTED

13.1 Specific Bodies


13.1.1 The House of Lords does not have any responsibility for visits organised by the Commonwealth
F Parliamentary Association (CPA) or Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). Any claims for expenses should be
addressed to the appropriate organisation.

14 MEMBERS’ PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE

G 14.1 Summary
14.1.1 The House maintains an insurance policy to cover Members for accidents whilst on the Parliamentary
Estate, whilst travelling between home and the House and whilst travelling on official parliamentary business.
For insurance purposes, official parliamentary business is defined as trips, visits or attendance at events where
the House has paid Members’ travelling expenses. Currently, this includes:
H — Travel under the UK Parliamentary Business travel scheme (section 5)
— Travel to EU Instritutions (section 6)
— Select Committee visits (section 7)
— Parliamentary Delegations (section 8)
J
— BIIPB (section 9)
— Travel as a representative of the House (section 10).
A brief overview of cover provided is shown below. Members should consult the full details of the policy to
ascertain if this provides sufficient personal cover. The policy can be viewed on the Finance Department’s
K intranet page.

14.2 Cover on the Parliamentary Estate or travelling between home and Westminster
14.2.1 The following benefits are provided:
L Accidental death (benefit may vary subject to existing medical conditions)—£175,000
Permanent total disablement and or disabling injuries (up to age 75)—up to a maximum of £175,000
Temporary total disablement (up to age 75)—£200 per week for up to 104 weeks
Accident medical expenses—maximum of £10,000 per person
privileges and conduct: evidence 13

A
14.3 Cover whilst Travelling
14.3.1 In addition to the benefits shown above, the following cover is provided for Members whilst travelling
within the UK (where the trip involves an overnight stay away from London or includes air travel) or overseas
on official parliamentary business:
Medical Expenses £2,500,000 B
Rescue unlimited
Personal Belongings £2,500 (single article limit £1,500)
Money £5,000 (cash limit £1,000)
Personal Liability £2,000,000 C
Hijack £15,000
Legal Expenses £25,000
Supplementary Travel Expenses £15,000 (for travel and accommodation expenses of family visiting)

D
14.4 Exemptions
14.4.1 The following terms and exemptions apply:
(a) Cover is not automatic in respect of travel to certain countries. Currently, the Finance Department
must give prior notification to the insurer for journeys to Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, Israel and
the Occupied Territories, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. The list of countries and cover available may E
vary from time to time: if in doubt please consult the Finance Department.
(b) Whilst travelling, an aircraft accumulation limit of £2 million applies. Based on the maximum sum
insured of £175,000, this will allow a group of 11 Members to travel together.
(c) For travel in single engine aircraft (and helicopters), the accumulation limit is reduced to £525,000 or
full cover for three Members. F

(d) Additional restrictions apply and Members should consult the Finance Department or the policy for
full details.
14.4.2 The Finance Department should be notified of any claims.
G
15 FREE POSTAGE

15.1 Envelopes and Postcards


15.1.1 Postage-paid envelopes and postcards are available from the Printed Paper Office (PPO) for Members’
correspondence on Parliamentary business. Supplies may be collected by Members in person, or by Members’ H
staff if authorised in advance by the Member concerned. Those collecting envelopes and postcards will be
asked to sign for them.
15.1.2 A maximum of 100 of each type of envelope or postcard may be issued to a Member on any one day.
Small quantities (up to 50 in total with a maximum of 10 of each type) may be sent by post to Members’ private
addresses on receipt by the PPO of a signed order form. J
15.1.3 For further details or forms please contact the PPO (tel: extension 3960 or 3038, or email to
quingwparliament.uk).
15.1.4 Members are reminded that prepaid envelopes and postcards may not be used:
— For correspondence of a business, commercial or personal nature; K

— For the correspondence of a parliamentary group which includes persons other than
parliamentarians;
— In connection with party political fund raising or campaigning;
L
— For issuing circulars of any description (ie an unsolicited letter sent in identical or near identical form
to a number of addresses);
— For internal mail (mail within the Parliamentary estate); or
— For overseas mail (including Europe and the Republic of Ireland).
14 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
15.1.5 Members are also asked to recognise the need to avoid wastage of prepaid envelopes and postcards, on
which the House will have already paid the postal charge. In particular, envelopes and cards should not be
used for making notes or for internal mail of any kind; nor should they be left unused and forgotten in an
office. Although there is no formal limit on the number of prepaid envelopes available to Members, Members
are nevertheless asked to keep their requests to modest numbers.
B
16 BROADBAND COSTS
16.1 A Member who has borrowed an official laptop computer is entitled to apply for an ASDL connection
for which no charge is made. If this is not technically possible then a Member can be reimbursed the cost of
installation and rental of an ISDN line. Further details and forms are available from the Computer Office (020
C 7219 6061).

17 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO OPPOSITION PARTIES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS


“CRANBORNE MONEY”
17.1 A scheme for providing financial assistance to the Official Opposition and the second largest opposition
D party in the House of Lords to assist them in carrying out their parliamentary business was introduced in
October 1996. A similar scheme known as “Short money” has been in operation in the House of Commons
since 1975. The scheme was extended in October 1999 to include assistance for the Convenor of the Cross-
Bench Peers.
17.2 The amounts payable are uprated annually in April in line with the retail prices index. The sums paid to
E the parties and the Convenor are subject to independent audit.
17.3 Each party is responsible for the allocation of its individual entitlement and any matters concerning
financial assistance should be referred to the Leader of the Party concerned or to the Convenor.

Members’ Reimbursement Allowance Scheme Quick Guide,


F
September 2005

[This guide is printed on the reverse of the claim form. The front of the claim form is printed at p29.]
This “quick guide” provides brief details of the reimbursement allowances available to Members of the House
of Lords. It includes the current maxima of the allowances and the staff to contact in the Finance Department.
G The “quick guide” will be updated regularly and whenever the maxima of the allowances are increased. Full
details of the scheme are set out in the “General Guide”, which is available in the Printed Paper Office and which
can also be found on the House of Lords Intranet under Offices & Administration, Finance Department,
Members’ Services.

H
Members of the House of Lords, who are not in receipt of a salary as a Minister, Office Holder or Lord of
Appeal in Ordinary are entitled to recover the costs of travel, subsistence and secretarial assistance incurred
in connection with their parliamentary duties, as set out below.
(i) Night Subsistence—Members whose main residence is outside Greater London may claim expenses,
J within a daily limit of £154.50 (from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006), for nights spent away from their
only or main residence for the purpose of attending sittings of the House a) where they have incurred
expenses of overnight accommodation in London or; b) as a contribution towards the costs of
maintaining a London residence in connection with their parliamentary duties. Claims can only be
made in respect of days of attendance.
K (ii) Day Subsistence and Incidental travel—Only claimable on days of attendance. This allowance is
intended to cover such items as the cost of meals and incidental travel costs (e.g. short distance
journeys within a five mile radius of Westminster, taxi fares, tolls and car parking charges) not
separately recoverable. Daily limit £77.00 (from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006). Claims can only be
made in respect of days of attendance.

L (iii) Office Costs—Claims may include the cost of secretarial help, research assistance and where
appropriate, the cost of providing and maintaining necessary equipment together with the cost of
certain additional expenses, including telephone, internet, computer and IT costs (e.g. domestic costs,
purchase of books and periodicals and professional subscription charges that arise out of
parliamentary duties) within a limit of £67.00 (from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006), for each day of
attendance at the House, plus an additional 40 days for which a separate claim form is available.
privileges and conduct: evidence 15

A
(iv) Claims for subsistence ((i) and (ii)) and office costs (iii) must not exceed the daily maxima for that
category of expenses aggregated over the period of the claim. For example, if a Member claims for 10
days’ office costs it is possible to claim more that the normal maximum of £67 for any specific day(s)
providing that the overall maximum of £670 (10 x £67) is not exceeded.
(v) Travelling Expenses—These may be claimed for journeys between main place of residence in the B
United Kingdom and London by any public railway, sea, air or bus service. Claims in respect of
journeys by private car are restricted to an allowance of 40p per mile up to 10,000 miles then 25p
thereafter. Claims in respect of journeys undertaken by motorcycle are paid at the rate of 24p per mile
and by bicycle at the rate of 20p per mile.
Members who wish to claim any of the expenses detailed above should complete and sign the claim form and C
forward it as soon as convenient after the end of each month, or period of claim, to the Accountant, House
of Lords. Claims are not admissible retrospectively for more than three months prior to the month in which the
claim is made.
Other Expenses—Members may also claim reimbursement for expenses incurred in respect of: Spouse and
Children’s Travel, Travel on UK Parliamentary Business, Travel to EU Institutions, Select Committee Visits,
D
Travel as Representative of the House and Parliamentary Delegations. Details of these schemes can be found
in the ‘General Guide’ (see above). If in doubt please contact the Finance Department.

The scheme is administered by the Finance Department, House of Lords which also has access to the full
E
record of Lords’ attendances. Members are encouraged to contact the Finance Department, House of Lords for
general assistance, or to discuss any particular points that arise from their claims. The Finance Department is
based on the sixth floor of Millbank House. Members’ Reimbursement Allowances are dealt with in Room
645.
The postal address is “The Finance Department, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW”. A dedicated
telephone number for Peers to contact the office is 0207 219 6096. The members expenses supervisor is F
Maureen Buck.

In the autumn of each year, the House publishes information relating to the expenses claimed by each
Member for the preceding financial year.
G

The Clerk of the Parliaments’ Guidance on the Investigation of Complaints


Relating to Members’ Expenses
Published 20 October 2009
H
Guidance on complaints relating to Members’ expenses
The Clerk of the Parliaments is the Accounting Officer for the House of Lords and is responsible for ensuring
that public money is used properly. In that capacity he will take steps to investigate Members’ expenses claims
if he is concerned that there may have been a breach of the rules.
Any complaints relating to expenses claims by Members of the House of Lords should be addressed to the J
Clerk of the Parliaments. All complaints made will be considered by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the first
instance.
In June 2009, the House of Lords House Committee endorsed the following procedures for the Clerk of the
Parliaments in dealing with complaints relating to Members’ expenses:
K
a) The Clerk of the Parliaments will give consideration to all complaints he receives. He is able to dismiss
a complaint after initial consideration if he deems it to be vexatious, frivolous or outside his remit.
b) If he decides to proceed with an investigation, the Clerk of the Parliaments will put the substance of
any allegations to the Member concerned, and ask that Member for a written response. The
investigation process would normally include examination of the claim forms in question and an L
interview with the Member concerned. The Clerk of the Parliaments is able to call on the advice of
a small sub-group of members of the House Committee to consider the preliminary findings of his
investigations on individual complaints. As recommended by the Committee for Privileges in
November 2008, the Clerk of the Parliaments is also able to call upon the assistance of the Sub-
Committee on Lords’ Interests in complex cases.
16 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
c) If, following his investigation, the Clerk of the Parliaments decides not to uphold a complaint, he
informs the complainant at this point. The results of his investigation are published on the
parliamentary website. Normally the Clerk of the Parliaments seeks to respond to complaints within
a period of three months.

B
d) In any instances where it is not possible for the Clerk of the Parliaments to come to any clear
conclusion on a complaint; or where he considers that a Member has been found in breach of the
rules, he would make a report to the House Committee, which is responsible for the supervision of
the Members’ Expenses Scheme. If, in a particular instance, the House Committee considers that a
sanction against a Member may be appropriate, it would refer the matter to the Committee for
C Privileges.

e) If, at any point in his investigation of a complaint, the Clerk of the Parliaments considers that there
are sufficient prima facie grounds to justify reporting a matter to the Police for them to consider a
possible criminal investigation, he will proceed accordingly and suspend his own investigation of a
D complaint until the question of possible criminal proceedings has been resolved.

Published Extract from the Minute of the House Committee Meeting


of 26 January 2010
E

Members’ expenses: investigation of complaints


The Clerk of the Parliaments spoke to his memorandum (H/09-10/8) [RESERVED].

F As detailed in the paper, he reported that he had already come to decisions on a number of complaints. He
emphasised that he was operating under the current scheme, one of the weaknesses of which was that there
was no clear definition of a main residence. He had however taken the view, within the context of the individual
assessment of each case, that there needed to be a minimum threshold beyond which it would be inappropriate
for a Member to designate a property as a main or only residence, and consequently claim overnight
G subsistence when staying in London.

He sought the endorsement of the Committee of the criteria which he was incorporating into his assessment
of cases where frequency of visits was an issue: ie that the main residence had to be visited for a minimum of
one weekend per month over the year when the House was sitting and for periods during recesses. These
factors would be taken into account, along with other evidence, when assessing the validity of the designation
H
of a main residence. He drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was probable that more stringent
requirements would be a feature of the new scheme for Members’ expenses.

He also raised the issue of whether a property that was occupied by a relative other than a spouse or partner
could in any circumstances be designated as a main residence under the current scheme. It was felt that this
J could in very specific circumstances be appropriate, subject to the thresholds established and depending on
the detail of the Member’s connection with the property, including relevant financial responsibilities.

The Committee considered the extent to which the Clerk of the Parliaments should rely on written assurances
given by Members in respect of his enquiries, especially when there was significant disparity between the
K assurances given by Members and the allegations made against them. The Committee acknowledged the
limitations on the investigative powers of the Clerk of the Parliaments and concluded that the Clerk was
justified in relying on explicit written assurances from Members, noting that the consequences for a Member
found to have misled the Clerk would be serious. If, however, a Member was not able to give the Clerk the
assurances he sought, it would be appropriate to refer the case to the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests.
L
There were still a number of outstanding complaints but the Clerk of the Parliaments now proposed to publish
in the near future his conclusions on all the cases on which he had reached decisions.

The Committee took note.


privileges and conduct: evidence 17

A
The Clerk of the Parliaments’ Report on Lord Rennard
Published 20 October 2009

Letter from Mr Michael Pownall, the Clerk of the Parliaments, to Mr Christopher Galley
dated 20 October 2009 B

Complaint against Lord Rennard


I am writing in connection with your complaint concerning Lord Rennard’s claims for reimbursement of
expenses. I can report that I have completed my investigation. At the outset, I asked Lord Rennard to respond
to your complaint and I have discussed it with him. C

So far as your complaint about Lord Rennard’s participation in the work of the House of Lords—in particular
over the period April 2007 to March 2008—is concerned, this has no bearing on the designation of his main
residence. The number of times that Lord Rennard spoke and voted in the House is a matter for him. In fact,
Lord Rennard’s record over the period in question shows that he was far from inactive in the House and these
statistics do not necessarily reflect the wider contribution which a Member makes to the work of the House. D
I should explain that claims for expenses arising from overnight subsistence can only be authorised for days
on which a Member’s attendance at the House is recorded. Your allegation that Lord Rennard did not attend
on all the days for which he claimed overnight subsistence is not, therefore, well-founded; and I accordingly
do not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
E
Turning to your complaint about the designation of Lord Rennard’s main residence, the direct answer to the
question why he did not claim overnight subsistence between 2003 and 2007 is that during this period his only
residence was in Stockwell.

So far as Lord Rennard’s re-designation of his main residence in 2007 is concerned, he has explained to me
F
that his circumstances changed in 2007 when his wife took early retirement and he made significant changes
to his lifestyle. He bought a flat in Eastbourne in October 2007 and registered this as his main residence with
the House of Lords’ Finance Department.

Taking up some of the detailed points which you made, he has explained to me that he and his wife are on the
electoral register for both residences and that they had voted in Eastbourne in the recent European and County G
Council elections; that they were automatically deemed to be members of the Stockwell Park Residents
Association; and that his Liberal Democrat party membership had remained in London since party rules
provide for membership to be held where you live or where you work. He explained that he is, nonetheless,
actively involved with the local party in Eastbourne. He stressed too that he and his wife pay council tax for
the Eastbourne property.
H
I have also reviewed some of Lord Rennard’s recent claim forms. These confirm that he travels to and from
his Eastbourne address quite regularly at weekends (perhaps two out of three). He indicated that he normally
resides there in recess periods (i.e. he stays there more than in his London property whilst recognising that he
would often also be away from both homes through other work or holidays.) He also indicated that until
recently his employment had entailed extensive periods of work and travel around the country at weekends. J

In view of the assurances by Lord Rennard about the change in his circumstances and the time he spends in
Eastbourne, and in the absence of any definition of main address in the current guidance to the House of
Lords’ Members Expenses Scheme, I have come to the conclusion that I should not uphold the complaint.
K
It may be helpful to point out that the Senior Salaries Review Body is currently undertaking a review of the
whole system of financial support for Members, and in June of this year they were asked by the House of
Lords’ House Committee to consider the need for possible definitions of main residence.

In these circumstances and after due consideration, I have decided not to uphold your complaint: I have
concluded that Lord Rennard’s claims for expenses were in accordance with the rules and guidance on L
Members’ expenses applicable at the time.

In line with our publication policy, we will make this letter available on the Parliamentary website.
20 October 2009
18 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
The Clerk of the Parliaments’ Reports on Nine Members
Published 9 February 2010

Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Mr Frank Cannings dated 9 February 2010
B I am now in a position to respond to a number of the complaints which you made about certain Members of
the House of Lords on 17 November 2009 and the further complaint which you made on 20 January 2010.
The complaints all related to newspaper allegations that certain Members had made inappropriate use of the
Members’ reimbursement scheme.
I should first indicate that in June 2009 the House Committee (a Committee whose responsibilities include
C supervision of the system of financial support for Members) took the decision to refer the current system of
financial support for Members, who as you will be aware are unsalaried, for external review by the independent
Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB). The SSRB published its report on 26 November 2009 (Cm 7746)—
http://www.ome.uk.com/Parliamentary Pay Allowances.aspx. On 14 December 2009 the House of Lords
debated and agreed to take forward the proposals submitted by the SSRB. In the course of 2010, the current
scheme will, therefore, be replaced by a new scheme with clearer definitions and rules.
D
I should also indicate that under a new Code of Conduct, which was agreed by the House of Lords on 30
November 2009 and which will take effect from 1 April 2010, complaints about Members’ expenses will be
considered by an independent House of Lords Commissioner for Standards.
My responsibility as Accounting Officer is to ensure that the Members’ reimbursement scheme is administered
E in accordance with the resolutions of the House on which it is founded, taking account of decisions by the
House Committee. It is not for me retrospectively to devise rules for the current scheme which have not been
in place to-date.
The current scheme entitles Members to claim for travel and overnight subsistence in London when attending
the House if “their main or only residence” is outside London. The principal complaint, both of the
F newspapers and yourself, has been that some Members have designated as their main residence a property
which is not in practice their main residence in order to claim overnight subsistence.
A feature of the current scheme is that it operates without any clear definition of “main residence”. However,
I have taken the view that there must be a minimum threshold below which it would be inappropriate for a
Member to designate a property as a “main or only residence” and consequently to claim overnight subsistence
G when staying in London. Bearing this in mind, I have sought to establish some essential criteria against which
the case of each individual Member can be considered. At my request, the House Committee has accordingly
agreed a basis on which a threshold could be set below which the current scheme should not permit a claim
bearing in mind any natural meaning of the term “main or only residence”. The threshold set by the Committee
is that the main residence has to be visited with a degree of frequency: in the order of at least once a month,
over the year, when the House is sitting. Time spent at the main residence when the House is in recess is also
H a relevant factor. Ownership is not a requirement but is a factor in each case.
I should point out that some of the designations of main residence which have been acceptable under the
current scheme may not meet the criteria of a new scheme.
I have sought and received confirmation from the House Committee of the principal that there will be
J circumstances in which it is appropriate to designate as a main residence a property which is occupied by a
relative, other than a spouse or partner. Such a designation can be made properly under the current scheme,
subject to the thresholds set out above, and dependent on the Member’s connection with the property,
including their financial contribution to the running costs.
For every Member about whom a complaint has been submitted, I have examined the expenses claim forms
K from the date from which the House of Lords’ Administration retain them (April 2006) to the start of the
summer recess in 2009 (July 2009). Those forms show clearly when the Member claimed overnight subsistence
and reimbursement of travel costs from and to the main residence. Where I have written to Members, I have
sought to obtain answers to certain standard questions about their circumstances, including:
(i) whether the Member owns or leases the main residence;
L (ii) where the Member was resident in each recess;
(iii) what factors led the Member to designate the residence as the main residence;
(iv) whether the pattern of journeys indicated by the Member’s claim forms accurately represents the
frequency of residency at the main residence.
privileges and conduct: evidence 19

A
In each case, I have relied on the Member’s explicit written assurances; in particular the assurance that the
pattern of journeys indicated by the Member’s claim forms accurately represents the frequency of stays at the
main residence.
I have not upheld the following complaints, listed in alphabetical order, for the reasons given:
B
Baroness Barker
Baroness Barker claimed night subsistence and travel reimbursement from a designated main residence in
Sussex. According to her pattern of travel claims, she was resident in Sussex about three weekends in four in
term-time (i.e., periods when the House is sitting). She has assured me in writing that her claims are an accurate
record of her journeys and that she was resident in Sussex for more of the recesses in question than she was in C
London. She did not own the Sussex property but paid rent for her use of it and met some expenses.
Given Baroness Barker’s assurances, I consider that her designation meets a test of main residence under the
current scheme and accordingly do not uphold the complaint against her.

Lord Colwyn D
Lord Colwyn claimed night subsistence and travel reimbursement from a designated main residence in
Gloucestershire. According to his pattern of travel claims, he was resident in Gloucestershire more than three
weekends in four in term-time. He has assured me in writing that his claims are an accurate record of his
journeys and has provided me with evidence of them; he has also assured me that he lives predominantly in
Gloucestershire when the House is not sitting. He owns his Gloucestershire property and rents his London E
property for the purpose of attending the House.
Given Lord Colwyn’s assurances, I consider that his designation meets a test of main residence under the
current scheme and accordingly do not uphold the complaint against him.

F
Lord Haworth
Lord Haworth claimed night subsistence and travel reimbursement from a designated main residence in Ross
& Cromarty. According to his pattern of travel claims, he was resident in Ross & Cromarty twice a month
and occasionally more frequently in term-time. I have evidence of each of his journeys: he travelled by air and
vouching is required for reimbursement of air travel.
G
I consider that his designation meets a test of main residence under the current scheme and accordingly do not
uphold the complaint against him.

Baroness Hayman
Baroness Hayman claimed night subsistence and travel reimbursement from a designated main residence in H
Norfolk from the start of our retained records in April 2006 until her election as Lord Speaker in July 2006;
thereafter she has not been eligible to claim for overnight subsistence from the Members’ reimbursement
scheme and has been paid the office-holder’s allowance under section 5 of the Ministerial and Other Salaries
Act 1971. Baroness Hayman’s travel claims under the Members’ reimbursement scheme for the period April
to July 2006 show that she was resident in Norfolk about three weekends in four during term-time. In
J
September 2009 she made a full statement to the Sunday Times newspaper which I have seen and, in light of
which, the article in the newspaper acknowledged that there was no question of the rules of the scheme having
been broken. Baroness Hayman and her husband own their home in Norfolk and it is quite clear to me that
they live there in recesses and at weekends, when pressure of work permits.
I consider that her designation meets a test of main residence under the current scheme and accordingly do
not uphold the complaint against her. K

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin


Baroness Morgan of Drefelin claimed night subsistence and travel reimbursement from a designated main
residence in Cardigan from the start of our retained records in April 2006 until she joined the Government in L
January 2007. According to her pattern of travel claims, she was resident in Cardigan one or two weekends a
month in term-time. She has assured me in writing that her claims are an accurate record of her journeys; that
she made further journeys from and to Cardigan for which she did not claim; and that she was resident in
Cardigan for the Easter, Whitsun and summer recesses of 2006. She and her husband own the Cardigan
property.
20 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Given Baroness Morgan’s assurances, and the specific guidance to me from the House Committee that
occupation of a residence once a month and for periods of the recess is sufficient for designation of a main
residence, I consider that her designation meets a test of main residence under the current scheme and
accordingly do not uphold the complaint against her.

B
Lord Morris of Manchester
Lord Morris of Manchester claimed night subsistence and travel reimbursement from a designated main
residence in Manchester from the start of our retained records in April 2006 until May 2008 when, due to ill-
health, he re-designated his main residence to London. According to his pattern of travel claims, he was
resident in Manchester about three weekends in four in term-time and occasionally more frequently. I have
C evidence of each of his journeys: he usually travelled by train and bought his tickets using the Members’
Travel Card.
I consider that his designation meets a test of main residence under the current scheme and accordingly do not
uphold the complaint against him.

D Baroness Northover
Baroness Northover claimed night subsistence and travel reimbursement from a designated main residence in
Sussex. According to her pattern of travel claims, she was resident in Sussex every weekend in term-time. She
has assured me in writing that her claims are an accurate record of her journeys; she has further explained to
me that the Sussex property was the family farm, owned in her and her mother’s names, for which she has
E been solely responsible since her father’s death in 2006. At the time the farm was being wound-up. She has
provided me with evidence of her residency and involvement with the farm during the period in question.
I consider that her designation met a test of main residence under the current scheme and accordingly do not
uphold the complaint against her.

F Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton was appointed a Minister in January 2008. The period during which claims were submitted
under the Members’ reimbursement scheme with which I am concerned is therefore confined to the period
April 2006 to January 2008.
In 2001 Baroness Thornton designated as her main residence a property in Shipley, Yorkshire. The present
G
property in Shipley was purchased in 2005. According to her pattern of travel claims for the period with which
I am concerned, she visited the residence very frequently: every weekend in term-time, with a few visits not
including overnight stays (ie, a return trip to Shipley within a day). She has confirmed her pattern of travel
claims to me and that she continued to visit Shipley regularly at weekends during recesses.
The property was owned and is occupied by Baroness Thornton’s elderly and disabled mother. Baroness
H Thornton has met the mortgage and other costs of the property. Her legal interest in, and the financial
contributions of the two parties to, the property where recorded in 2007 in a private Declaration of Trust,
which updated a Declaration of Trust for the property owned prior to 2005. Baroness Thornton’s solicitor has
confirmed this in writing. The Declaration was recorded at the Land Registry in July 2009.
In addition, Baroness Thornton has family and political connections in Shipley. She is registered to pay council
J tax in Shipley and is on the electoral roll there.
As I have already mentioned, the House Committee has indicated that there will be circumstances in which it
is appropriate to designate as a main residence a property which is occupied by a relative, other than a spouse
or partner. Taking into account Baroness Thornton’s well-established connection with the property in Shipley
and the frequency of her visits, I have decided that this designation meets a test of main residence under the
K current scheme and accordingly do not uphold the complaint against her.

Baroness Whitaker
Baroness Whitaker claimed night subsistence and travel reimbursement from a designated main residence in
Sussex. According to her pattern of travel claims, she was resident in Sussex about three weekends in four in
L term-time. She has assured me in writing that her claims are an accurate record of her journeys and that she
wsa usually resident in Sussex in recess. She and her husband rent the Sussex property and her husband spends
most of the week in Sussex, irrespective of sittings of the House.
Given Baroness Whitaker’s assurances, I consider that her designation meets a test of main residence under
the current scheme and accordingly do not uphold the complaint against her.
privileges and conduct: evidence 21

A
Other Complaints
I have yet to complete my investigations into complaints about a number of other Members. As with the
investigations covered in this letter, the outcome of each will be made public.
I have suspended my investigation into certain other Members pending the conclusion of police investigations.
B
On Friday 5 February 2010 the Director of Public Prosecutions announced that Lord Clarke of Hampstead
would not face prosecution. As I regard this case as complex and serious, I have today referred the complaint
relating to Lord Clarke to the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests for examination.
This letter has not convered two other Members who were the subject of your complaint.
A member of the public complained about Lord Rennard on 16 June 2009 and I dismissed that complaint, with C
reasons, on 20 October 2009. I enclose a copy of my report to the complainant in that case.
In addition, I have not considered your complaint about Baroness Scotland of Asthal because she was a
Minister throughout the period for which we hold records and so not entitled to claim under the Members’
reimbursement scheme.
D
9 February 2010

The Clerk of the Parliaments’ Reports on Four Members


Published 31 March 2010
E
Complaints Relating to Members’ Expenses
This document includes my responses to four complaints over Members’ expenses claims.
The responses cover:
Lord Bhatia
Viscount Falkland F
Baroness Goudie
Lord Sheldon

1. Lord Bhatia—Reponse to Angus Robertson MP


On 26 July 2009 you submitted a complaint to me about the expense claims of Lord Bhatia. The Committee G
for Privileges has agreed that in complex or serious cases I may refer complaints about expense claims to the
Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests. This letter is to inform you that I have conducted an initial investigation
and have now referred the complaint to the Sub-Committee for further investigation.
In line with our publication policy, we will make this letter available on the Parliamentary website.
H
2. Viscount Falkland—Reponse to a Member of the Public
On 17 November 2009 you submitted a complaint to me about the expense claims of Viscount Falkland. I have
investigated the complaint and I am now in a position to inform you of my conclusion. In line with our
publication policy, we will make this letter available on the Parliamentary website.
J
I should first indicate that in June 2009 the House Committee (a Committee whose responsibilities include
supervision of the system of financial support for Members) took the decision to refer the current system of
financial support for Members, who as you will be aware are unsalaried, for external review by the independent
Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB). The SSRB published its report on 26 November 2009 (Cm 7746)—
http://www.ome.uk.com/Parliamentary Pay Allowances.aspx. On 14 December 2009 the House of Lords
debated and agreed to take forward the proposals submitted by the SSRB. In the course of 2010, the current K
scheme will, therefore, be replaced by a new scheme with clearer definitions and rules.
I should also indicate that under a new Code of Conduct, which was agreed by the House of Lords on 30
November 2009 and amended on 30 March 2010 which will take effect from the start of the new Parliament,
complaints about Members’ expenses will be considered by an independent House of Lords Commissioner for
Standards. L
My responsibility as Accounting Officer is to ensure that the Members’ reimbursement scheme is administered
in accordance with the resolutions of the House on which it is founded, taking account of decisions by the
House Committee. It is not for me retrospectively to devise rules for the current scheme which have not been
in place to-date.
22 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
As with my investigations into other complaints, I have examined Viscount Falkland’s expense claim forms
from the date from which the House of Lords’ Administration retains them (April 2006) to July 2009, when
he stopped claiming night subsistence and travel reimbursement in respect of a designated main residence in
Kent. According to his pattern of travel claims, Viscount Falkland was resident in Kent every weekend during
Parliamentary terms over this period. He has assured me in writing that his claims are an accurate record of
B his stays in this property; and that he also spent part of each Easter and Summer recess in Kent. He neither
owned nor leased the Kent property (which is owned by a relative) but he had sole use of it in the period in
question and was partly responsible for its furnishing.
In coming to a conclusion on this complaint, I am relying on the assurances which Viscount Falkland has given
me about the frequency of his stays in Kent as reflected in his travel claims. I should also indicate that when
C the allegation was made that the residence was not a proper main residence, Viscount Falkland, in a statement,
accepted that the absence of criteria for what constituted a main residence had enabled him to claim overnight
subsistence for the Kent property, and he accepted that this might be seen as a loop-hole in the system. This
has caused me some concern. However, for me the key factor in determining this complaint has been the
frequency of stays in the property—every weekend without exception in term time. With this in mind, I have
decided that the complaint should not be upheld.
D

3. Baroness Goudie—Reply to a Member of the Public


On 29 October 2009 you submitted a complaint to me about the expense claims of Baroness Goudie. I have
investigated the complaint and I am now in a position to inform you of my conclusion. In line with our
E publication policy, we will make this letter available on the Parliamentary website.
I have made a report of my investigation to the House Committee (a Committee whose responsibilities include
supervision of the system of financial support for Members). I have decided that the complaint should be
upheld in part; and the House Committee has agreed that Baroness Goudie should be asked to repay some of
the expenses claimed for overnight subsistence. Baroness Goudie has agreed to do so. It is for the Committee
for Privileges and Conduct to consider Baroness Goudie’s conduct; and it will consider the complaint and my
F
finding early in the new Parliament. The Committee will ultimately produce a report, which I will make
available to you.

4. Lord Sheldon—Reply to Chris Galley, Sunlight Centre for Open Politics

G On 10 August 2009 you submitted a complaint to me about the expense claims of Lord Sheldon. I have
investigated the complaint and I am now in a position to inform you of my conclusion. In line with our
publication policy, we will make this letter available on the Parliamentary website.
I should first indicate that in June 2009 the House Committee (a Committee whose responsibilities include
supervision of the system of financial support for Members) took the decision to refer the current system of
financial support for Members, who as you will be aware are unsalaried, for external review by the independent
H
Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB). The SSRB published its report on 26 November 2009 (Cm 7746)—
http://www.ome.uk.com/Parliamentary Pay Allowances.aspx. On 14 December 2009 the House of Lords
debated and agreed to take forward the proposals submitted by the SSRB. In the course of 2010, the current
scheme will, therefore, be replaced by a new scheme with clearer definitions and rules.
I should also indicate that under a new Code of Conduct, which was agreed by the House of Lords on
J 30 November 2009 and amended on 30 March 2010 and which will take effect from the start of the new
Parliament, complaints about Members’ expenses will be considered by an independent House of Lords
Commissioner for Standards.
My responsibility as Accounting Officer is to ensure that the Members’ reimbursement scheme is administered
in accordance with the resolutions of the House on which it is founded, taking account of decisions by the
K House Committee. It is not for me retrospectively to devise rules for the current scheme which have not been
in place to-date.
As with my investigations into other complaints, I have examined Lord Sheldon’s expenses claim forms from
the date from which the House of Lords’ Administration retains them (April 2006) to April 2009 when he
stopped claiming night subsistence and travel reimbursement from a designated main residence in Manchester.
L
Lord Sheldon designated a property in Manchester as his main residence until April last year—a property he
and his wife had owned for many years. He indicated that he is still involved in the family business in the
Manchester area; is still on the electoral roll there; and still involved in local politics. His immediate family
regularly use the Manchester house as “an extended family home“. In 2003 he transferred the title of the
property to his son, although he has retained a contractual entitlement to dwell there.
privileges and conduct: evidence 23

A
In November 2007 Lord Sheldon’s wife suffered a serious illness and he therefore travelled less regularly to
Manchester until in April 2009 he decided to designate his London flat as his main residence. He indicated
that until April 2006 he had travelled to Manchester three or four times a month; and thereafter two or three
times a month until November 2007. In fact, his travel claims for 2007 (for rail travel) suggest that he travelled
rather less frequently, and I accordingly asked him to comment on this apparent discrepancy. I also asked him
whether the utility bills relating to the Manchester property, which he had previously indicated had been in his B
name, had been paid by him.
On frequency of travel, Lord Sheldon replied that on occasions when he travelled with his son to Manchester
he did so without claiming the costs from the House. He therefore confirmed the frequency of his stays as
previously indicated. On payment of utility bills, Lord Sheldon confirmed that they were paid directly by his
business and subsequently charged to his personal account. C
The House Committee has endorsed my view that where a property is occupied by a relative other than a
spouse of partner there could be specific circumstances in which it could be designated as a main residence
depending on the frequency of stays and the Members’ connection with the property. I am satisfied that Lord
Sheldon’s connections with the property, including some financial responsibility for it, were sufficiently strong.
On the frequency of stays, he stayed in Manchester less often after his wife’s illness in November 2007 and D
until he designated his London flat as his main residence in April 2009. However, his travel claim forms and
the subsequent assurances I received about the frequency of his stays indicate a frequency around or above
the minimum threshold which I have established and which the House Committee has endorsed. With the
benefit of hindsight, it may have been appropriate for Lord Sheldon to have designated his London residence
as his main residence rather earlier than April 2009, but I accept that it was difficult for him to anticipate his
further circumstances at the time. E
I have accordingly decided that the complaint should not be upheld.
31 March 2010

L
24 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
LORD PAUL’S CLAIM FORMS
Lord Paul’s claim forms for the period March 2006 to July 2009 are reproduced at pp29 to 37. Prefaced to
those forms are:
(i) A table showing Lord Paul’s travel patterns between January 2005 and July 2006 (the period for
B which the Oxfordshire property was his main residence). The data from January 2005 to February
2006 are from the Finance Department’s residual records; the claim forms for that period have been
destroyed. The data from March 2006 onwards are taken directly from Lord Paul’s claim forms.
(ii) Calendars representing the days on which Lord Paul claimed the mileage allowance for journeys by
car between March 2006 and July 2006. The data are taken directly from Lord Paul’s claim forms.
C
(i) Table showing the pattern of Lord Paul’s claims for the mileage allowance for journeys
by car between January 2005 and July 2006

Travel every
D Amount Number of Number of weekend in term
Month Reimbursed single journeys return journeys time?
January 2005 £78 3 1.5 No
February 2005 £104 4 2 Yes
Oxfordshire: no March 2005 £182 7 3.5 Yes
E claim forms April 2005 £52 2 1 No
available; before May 2005 £156 6 3 Yes
period in which June 2005 £208 8 4 Yes
Sub-Committee July 2005 £104 4 2 Yes
can investigate August 2005 — — — —
F September 2005 — — — —
October 2005 £130 5 2.5 Yes
November 2005 £182 7 3.5 Yes
December 2005 £182 7 3.5 Yes
Oxfordshire: no claim January 2006 £182 7 3.5 Yes
G forms available; within February 2006 £117 4.5 2 Yes (it is
period of investigation unclear how half
a journey was
claimed for)
March 2006 £234 9 4.5 Yes
H Oxfordshire: April 2006 £52 2 1 No
claim forms May 2006 £156 6 3 Yes
available; within period June 2006 £208 8 4 Yes
of investigation July 2006 £208 8 4 Yes

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 25

A
(ii) Calendars representing the days on which Lord Paul claimed the mileage allowance
for journeys by car
MARCH 2006
OXFORDSHIRE
Key: B
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
Days on which the mileage allowance was claimed 1 2 3 4 5
Months during which night susistence was claimed 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 5 16 17 18 19
Recess
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 C
27 28 29 30 31

D
APRIL 2006 MAY 2006 JUNE 2006
OXFORDSHIRE OXFORDSHIRE OXFORDSHIRE
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 E
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 F

JULY 2006 AUGUST 2006 SEPTEMBER 2006 G


OXFORDSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
H
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 J

OCTOBER 2006 NOVEMBER 2006 DECEMBER 2006


BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
K
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
L
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
30 31
26 privileges and conduct: evidence

JANUARY 2007 FEBRUARY 2007 MARCH 2007


BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

B MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
C 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
29 30 31 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31

D
APRIL 2007 MAY 2007 JUNE 2007
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30
F 30

JULY 2007 AUGUST 2007 SEPTEMBER 2007


BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
G MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
H 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
30 31

J
OCTOBER 2007 NOVEMBER 2007 DECEMBER 2007
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2
K
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
L 31
privileges and conduct: evidence 27

JANUARY 2008 FEBRUARY 2008 MARCH 2008


BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU B
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 C
28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31

D
APRIL 2008 MAY 2008 JUNE 2008
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1
E
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
F
30

JULY 2008 AUGUST 2008 SEPTEMBER 2008


BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE G
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 H
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30

OCTOBER 2008 NOVEMBER 2008 DECEMBER 2008


BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
K
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 5 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
L
27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31
28 privileges and conduct: evidence

JANUARY 2009 FEBRUARY 2009 MARCH 2009


BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

B MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 2 3 4 1 1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
C 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31

D
APRIL 2009 MAY 2009 JUNE 2009
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU

E 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 5 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
F 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30

G JULY 2009
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
1 2 3 4 5

H 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 5 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
J

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 29

A
(iii) Lord Paul’s Claim Forms

L
30 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 31

L
32 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 33

L
34 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 35

L
36 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 37

L
38 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
ARTICLE FROM THE SUNDAY TIMES NEWSPAPER,
11 OCTOBER 2009
GORDON BROWN’S MILLIONAIRE AND £38,000 EXPENSES
B A multi-millionaire ally of Gordon Brown pretended that a small flat occupied by one of his employees was
his main home so he could claim £38,000 in expenses from the Lords.
Lord Paul, one of Labour’s biggest donors and a friend of the prime minister, has admitted he never even slept
in the flat, despite stating it was his main residence.
The one-bedroom flat was occupied by a manager from one of Paul’s hotels who confirmed last week that the
C peer had never lived there while claiming the expenses.
Paul, who has a family fortune of £500 million, was actually based in London, where he has lived for more
than 40 years.
By saying his main home was his manager’s flat in Oxfordshire, he was able to claim cash allowances which
are available only to peers who live outside the capital.
D
Last week Paul argued that he had been entitled to claim the flat was his home as it was “available” for his
use. He said he could have moved the manager out for the night if he stayed there, but he never did so. “I don’t
say that I stayed the night—I said that it was available to me”, he said.
Yesterday Angus Robertson, the Scottish National leader in Westminster, said he would write to the police
and the Lords authorities requesting an investigation. “It is outrageous to claim somewhere is your main home
E
if you have never slept there”, he said.
It comes as more than 100 MPs are to be asked questions about their expenses by an auditor appointed by the
Commons. There has been no audit in the Lords despite a series of disclosures in the Sunday Times that have
led to police inquiries into three peers.
F Paul, 78, a deputy speaker of the Lords, is a friend of Brown and his wife Sarah. He contributed £45,000 to
Brown’s leadership campaign and is reported to have given more than £400,000 to Labour.
The questionable expenses claims were made between 2004 and 2006 when Paul was living in a London
apartment block where he and his family own property worth £14 million. But he told the lords his main home
was a flat at the three-star Bignell Park hotel, Oxfordshire, owned by his company. This enabled him to claim
more than £20,000 a year.
G
The flat has for years been the live-in quarters of the hotel’s manager. Prenusha Chetty, the current manager,
could not recall Paul ever staying in the flat or the hotel. Her predecessor, Mark Stevens, said he had lived in
the flat for the entire period that Paul was calling it his main home. He said: “I don’t think he ever had a night
at the hotel”.
On Friday Paul said the flat had been his main home because he spent time there while deciding whether to
H
buy a country home.
He said: “The manager lives there and I always had the opportunity to tell him to go and sleep in the hotel—
if I wanted to sleep. Or I slept in the hotel. But I didn’t spend that many nights there”.
When pressed on whether he actually spent a night in his main home, he replied “no”. He added: “It didn’t
J happen. But I never told you I slept there”.

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 39

A
LETTER OF COMPLAINT
Letter from Mr Angus Robertson MP to Mr Brendan Keith, Registrar of Lords’ Interests,
dated 11 October 2009
Investigation into parliamentary allowances of Lord Paul B
You will be aware of recent reports in the media raising serious questions in respect of expense claims made
by Lord Paul of Marylebone, and I am writing to ask you to investigate whether a breach of the rules has been
committed.
An article in the Sunday Times today (11 October 2009) alleges that, for the purposes of parliamentary
allowances, Lord Paul claimed £38,000 in expenses for a flat in Oxfordshire which he said was his main home— C
however, according to the Sunday Times, Lord Paul has admitted that he has never slept in the flat which is
occupied by one of his employees. The newspaper goes on to confirm that Lord Paul’s main home is actually
in London—meaning he is ineligible to receive these allowances. For your reference I attach a copy of the
article feature in the Sunday Times.
If these facts are correct I know you will share my concerns that such actions would represent a serious misuse D
of public money.
On consideration, I would ask you to investigate these allegations with a view to establishing whether an
offence has been committed.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
E
11 October 2009

L
40 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LORD PAUL, THE HOUSE
AUTHORITIES AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE
Letter from Mr Michael Pownall, Clerk of the Parliaments, to Lord Paul dated 13 October 2009
B
Members’ Expenses
Following our telephone conversation on Monday 12 October, I can confirm that, at your request, I will
investigate the allegations which have been made against you concerning the Members’ Reimbursement
Scheme.
C I should explain that it is my responsibility, both as Accounting Officer and as Clerk of the Parliaments (as set
out in paragraph 1.1.1 of the current Guide to the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme) to ensure that the rules
of the Scheme are properly applied; and my responsibility to investigate complaints about expenses was
recognised and endorsed by the Committee for Privileges in paragraph 14 of its 4th Report of Session 2007–08.
You have yourself referred the allegations to me for investigation and I will conduct the investigation in the
same way as I would investigate a complaint made by a third party.
D
The substance of the allegations, recently made in the media, is that between 2004 and 2006, you claimed for
reimbursement of night subsistence expenses on the basis that your designated main residence outside London
was a flat in Oxfordshire, but you did not in practice stay overnight at the flat during the period in question.
I should stress that in the above paragraph I am simply summarising the allegations; and not making any
E allegation or criticism of my own. I would, however, be very grateful for your comments on the allegations at
this stage; and any relevant information on how you have determined your main place of residence.
It would be helpful to have any comments in writing but you would be welcome to discuss this matter with
me if you wish.
13 October 2009
F
Letter from Lord Paul to the Clerk of the Parliaments dated 19 October 2009

Members’ Expenses
Thank you very much for your letter of 13 October. Here is my response to the recent allegations in the press.
G
I have been a member of the House since 1996. I have throughout my time in the House been, and I remain,
a regular attender. I have necessarily spent many nights in London.
So far as my main residence is concerned, however, there are three periods to consider. The first period was
from 1996 until January 2005. During that period my main residence was in London. This was so
H notwithstanding that since 1979 my company had owned a hotel and apartments in Torquay at which members
of my family and I did stay.
The second period was from January 2005 until August 2006. That is the period with respect to which the
allegation relates, albeit that they erroneously allege a starting time in 2004.
The third period has been since August 2006. My main residence has been The Grange in Beaconsfield.
J
The second and third periods came out in the following way. My wife and I decided that we would like to find
a place in the country in which to live, so that we could spend more time in peaceful surroundings. This
eventually came to fruition with The Grange.
However, since July 2001 my company had owned the Bignall Park Hotel in Chesterton near Bicester in
K Oxfordshire. The Hotel had a separate cottage, which the Hotel’s previous owner had occupied.
We planned to enlarge the Hotel and add more rooms. I also thought that we could make it a family residence
for ourselves, subject to getting planning permission for more accommodation.
I found it a very pleasant place. We considered the possibility that, instead of developing the Hotel itself, we
would instead use part of the Hotel as a residence for my family and myself. That would have made it an ideal
L place, because of all the Hotel amenities.
Indeed that was the route that I sought to go down, not developing the Hotel as such, but rather investing
time and money in creating a country home there. I confidently expected to be living there. It was in those
circumstances that I registered the address with the House in January 2005. I believed that I was entitled to
claim it as my home.
privileges and conduct: evidence 41

A
At the same time, we used Bignall as a base to look at other properties in the area and, on 28 February 2005,
found The Grange in Beaconsfield. We started discussions with the owner almost immediately and
negotiations to purchase began soon afterwards.
I expected to live at The Grange quite soon. However, in the event time drifted by. The sale took longer than
expected. The contract was signed in March 2006. In August 2006 I informed the House of my change of B
address.
As matters developed I claimed only those allowances to which at the time I believed I was entitled. Now of
course I am able to look back with the benefit of hindsight. I recognise that claiming during the Bignall
interlude has been perceived as having been on the wrong side of the line. I acted on entire good faith
throughout but, nonetheless, in present circumstance I intend to make full and immediate repayment with C
respect to that period. I shall of course be happy to assist you further in any way I can.
19 October 2009

Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Lord Paul dated 23 October 2009
I undertook to come back to you about your wish to repay expenses paid to you for overnight subsistence. D
The Finance Department has now calculated the amount and come up with a total of £39,447. If this is
acceptable to you, you will wish to send a cheque to the Department (made out to the House of Lords) for
this sum. If you would like to hand in the cheque to my office, I will ensure it gets to the Finance Department.
23 October 2009
E
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Manningham-Buller, Chairman of the
Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, requesting the Sub-Committee’s assistance, dated 5 March 2010

Complaint Relating to Lord Paul


I am writing to request that the Sub-Committee should investigate another complaint which I have received F
concerning a Member’s expense claims. It may be helpful if I set out the background in full, although I
recognise that the Sub-Committee is already seized of much of it.
On Monday 12 October, following media allegations on 11 October about Lord Paul’s expenses claims, Lord
Paul referred the allegations to me to investigate as Accounting Officer. Further to this, I received further
formal complaints relating to Lord Paul from a Member of the House of Commons and from a member of G
the public.
I suspended my investigation into the complaint because the Metropolitan Police Service informed me on 12
November that they had begun an investigation into the allegations relating to Lord Paul. On 3 March 2010,
the Metropolitan Police Service informed me that they had decided not to proceed with the investigation into
the allegations at this time. H

As the Sub-Committee will be aware, my investigations into complaints about Members’ expenses are carried
out in accordance with the procedure set out by the Committee for Privileges in its fourth Report of session
2007–08. According to the Report, in “exceptional circumstances” I “may request the Sub-Committee to assist
[me] in investigating a complex or serious complaint.”
J
As you know, I have in recent months investigated a significant number of these complaints and allegations;
and in one case, I have referred the complaint to the Sub-Committee. As in that case, the allegations relating
to Lord Paul raised the possibility of criminal prosecution and questions have arisen over the available
evidence. This, in my view, places the allegations in the complex and serious category; and I believe the Sub-
Committee will be able to investigate them in a way which goes beyond my own role and capability as
Accounting Officer. K
I would be grateful, therefore, if the Sub-Committee could investigate and determine the facts of the complaint
relating to Lord Paul so as to enable me to submit a report to the House Committee.
As you will know, Members expenses and complaints relating to them do not fall within the Code of Conduct,
nor within the remit of the Privileges Committee. This, of course, will change from the new Parliament. For L
the time being, however, the procedure is for me to request the assistance of the Sub-Committee and for the
Sub-Committee to submit a report to me which I can then refer to the House Committee with its responsibility
for the supervision of arrangements for the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme. Thereafter, it would be for the
Privileges Committee to recommend any sanction to the House. This is clearly a somewhat complicated
procedure, but as I suggested in referring the first complaint to the Sub-Committee, I see no reason why some
42 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
of the steps should not be speeded up. For example, I for one would not wish to add anything of substance to
a report from the Sub-Committee before submitting it to the House Committee.
As before, I will, of course, make available to the Sub-Committee all the relevant material in the possession
of the Administration.
B 5 March 2010

Letter from Mr Brendan Keith, Registrar of Lords’ Interests, to Lord Paul dated 11 March 2010

Members’ reimbursement scheme


C The Clerk of the Parliaments has asked the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests to investigate your use of the
members’ reimbursement of expenses scheme. The Sub-Committee has agreed to his request, in the light of
the fact that you referred yourself to him for investigation on 12 October 2009, and given the subsequent
complaints against you by an MP and a member of the public. The procedure for considering complaints
against members of the House is set out in a report from the Committee for Privileges and I enclose a copy of
D that report for your information. The report deals specifically with breaches of the Code of Conduct: your case
is not about the Code of Conduct but I expect that the Sub-Committee will follow a similar procedure in its
investigation.
The first step is for me to put to you the allegations and to invite you to provide the Sub-Committee with a
full and accurate written account of the matter. On 11 October 2009 the Sunday Times newspaper reported
E you as having designated “a flat at the three-star Bignell Park Hotel, Oxfordshire, owned by [your] company”
as your main residence between 2004 and 2006, which enabled you to claim night subsistence, but that you
“had never lived there while claiming the expenses”. Although the Sub-Committee will take the reported
allegations as the starting point of their investigation, they must consider your use of the scheme in general.
The House holds records about your claims from April 2006 and the Sub-Committee may not investigate
conduct more than four years previous to the complaint. A preliminary look at your claim forms shows that
F
your main residence from January 20051 until the summer recess of 2006 was The Cottage, Bignell Park
Hotel, Chesterton, Oxfordshire; thereafter it was The Grange, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire. The forms also
show that you claimed reimbursement for travel by car from and to your main residence every weekend in term
time almost without exception.
On 19 October, you wrote to the Clerk of the Parliaments to set out your response to the allegations and said
G
“I recognise that claiming during the Bignall [sic] interlude has been perceived as having been on the wrong
side of the line . . . I intend to make full and immediate repayment with respect to that period.” You invited
the Finance Department to calculate the appropriate sum for repayment for night subsistence and travel
claims from January 2005 to July 2006; they calculated £41,982 (£39,447 for night subsistence and £2,535 for
travel), which you have repaid.
H
While I acknowledge that certain money has been repaid by you, I believe nevertheless that the Clerk of the
Parliaments’ request to the Sub-Committee that they investigate your use of the expenses scheme requires me
to invite you to answer a number of questions not limited to the period during which your main residence was
in Oxfordshire. Therefore, may I please invite you to answer the following questions. It would be of the greatest
assistance to the Sub-Committee if you could deal with each question in turn, and give a specific answer in
J relation to it rather than general answers covering more than one question. This should help the Sub-
Committee resolve the matter swiftly.
In relation to your Oxfordshire main residence:
1. What factors led you, on 7 January 2005, to designate The Cottage as your main residence? I enclose
the Minutes of the House Committee meeting on 26 January 2010, which sets out their interpretation
K of a “main residence“ under the current scheme [printed at p 16E].
2. Did you own or lease The Cottage or was it owned or leased by a third party? Did anyone else use
that address while it was designated as your main residence?
3. Where and for what periods did you reside in the Easter, Whitsun and summer recesses of 2005
L and 2006?
4. Did you travel, as indicated by your claim forms, from and to The Cottage every week in term-time
from March to August 2006? Did you stay overnight at The Cottage on those weekends? If so, how
do you reconcile this with the statements in the Sunday Times newspaper of 11 October 2009?
1 The House has retained your letter of 7 January 2005 in which you designate The Cottage as your main residence.
privileges and conduct: evidence 43

A
5. Your claims for the reimbursement of travel costs are for journeys by car for which vouching is not
required. Would you be able to provide any readily available evidence that helps to indicate the
frequency of your journeys?
6. What recollection do you have of your pattern of residence at, and travel from and to, The Cottage
in the period from January 2005 to March 2006, i.e. the period during which The Cottage was your B
main residence but for which the House no longer holds your claim forms?
In relation to your Buckinghamshire main residence:
7. What factors led you, on 31 July 2006, to designate The Grange as your main residence?
8. Do you own or lease The Grange or is it owned or leased by a third party? Does anyone else use
C
that address?
9. Where and for what periods did you reside in the Easter, Whitsun and summer recesses of 2007, 2008
and 2009?
10. Did you travel, as indicated by your claim forms, from and to The Grange every week in term-time
from October 2006 to July 2009, with the exception of the weeks of 12 March and 29 October 2007 D
and 8 June 2009? Did you stay overnight at The Grange on those weekends?
11. Would you be able to provide any readily available evidence that helps to indicate the frequency of
your journeys?
In relation to your accommodation in London away from your main residence:
E
12. The night subsistence scheme exists to reimburse members for the expense of overnight
accommodation in London away from their main residence for the purpose of attending the House.
What arrangements did you make to stay in London away from your main residence for the purpose
of attending the House between March 2006 and today? Did you “maintain a residence in London”
or did you make other arrangements?
F
I enclose a copy of the resolution of the House on which the members’ reimbursement scheme is founded and
a copy of the General Guide to that scheme [printed at pp1–2 and pp2–14].
I should be grateful for your response by 26 March. The Sub-Committee intends to begin work on its
investigation immediately, but it recognises that Parliament is likely soon to be dissolved and a general election
called. At dissolution, all Committees of the two Houses cease to exist until reappointed in the new Parliament.
If the Sub-Committee’s investigation is interrupted by dissolution, it will be continued in the new Parliament. G

11 March 2010

Letter from Lord Paul to the Registrar of Lords’ Interests dated 26 March 2010

Members’ reimbursement scheme H

Thank you for your letter dated 11 March (which I received on 16 March).
This allegation has been addressed by me in a letter to the Clerk of the Parliaments dated 19 October 2009 (a
further copy is attached) and has also been fully investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service (and resolved
in my favour). As you acknowledge, I have also voluntarily repaid in full and at the earliest opportunity, all J
monies received for travel and overnight allowances between January 2005 and July 2006. In an effort to
speedily resolve this matter I address your questions below (using your paragraph headings and numbering).
It is important to say at the outset that my claims for the period January 2005 to July 2006 (when Bignell Park
Hotel was designated as my main residence) were over four years ago and due to the passage of time I have
no recollection of the detail of the claims and very little documentation to assist me in this respect and so I
apologise in advance if my response may appear a little vague in places. K

Oxfordshire main residence


1. Firstly and for the avoidance of doubt “The Cottage” is annexed to and is part of Bignell Park Hotel (which
has been owned by my company since 2001). I came to designate Bignell Park Hotel as my main residence in
the circumstances as set out in detail in my letter dated 19 October 2009 to Michael Pownall. L
I would like to add that at the time there was no definition of “main” or “principle” residence and it was my
understanding (which prevailed in the House from 2004 to 2009) that if one owned a second home outside of
London a claim could be made for overnight subsistence in London when the House was sitting and also for
travel to and from the second home. I accept now, that due to the lack of guidance at the time, my
44 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
understanding may have been mistaken hence the reason why, by my own volition, I immediately repaid the
amount claimed in full.
2. As referred to above, Bignell Park Hotel is owned by my company. Whilst it was designated as my main
residence I did allow managers to use The Cottage.
B 3. Due to the passage of time (four years) I regret to say that I can no longer confirm where I resided in the
Easter, Whitsun and summer recesses of 2005 and 2006. I can say however that I rarely stay in the UK during
holiday periods.
4. I have reviewed my claim forms for the period March 2006 to July 2006. Due to the passage of time I cannot
now categorically confirm that I travelled to Bignell Park Hotel on each of those occasions although I can
C categorically say that at no time did I make a claim for travel expenses that I did not believe that I was entitled
to make. Each and every claim was made in good faith. It is right that I did not stay at the Hotel during this
period but I did travel to the Hotel and/or the surrounding area most week-ends in term time. Whilst all my
claims were made in good faith, as stated in my answer at 1. above, I took the view that if it was the case that
I may have misunderstood the Rules in any way, that I should immediately repay all money received by me in
respect of my claims for the period January 2005 to July 2006 and indeed all money has now been repaid.
D
5. I am unsure what sort of evidence I can provide and again, I regret to say that due to the passage of time,
it is doubtful that any such evidence would be available.
6. Again I refer to my letter dated 19 October 2009 and my answer at 4. above.

Buckinghamshire main residence


E
7. Whilst I had decided to develop the Hotel as a country residence, we subsequently found The Grange and
contracts were exchanged in March 2006 and we moved in thereafter. I spend a lot of time at The Grange
(almost every weekend) with my wife and my family.
8. The Grange is owned by me. Nobody else uses the address. The estate covers 250 acres and has two cottages
which are rented out from time to time but which have separate addresses.
F
9. I did spend some time at The Grange over the Easter, Whitsun and summer recesses between 2007–09. I
am not able to confirm the exact period. For the rest of the time in these periods I would have been abroad.
10. As far as I can recall, I did travel as indicated on my claim forms and stayed overnight.
11. I am unsure what evidence I can provide, for example, I very rarely use public transport now and so do
G not have travel receipts.

Accommodation in London
12. Whilst in London I reside in my flat which I have owned since 1966.
I hope that this assists and that this matter can be swiftly concluded. I repeat that I have at all times acted in
H entire good faith in making the claims and voluntarily repaying the amounts in full at the earliest opportunity.
26 March 2010

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 45

A
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SUNDAY TIMES NEWSPAPER
Letter from Mr Andrew Mackersie, Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, to Mr John
Witherow, Editor of the Sunday Times newspaper, dated 10 March 2010

Sunday Times 11 October 2009—Lord Paul B


I am writing on behalf of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests.
The Clerk of the Parliaments, who is responsible as Accounting Officer for the administration of the members’
reimbursement scheme in the House of Lords, has asked the Sub-Committee to investigate the conduct of Lord
Paul alleged in your newspaper’s report of 11 October 2009. Although the matter does not fall within the
C
normal jurisdiction of the Sub-Committee, the Clerk of the Parliaments has sought the Sub-Committee’s
assistance pursuance to the report from the Committee for Privileges on The Code of Conduct: procedure for
considering complaints against members (4th Report 2007–08, copy enclosed [not printed]). As you may know,
the matter was until recently under investigation by the Metropolitan Police who have now announced that
their investigation is at an end and that they will be taking no further action. It is therefore only now that the
Clerk of the Parliaments has been able to make this reference to the Sub-Committee. D
The Sub-Committee would be grateful for any assistance that you might be able to give them. I am therefore
writing to ask whether you would send to the Sub-Committee the records on which your report of 11 October
2009 was based and any other material relevant to the Sub-Committee’s investigation.
The Sub-Committee intends to begin work on the investigation immediately, but it recognises that Parliament
is likely soon to be dissolved and a general election called. At dissolution, all Committees of the two Houses E
cease to exist until reappointed in the new Parliament. If the Sub-Committee’s investigation is interrupted by
dissolution, it will be continued in the new Parliament.
10 March 2010
F
Letter from Mr Jonathan Calvert and Ms Claire Newell of the Sunday Times newspaper to the Clerk of
the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests dated 24 March 2010
We are happy to provide you with the material we collected during our research into Lord Paul’s expense
claims for night subsistence allowance. I have enclosed all the articles produced by the Sunday Times relating
to this case and one from the Guardian, which carried an interview with Lord Paul the day after our first story.
G
The articles are self-explanatory but, broadly, the case against Lord Paul is as follows: For 18 months until
the summer of 2006, Lord Paul claimed £38,000 by saying his main home was in Oxfordshire. We understand
that he actually wrote on his form “Bignell Cottage” in Chesterton, near Bicester. There is no “Bignell
Cottage”. When we spoke to Lord Paul (recordings of two conversations between Jonathan Calvert and Lord
Paul are enclosed) he said that his main home had been a flat at the back of Bignell Park hotel, a business which
is owned by his company. H

The one-bedroom flat he referred to was the permanent home of the hotel’s manager. At that time that Lord
Paul made the expense claims, the manager was Mark Stevens who no longer works for Lord Paul’s company.
He confirmed (Claire Newell’s interview with Mark Stevens is also included) that he, and not Lord Paul, had
lived in the flat and said Lord Paul would occasionally visit the hotel for board meetings, but he couldn’t even
recall Lord Paul spending a night in the hotel. Indeed, Lord Paul admitted that he had never slept in the J
property but argued that he was entitled to call it his main home because it was always available for his use ie
he could turf the manager out of his bed if need be. He made similar comments in an interview with the
Guardian the following day.
We clearly felt this was wrong and the police decided it was a matter worthy of investigation for fraud.
However, when a new definition of “main home” was agreed between Michael Pownall, the Clerk of K
Parliaments, and the House Committee, the police felt their chances of a prosecution had been undermined.
Mr Pownall had applied a very loose interpretation of the rules: that a peer only had to “visit” a property once
a month for it to qualify as a main home. By this definition, Lord Paul could just about say he had complied
because he did visit for board meetings, and he may also claim he did so on other occasions. However, after
the case against Lord Paul was shelved, Mr Pownall published a statement saying that he had intended the L
definition to mean at least one over-night stay a month. By his own admission, Lord Paul does not even meet
this benign interpretation of the rules.
We have included our working transcripts on the computer disc. Please let me know if we can be of further help.
24 March 2010
46 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Sunday Times Transcripts

1. Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone conversation between Ms Claire Newell of the Sunday
Times newspaper and Ms Prenusha Chetty, a manager at Bignell Park Hotel, on Friday 2 October 2009
B The first part of this conversation wasn’t recorded. According to the Sunday Times, Prenusha Chetty has just
stated that Lord Paul doesn’t have a flat in the hotel and the conversation continues as follows:
Ms Newell: Ok, has he ever had a flat there?
Ms Chetty: No.

C Ms Newell: Oh ok. Does he stay there sometimes—does he maybe have a suite that’s for him?
Ms Chetty: No.
Ms Newell: Oh ok, well my information must be wrong. Are you the receptionist?
Ms Chetty: Ah yes I’m one of the managers.
D
Ms Newell: Oh ok, what’s your name?
Ms Chetty: Prenusha.
Ms Newell: Oh ok Prenusha. What’s your surname Prenusha?

E Ms Chetty: It’s Chetty.


Ms Newell: How do I spell that?
Ms Chetty: C-H-E-T-T-Y.
Ms Newell: And how do I spell Prenusha?
F Ms Chetty: It’s Prenusha.
Ms Newell: Oh Prenusha.
Ms Chetty: P-R-E-N-U-S-H-A,
Ms Newell: Thanks very much, sorry to bother you.
G

2. Transcript of a covert recording of a second telephone conversation between Ms Claire Newell and Ms
Prenusha Chetty on Friday 2 October 2009
Ms Chetty: Good afternoon, Bignell Park, can I help you?
H Ms Newell: Hello is that Prenusha?
Ms Chetty: Yes it is.
Ms Newell: Hi Prenusha, sorry it’s me again. I’m sorry to call you back but I’m just a bit confused, because
I understood that Lord Paul had a flat in the hotel between 2004 and 2006. Is it just possible that you didn’t
J work there back then?
Ms Chetty: Probably yeah, I wasn’t here then so I wouldn’t know.
Ms Newell: Oh . . . how long have you been there?
Ms Chetty: Oh for the last couple of years.
K
Ms Newell: Ah, so you weren’t there in 2006?
Ms Chetty: No.
Ms Newell: Oh, ok, sorry.
L Ms Chetty: Did you want me to give him a message, or . . .?
Ms Newell: Oh no it’s ok, I was just a bit confused by something really, but it’s ok, I’ll contact him another way.
Ms Chetty: Ok.
Ms Newell: Thanks, bye.
privileges and conduct: evidence 47

A
3. Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone conversation between Ms Claire Newell and Mr Mark
Stevens, the manager at Bignell Park Hotel between 2002 and 2006, on Thursday 7 October 2009
Mr Stevens: The Hideaway, Mark speaking.
Ms Newell: Hello is that Mark Stevens?
B
Mr Stevens: Yes.
Ms Newell: Hi, my name’s Claire Newell, I’m calling from the Sunday Times in London. A slightly strange call.
I’m looking for the Mark Stephens who used to be the manager at Bignell Park Hotel, and I was wondering if
it was you?
Mr Stevens: It is I, yes it is. C
Ms Newell: It is you! Oh that’s a piece of luck then I managed to find you [laughter]. That’s very funny. When
were you the manager in the hotel? When did you leave?
Mr Stevens: Um . . . just trying to think now . . . um . . . I left in 2006.
Ms Newell: Oh right, were you there for a long time?
D
Mr Stevens: I was there for . . . um . . . three or four years.
Ms Newell: Oh ok. That’s really interesting. One thing I was just trying to get to the bottom of, um, is who
stayed in the manager’s flat—there’s a flat there isn’t there? And I’m presuming that you stayed there within
that period?
Mr Stevens: Yes I did, yes. E
Ms Newell: Well that’s very interesting. One thing I wanted to ask you, there was a guy called Lord Paul who
owns the hotel now and did do when you were there I think . . .
Mr Stevens: That’s right.
Ms Newell: Did he stay at the hotel very much?
F
Mr Stevens: Did he stay at the hotel very much? No, no, not once I don’t think.
Ms Newell: He didn’t stay there once when you were manager?
Mr Stevens: No, no. He used to come up for, er, board meetings now and again, but, um, no I don’t think he
ever st . . . I don’t think he ever had a night at the hotel.
Ms Newell: Really? That’s very interesting because he said that he was staying there for a while. In fact it was G
his main home, the hotel. And I was just looking into that. Because it seemed a bit strange to me that you’d
say that your main home was the hotel.
Mr Stevens: It could be prior to my arrival—I really don’t know.
Ms Newell: When did you start working there? H
Mr Stevens: Um . . . 2000 . . . 2000 . . . 2002
Mr Newell: So you were there 2002 to 2006?
Mr Stevens: Yeah.
Ms Newell: When did you leave in 2006?
J
Mr Stevens: Right at the end.
Ms Newell: Oh right at the end, so December time?
Mr Stevens: Yes.
Ms Newell: Ok, well you would know then. That’s very useful. Listen, that’s very kind of you. What are you
K
doing now? You’re running a bed and breakfast are you, or a hotel in South Africa?
Mr Stevens: Yes.
Ms Newell: I didn’t recognise, um, where it was in South Africa. What area is it in?
Mr Stevens: Um, on the Western cape just outside Cape Town.
L
Ms Newell: Sound very pleasant. What’s the weather like there now at the moment?
Mr Stevens: It’s [inaudible] . . . baking, so I’m lying outside in the garden.
Ms Newell: Oh are you? [laughter] That’s very nice. It sounds [inaudible] . . . And is business going well?
Mr Stevens: Yeah, no, I can’t complain.
48 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Ms Newell: Good.
Mr Stevens: Can’t complain. Where did you say you were calling from?
Ms Newell: The Sunday Times, a newspaper in London. I’m doing a piece about, um, well actually we’ve been
looking at a number of Lords over the past six months who say that their main home is outside of London,
B and that enables them to claim quite a lot of money—sometimes as much as £30,000 a year. And we noticed
that Lord Paul had said that his main home was in Oxfordshire, and we asked him where it was and he said
“oh, it’s, um, in the hotel I own—I stayed in the flat there”. There was no other flat there was there, when you
were there?
Mr Stevens: No, not that I’m aware of.
C Ms Newell: It’s rather a curious thing to say, so I just wanted to check up. You were the manager there? I’m
right in saying that aren’t I?
Mr Stevens: I was yes.
Ms Newell: Yeah ok. Well thank you—I really appreciate your help, I’m sorry to have bothered you. Ok, have
a nice time in the garden. Speak to you later. Bye.
D
Mr Stevens: Bye.

4. Transcript of a covert recording of a second telephone conversation between Ms Claire Newell and Mr
Mark Stevens, the manager at Bignell Park Hotel between 2002 and 2006, on Thursday 7 October 2009
E Mr Stevens: Mark Stevens speaking.
Ms Newell: Hello Mark, it’s Claire here from the Sunday Times. We spoke earlier.
Mr Stevens: Hello.
Ms Newell: Hello. When we got off the phone I realised I hadn’t left you my telephone number, and, um, I
thought you might like to take a note of it just so you’ve got it.
F
Mr Stevens: Yeah, I thought that afterwards.
Ms Newell: Have you got a pen and paper?
Mr Stevens: [Inaudible]
Ms Newell:
G
Mr Stevens: What’s your surname please?
Ms Newell: Newell. N-E-W-E-L-L.
Mr Stevens: [Inaudible]
Ms Newell: What really? My voice does on the telephone?
H
Mr Stevens: [Inaudible]
Ms Newell: Oh really. No, it’s me! I was wondering actually, was there anyone else who worked there at the
same time as you, a chef or did you have a deputy manager or anything?
Mr Stevens: Um . . . [Inaudible]
J Ms Newell: Oh, what the deputy manager is now manager there?
Mr Stevens: She is.
Ms Newell: Oh, she was there at the same time as you was she?
Mr Stevens: She was, yes.
K Ms Newell: Oh ok, that’s useful to know. It seems like quite a small place actually, were there many staff?
Mr Stevens: Um . . . [Inaudible] 10 permanent staff.
Ms Newell: Oh yeah, that is pretty small. Do you know who the chef was at the time?
Mr Stevens: Um, I can’t remember his name if I’m honest.
L Ms Newell: Oh don’t worry, it’s ok. Something I wanted to ask you about actually, looking at the time there
were 23 rooms available to rent I think when you were manager there, so I don’t know where Lord Paul was
suggesting he stayed if you were in the manager’s flat for the entire time you were there.
Mr Stevens: I don’t know.
Ms Newell: It’s strange really.
privileges and conduct: evidence 49

A
Mr Stevens: I really don’t know [inaudible].
Ms Newell: No, yeah, I spoke to the previous owner as well actually. I gave him a call and he said that there
was only one flat and that, you know, he thought it was a funny thing as well. Also, I just wanted to make you
aware as well, sometimes when we write articles about this the police occasionally look into it so there is a
chance they might contact you in future. But, I’m presuming you’d only say to them what you said to me so— B
Mr Stevens: Yeah, of course.
Ms Newell: Yeah, I just wanted to let you know [inaudible]. But you’ve got my telephone number so do give
me a call at any time.
Mr Stevens: Alright.
C
Ms Newell: If you want to talk about anything. Ok, alright, thanks for your time. Speak to you later.
Mr Stevens: [Inaudible]
Ms Newell: Bye.

5. Transcript of a recording of a telephone conversation between Lord Paul and Mr Jonathan Calvert of D
the Sunday Times newspaper, on Friday 2 October 2009
Receptionist: Can I speak to Jonathan Calvert please?
Mr Calvert: Speaking.
Receptionist: Hello Jonathan, it’s Jessica here from Lord Paul’s office.
E
Mr Calvert: Hello Jessica.
Receptionist: He wishes to speak to you if that’s convenient.
Mr Calvert: Yes okay.
Receptionist: I’ll just connect you.
F
Unidentified voice: Lord Paul’s office. One moment please.
Lord Paul: Hello.
Mr Calvert: Hello Lord Paul.
Lord Paul: I am sorry we have been . . . yesterday I was waiting for your call in and the telephone got busy.
G
Mr Calvert: It got very, yes, I could tell it was busy I just couldn’t get. Apparently you were abroad somewhere.
Lord Paul: I was in Geneva. You see, I had to present at the IPU on the WTO.
Mr Calvert: Is that part of your work for the Lords?
Lord Paul: Yes that’s right I’m a Lords member of the IPU.
H
Mr Calvert: Oh, I see. Lord Paul, did your assistant explain to you what it was?
Lord Paul: Yes.
Mr Calvert: I suppose the point that we were getting at was that, you’re obviously somebody who has many
properties that you own, you and your family own many properties in that block . . .
Lord Paul: I will tell you Jonathan. My family have lived in that block for a long long time. I have bought the J
house because I wanted to stay there and because in the flat I have four children in the block and grandchildren
and I can’t even get together with them because the flat is not a thing for a joint family. I bought the house,
which I am enjoying because I see the children, I see the grandchildren, we are a family of 16 people.
Mr Calvert: 60 people?
Lord Paul: 16. Eight grandchildren, four children. Then this thing, the flat, I thought I would give it to my K
grandchildren, because they are now coming into work, so I bought this house and then I found it was really
not practical for me to make it everyday and I mean I am too old for that. It was just too much. So I had to
maintain both the properties for my grandchildren, I had to buy them some new flats. That is why.
Mr Calvert: So you are living in both basically aren’t you?
L
Lord Paul: I am living in both.
Mr Calvert: And is it the same flat that you have owned since 1966?
Lord Paul: Oh yes.
Mr Calvert: Is it? Right.
50 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Lord Paul: Right from 1966.
Mr Calvert: And so you never . . . once you came here, at that stage, you never moved out of that at all?
Lord Paul: That’s right. I may not have moved but for the fact that I was that getting together with
grandchildren was impossible in a flat.
B Mr Calvert: Yes. Yes I can see that. And so, you still have the flat there, and as I understand it, the way it works
is that your company owns the head lease to all 25 flats.
Lord Paul: That’s right.
Mr Calvert: And you sub-let some of them, but not all of them?
C Lord Paul: No, when I bought it, the flats used to belong to all the tenants who had bought a long lease.
Mr Calvert: Yes.
Lord Paul: But then when the children started growing up, they bought a flat each. We wanted to be all near
each other. They all have flats. Now the grandchildren have bought into the second thing, because they have
grown up and two of them are working in the family business already. And my idea was that I will give my flat
D to the children, the grandchildren, but then I found it was not practical for me because it was not possible to
come from there on a daily basis.
Mr Calvert: No.
Lord Paul: So my home for all purposes is Beaconsfield.
Mr Calvert: Right.
E
Lord Paul: And, I mean, I tried communting, but I am finding it a little bit too old for myself, travelling with
the trains a little bit, so that is what I have been happening, and I do take the work of the Lords very seriously.
Mr Calvert: You attend a lot, don’t you?
Lord Paul: By and large, whenever I am in London I attend every day. And then, as perhaps you know, I am
F a Deputy Speaker, I sit on three Committees, and on a fourth Committee, on the Finance Bill, which only lasts
for three months a year, I sit on that. And I genuinely believe that you don’t go into the Lords for staying at
home or using the title. I don’t introduce myself as Lord Paul; I introduce myself as Swraj Paul. So that’s where
I am.
Mr Calvert: And so, your property in Beaconsfield seems to have a lot of houses with it. Are your family living
G there too?
Lord Paul: No, no, there is just one house.
Mr Calvert: Just one house.
Lord Paul: There are some cottages.
H Mr Calvert: Oh, I see, they are all cottages, are they?
Lord Paul: No, there are two cottages, which, one of them I have rented; one, unfortunately, I haven’t been
able to find recently a tenant, because of the property market, but it will be rented. It used to be rented. So
that is the property. Two cottages outside the house.
Mr Calvert: There seemed to be more on the Land Registry than that. There seemed to be about four or five,
J actually. South Lodge and . . .
Lord Paul: Yes, South Lodge is one, and Bridleway Cottage is the other.
Mr Calvert: Oh, there were some other names as well that came up.
Lord Paul: Like what? You are telling me? [laughter]
K Mr Calvert: Um, Grange Farm.
Lord Paul: Grange Farm?
Mr Calvert: Mmm.
Lord Paul: There is no Grange Farm. My property has . . . farming is done, which I have contracted to a
farmer.
L
Mr Calvert: Oldfield House.
Lord Paul: No, that’s, not that I know of. If you want to hand me over that property, I will be delighted.
Mr Calvert: No, it is not essential, I was just intrigued, because when you bought it, it was obviously quite an
expensive house and I assumed, when you look at the Land Registry, it seems to be that they are all . . .
privileges and conduct: evidence 51

A
Lord Paul: No, no, I bought a house really keeping in mind, and which I am enjoying because all the family
can get to it, we are a very closely knit family, and even in the flats, trying to get children to come and eat with
us, it’s just not practical having that many.
Mr Calvert: The point we were making was that obviously you are somebody who has had a home in London
for all these years, and yet you are claiming, well since 2006 you have claimed around about £100,000 worth B
of allowance, which is intended for Peers who live outside the capital.
Lord Paul: Yeah, that’s where I live now.
Mr Calvert: But all I am trying to say is that you don’t need to claim that too, because you already have a
house, have a home here.
Lord Paul: No, but this is where I had to buy property for my grandchildren. C
Mr Calvert: I see. What, in the same block?
Lord Paul: In the same block. As tenants, some of the tenants were leaseholders, because it was all leaseholders
up to 2006. So I have spent a lot of money since then, otherwise I would have given this flat to one of the
children. That was the idea, which I still will once I stop going to the House of Lords. I will give it to one of
the children to have it. D
Mr Calvert: Oh, so have the grandchildren now got them?
Lord Paul: Oh yes. I have eight grandchildren between 24 to one and a half years old—six between 18 and 24,
and two at one and a half and three, but from the same wife of 53 years. Let me put it this way. This was the
intention, but I just found that I could not do it every day.
E
Mr Calvert: So what you did was you bought other places from your grandchildren in that block.
Lord Paul: Yes, I am still buying. I still have to buy four more.
Mr Calvert: Four more. Gosh. So as I count it, there are 25 in all in that block, and you—
Lord Paul: I have four children staying.
F
Mr Calvert: You have four children, but there are also, there seem to be, I’d say, in total there seem to be 10
that aren’t sublet to somebody who is not in your family. Some of them are just owned by your company,
both sublet.
Lord Paul: No, the er
Mr Calvert: So, Ambika House Properties, or whatever it is called. G
Lord Paul: No, the two properties we just bought last year, two flats, which we bought last year, we had to do
them up because they are in a bad condition.
Mr Calvert: Oh, I see.
Lord Paul: And then they will be either leased out or given to grandchildren. H
Mr Calvert: Right, I see.
Lord Paul: And we will pay for it, one big house [Inaudible] And each property where we live is owned by us.
Mr Calvert: Right.
Lord Paul: I mean, for example, I am in two flats here, which I combine. They are very small flats, 1,100
J
square feet.
Mr Calvert: Oh, I see, so you have two.
Lord Paul: I combine the two.
Mr Calvert: I couldn’t work out which ones yours were. Which ones . . .?
K
Lord Paul: 5 and 6.
Mr Calvert: 5 and 6. Oh. I see.
Lord Paul: Which we converted into one flat really, because . . .
Mr Calvert: But according to my . . .
L
Lord Paul: Go ahead. You are very welcome to come and see me any time.
Mr Calvert: But it says here that Barker Handles Ansalt has the lease on 5 and 6.
Lord Paul: Yeah, that’s right, because I had a nominee company.
Mr Calvert: Oh, is that who they are?
52 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Lord Paul: But I am the owner.
Mr Calvert: Oh, I see, so that means that you must have 12 which you are not letting out at the moment.
Lord Paul: What do you mean not letting out? Every flat other than these two is sold to individuals. There are
no let outs from the company.
B
Mr Calvert: But the way it works is that Anghad is in penthouse flat.
Lord Paul: Anghad is in penthouse flat.
Mr Calvert: Akash is in Flat No 3.
Lord Paul: Yes.
C
Mr Calvert: And Akash is in Flat No 4 as well.
Lord Paul: That’s right, he has just bought the 4.
Mr Calvert: You’re in 5 and 6. Anghad is in 9.
Lord Paul: No, Anghad is not in 9. My daughter has just bought it for her son.
D
Mr Calvert: Oh, right.
Lord Paul: Which is my grandson. No 9. No 16 is my daughter’s daughter.
Mr Calvert: Anjlipour. And 18 is one that you have bought but you haven’t sublet as yet. Ambika House.
Lord Paul: No, 18 is not Ambika House. 18 is this thing, my other son, who lives in 19 and 18.
E
Mr Calvert: Oh, that’s Ambarpour.
Lord Paul: Ambarpour.
Mr Calvert: I see.
Lord Paul: None of them are let. They are all owned by these individuals now.
F
Mr Calvert: And then Flat 24, oh this is one that you bought last year, isn’t it?
Lord Paul: Flat 24, and I think 11 and 12. They are very derelict, unfortunately, a lot of work has . . .
Mr Calvert: 11 and 12, yes you’re right, so they’re all the derelict ones.

G Lord Paul: Yes, it has to be done and then given to the, either the grandchildren will buy it or this thing is
just . . .
Mr Calvert: So between you, you must own, gosh, I don’t know, something like 12 flats in all.
Lord Paul: Yes the family, don’t forget we are 16 in all.
Mr Calvert: Oh yes, 16 family.
H
Lord Paul: 16-member family.
Mr Calvert: So you own 12 out of the 25.
Lord Paul: I don’t own.
Mr Calvert: But you bought quite a lot of them, didn’t you.
J
Lord Paul: No, they own. The children. I gave them the money and they own.
Mr Calvert: I see. So they bought it using your money. I see. And is that what happens when you give it to
your grandchildren?
Lord Paul: Yes. What I told grandchildren, that as they finish and start work, I will buy each of them a flat.
K
Mr Calvert: In the block.
Lord Paul: In the block. So that the whole family remains in the same block.
Mr Calvert: Do you think one day you might have the whole block to your family?
Lord Paul: If the family grows up in my living time, I hope so.
L
Mr Calvert: You know that there are quite a lot of wealthy people in the Lords and if you look at the 12
wealthiest, according to your Rich List, only you and Lord Grantchester claim allowances.
Lord Paul: But how many of them come?
Mr Calvert: Well, they come, but they don’t come as frequently as you.
privileges and conduct: evidence 53

A
Lord Paul: No, no, you tell me how many of them come. You know, it’s, if I lived in Beaconsfield and, for
example, if I am not able to come to the Lords, then there is no reason for me to come and so there won’t be
a claim.
Mr Calvert: Yeah, no, I see. I am not saying you are not entitled to it, I’m just . . .
Lord Paul: I appreciate what you have to say, but what I am saying is, for someboy to come 10 days in the B
whole year is very different from a person who attends every day, because you can’t commute that much at
my age, and a lot of them with whome you perhaps are referring to are much younger people. While I
appreciate what you people are trying to do in the press, you’ve got to look at each individuals
Mr Calvert: Circumstances.
Lord Paul: Circumstances. I mean, I genuinely thought that I would be able to commute, but I couldn’t do it. C
Mr Calvert: But you’re not, I mean presumably you’re not considering whether you might reconsider claiming
this allowance.
Lord Paul: Oh, I don’t think so. There’s no reason for me to stop it.
Mr Calvert: No, that’s fine. I mean, actually the allowance is likely to change anyway because the Senior D
Salaries Review Body is looking at it at the moment.
Lord Paul: Look, basically, this used to be the same question from your colleagues on my [??]. I have always
maintained that I don’t make the law; I follow the law. And if there is any revision, I’ll do exactly what the
revision is.
Mr Calvert: Yeah, no, that’s a fair point. E
Lord Paul: But the person who attends almost every day when he is in Britain, I don’t think, I found it, at my
age, not practical to commute from Beaconsfield, in spite of the fact that it is very convenient, because I just
can’t get myself to do the communting train every day.
Mr Calvert: I read somewhere that your son had insisted that you take a chauffeur-driven car everywhere.
Lord Paul: I have a chauffeur a lot of times because I don’t drive myself, but don’t forget sitting in the traffic F
is not my way of living.
Mr Calvert: I don’t think it’s anyone’s way of living, coming into central London like that. It’s a fair point.
Lord Paul: I would like to stay at Beaconsfield, but unfortunately it hasn’t been practical. As soon as I find
that my age comes where I can’t attend, that’s where I will be.
G
Mr Calvert: Yes.
Lord Paul: However, it is costing me two places. That is not a pleasant thing.
Mr Calvert: Okay, well, that’s a good explanation.
Lord Paul: No, no, it’s an expensive business. I have to have a housekeeper because my wife and I can’t manage
without in that house. I have to have another housekeeper in the flat, because again I can’t manage without. H
We are at an age where it’s just not practical.
Mr Calvert: No. Do you think you spend more time in London than you do in Beaconsfield?
Lord Paul: In what way?
Mr Calvert: Just, I mean, presumably in the number of nights you sleep places, I guess. J
Lord Paul: I am normally here from Sunday evening to the day after the Lords is not working.
Mr Calvert: Which is Saturday, or is it Friday, depending on which it is.
Lord Paul: No, it is Friday.
Mr Calvert: And then you go back to Beaconsfield for the weekend. K
Lord Paul: Yes. No, no, rather I wish that I found it practical to commute every day.
Mr Calvert: But wouldn’t you have had to maintain a home in London anyway because your office is quite
near to your . . .
Lord Paul: But don’t forget, I don’t do that much. I am chairman, but very non-executive. My three sons and
now two grandsons manage it. They run the business; I don’t. I come to this office because it’s a nice office to L
be there. So I come in the morning here, then I go to the Lords, but I don’t look after business. I am chairman,
but my children said, “But Papa, why do you want us to bring a chairman from outside? Why don’t you stay
chairman? We won’t vex you.”
Mr Calvert: Incidentally, there is a curious thing I saw on the rich list which suggests that . . .
54 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Lord Paul: First of all, may I request you one thing?
Mr Calvert: Yeah.
Lord Paul: Don’t believe any rich list.
Mr Calvert: That’s interesting.
B
Lord Paul: I always tell Philip Beresford, “Philip, you have ruined more people than I know, I think, with Rich
Lists and such”.
Mr Calvert: Well, I was going to ask you about that because I noticed that according to the Rich List you are
now valued at £500 million. And you are a billion down on your position last year, which sounds rather, sort
of, the figures are too round, really, aren’t they?
C
Lord Paul: You pay me £500 million and you’ll be my greatest hero. And you can have everything I have. I’ll
give you a discount on that if you want.
Mr Calvert: Oh really?
Lord Paul: No, I think it’s the perception. I wish I had that kind of money. And I have never looked at money
D as something which belongs to me. I look at it as trust money.
Mr Calvert: Right.
Lord Paul: And that is how I look. I live a very ordinary life, never wasting money because I just can’t afford
to do that. And that’s my style. That’s why I tell you that God has been very kind to me and that is what my
life is all about. One day you must come and talk to me on this, and you are very welcome, I mean my office
E is always open.
Mr Calvert: No, we have always found you very approachable and we do appreciate it.
Lord Paul: I know that all this expenses business has become a big issue, which is very sad, but believe me I
hate living in two places. Since 1966 I have lived in one place.
F Mr Calvert: Yes, okay, well that’s all very clear and thank you very much for talking that through with me.
Lord Paul: You’re very welcome. Fine. Thanks a lot.
Mr Calvert: Thank you, Lord Paul. Okay. Bye.

6. Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone conversation between Mr Jonathan Calvert and Lord
G Paul on Thursday 8 October 2009
Lord Paul: Hello.
Mr Calvert: Lord Paul?
Lord Paul: Yes.
H Mr Calvert: Lord Paul, hello. It’s Jonathan Calvert here from The Sunday Times newspaper. Thank you for
your help last week—I know it’s probably not the article you would have liked us to write but we felt it was
fair comment. Now, there was one other extra thing I wanted to ask you.
Lord Paul: Yes.
Mr Calvert: You know last week you told us that between 2004 and 2006 you were living in a flat in —
J
Lord Paul: I, I said I was spending a lot of time there just to check, whether I want the country life.
Mr Calvert: Yes Bignell Park Hotel.
Lord Paul: Yeah, that’s right.
Mr Calvert: Yeah. And that’s why that was your main address?
K
Lord Paul: That was my main address, because I was spending time there. Yup.
Mr Calvert: Yeah. You’ll forgive me, but because we’re so thorough we decided to—
Lord Paul: No no no I know.
Mr Calvert: —check that point and . . .
L
Lord Paul: Yeah, yeah I know that because you have been trying on that, snooping arts.
Mr Calvert: Right, You are correct, there is a flat there, at the back end of um . . .
Lord Paul: Yeah, that’s right.
Mr Calvert: It’s the one on the ground floor, connected to the building?
privileges and conduct: evidence 55

A
Lord Paul: Yeah.
Mr Calvert: The thing we don’t understand is that that’s where the manager lives.
Lord Paul: [Inaudible]. The manager lives there, and I always had the opportunity to tell him to go and sleep
in the hotel. If I wanted to sleep. Or I slept in the hotel. But I didn’t spend that many nights there because like I
told you that I was spending time in the Bignell Park in the weekends especially, to see if I liked the country life. B
Mr Calvert: Yeah.
Lord Paul: Because I do not want to make a big investment—buying a house, and then, my wife is still getting
used to Beaconsfield. After living 40 years in the West End. You know how difficult it is. So that is what I was
saying—I never told you I lived in the flat all the time. There’s no way I could have lived in that flat.
C
Mr Calvert: The problem, the problem, we’ve talked to the manager . . .
Lord Paul: Yeah I know that.
Mr Calvert: But the manager who was there at the time.
Lord Paul: Yeah I know that.
D
Mr Calvert: And he says that you never stayed a night there.
Lord Paul: Yeah I don’t say that I stayed the night—I said that it was available to me.
Mr Calvert: Oh I see. So you didn’t actually stay a night in the flat?
Lord Paul: No.
Mr Calvert: Oh I see. E

Lord Paul: All I knew was that I had the er, the er, if I wanted to sleep there he could go to the hotel room.
Mr Calvert: Yeah.
Lord Paul: He was a bachelor anyway.
Mr Calvert: Yes, but I mean, that didn’t actually happen. F
Lord Paul: Yeah. It didn’t happen. But I never told you that I slept there.
Mr Calvert: No, oh I see. So, so—
Lord Paul: And don’t forget my allowances are paid on the basis of when I am in London not on the basis of
when I am there. G
Mr Calvert: No but, it seems to us quite an odd state of affairs that your main address could be somewhere
where you have actually never slept a night.
Lord Paul: Jonathan, I really don’t know why you are wasting my time and your time. Because you can write
what you want to write. As far as I’m concerned, there is nothing wrong which has been done. And this thing,
about the allowance, about all these figures—I know what my position. If you want to write, please go ahead. H
I, we, you people might have an agenda, I don’t.
Mr Calvert: No we don’t, we do have an agenda in so far as quite a lot of people in the House of Lords have
treated this er allowances as an entitlement when they shouldn’t really have been claiming it. It’s very hard for
us to see the . . .
Lord Paul: No, no. J
Mr Calvert: … main address could be somewhere which notionally you might stay in one day if you wish to—
Lord Paul: If I keep the place available to me, that is what I was talking. It makes no difference. Even today
if every very night I don’t sleep at Grange, that doesn’t mean I am not entitled to it. That is my interpretation
of the rules. And I am entitled to get a night allowance when I stay in London.
K
Mr Calvert: Hmmm.
Lord Paul: Not whether I stay in Timbuktu. All I am saying is—
Mr Calvert: Yes but it’s all based on the fact that you’re, that’s because you live as your main address outside
London.
L
Lord Paul: That place was available to me whenever I want it to and—
Mr Calvert: But you didn’t live there.
Lord Paul: It makes no difference. I don’t live there even in Grange every day. And look—
Mr Calvert: Sorry, sorry, can I just explain. You never lived at Bignell Park Hotel.
56 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Lord Paul: I lived at Bignell Park Hotel whenever I wanted to.
Mr Calvert: But as you say it never happened because you never slept there.
Lord Paul: That’s not your business whether I slept there or in Timbuktu.
Mr Calvert: But, but, the manager say, he recalls you coming for the occasional meeting—
B
Lord Paul: Who the hell is manager to tell you what I am doing—and a manager who lived in there and went
a long time ago?
Mr Calvert: No but he was the manager at the time.
Lord Paul: I couldn’t care less. The manager is not going to satisfy my bloody living.
C Mr Calvert: He would remember if you’d said to him—
Lord Paul: No listen, you can write what you want to write. Please don’t waste your time and my time.
Mr Calvert: Ok.
Lord Paul: You are absolutely at liberty to write what you want. You have an agenda. You go ahead with it.
And you can quote me on that.
D
[phone hangs up]
Mr Calvert: Alright, well thank you for talking to me.

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 57

A
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE
Letter from Mr Andrew Mackersie, Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, to Sir Paul
Stephenson, Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, dated 19 March 2010

Lord Paul: House of Lords members’ reimbursement scheme: evidence B


The Clerk of the Parliaments, who is responsible as Accounting Officer for the administration of the members’
reimbursement scheme in the House of Lords, has asked the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests to investigate
Lord Paul’s use of the members’ reimbursement scheme in the light of the Sunday Times newspaper’s report
about him of 11 October 2009 and subsequent complaints. Although the matter does not fall within the normal
jurisdiction of the Sub-Committee, the Clerk of the Parliaments has sought the Sub-Committee’s assistance C
pursuant to the report from the Committee for Privileges on The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering
complaints against members (4th Report 2007–08, enclosed [not printed]). It is only now that the Clerk of the
Parliaments has been able to make this reference to the Sub-Committee because the policy of the House is to
suspend parliamentary investigations while the same matter is under investigation by the police. Your officers
recently announced that the police will be taking no further action in this case.
D
The Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests is a Select Committee of the House of Lords with the power to send
for persons, papers and records. Its Chairman is Baroness Manningham-Buller. The Sub-Committee has
directed me to invite the Metropolitan Police to send to the Sub-Committee the material which the police
gathered about this case during its investigation for the Sub-Committee to consider in its own investigation.
The only question before the Sub-Committee is whether Lord Paul made legitimate use of the members’
E
reimbursement scheme.
It would be helpful to receive your reply by 30 March. The Sub-Committee has already begun its work on this
case, but recognises that Parliament is likely soon to be dissolved and a general election called. At dissolution,
all Committees of the two Houses cease to exist until reappointed in the new Parliament. If the Sub-
Committee’s investigation is interrupted by dissolution, it will be continued in the new Parliament.
F
19 March 2010

Letter from Detective Chief Superintendent Nigel Mawer, Economic and Specialist Crime Unit,
Metropolitan Police Service, to the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, dated 27 May 2010
I write further to my letter dated 26 March 2010 and in response to your formal request for investigation G
material relating to Lord Paul contained in your letter to the Commissioner of 19 March 2010.
Having carefully considered the requests from the House Sub Committee of Lords’ Interests I am now in a
position to provide you with most of the material.
I know that you are aware that I wrote to Lord Paul inviting him to make any representations in relation to
H
the committee’s request. Furthermore my officers have sought to contact all of the witnesses that provided
statements to police in the course of our investigation.
The MPS has always sought to assist the House Committee. The process of disclosure has required careful
consideration of the legal basis by which this material can or should be supplied. The starting point that a
criminal investigation is confidential has been something that has underpinned our decision making but,
having sought representations from the interested parties our decision is that disclosure of the material to the J
Sub Committee is in the wider public interest.
I can inform you that it is our intention to provide you with the majority of statements. Whilst the statements
will show the names of the witness, no further details, such as their address or date of birth, will be supplied
at this stage. Should you wish to make contact with the witnesses directly I will ensure that further requests
are made of them on your behalf. K
Two witness statements will not be supplied at this stage: one from a witness who has asked that their statement
is not provided and one from a witness who has yet to be contacted.
In the first case it is our intention to provide you with a summary of the statement whilst respecting the wishes
of the witness to remain anonymous. In the second case it is believed that the witness has been abroad but has L
very recently returned to the UK. Our intention is to allow a short period of time and seek any representations
that this witness may make upon contact.
If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
27 May 2010
58 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Witness Statements taken by the Metropolitan Police Service
All of the statements taken by the Metropolitan Police Service were signed and dated by the witnesses under the
following rubric—
This statement (consisting of:… pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
B and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated
anything in it which I know to be false, or do not believe to be true.

Witness statement of Ms Maureen Buck, Member Services Manager, House of Lords Finance
Department, dated 20 October 2009
C
I am currently employed by the House of Lords Finance Department as the Member Services Manager within
the Members’ Expenses Section and I have held this position since 2006. Prior to promotion, I was the
Members’ Expenses Supervisor between 2005 and 2006, and before this a Members’ Expenses Clerk from 2003
until 2004. The Members’ Expenses Section is responsible for administering the claims made by Peers under
the House of Lords Members’ Reimbursment Scheme.
D My immediate supervisor is Richard GEE who is the Deputy Head of Finance, who in turn works under the
Head of Finance Jonathan SMITH.
I am responsible for Clare HOOK, the Members’ Expenses Supervisor and two Members’ Expenses Clerks,
Patricia YOUNG and Sally NICHOLAS. This represents the normal staffing compliment for the Members’
Expenses Section, although staff members have changed over the years. I refer to a flowchart showing the
E current staff within the Finance Department as MAB/1. The following people: Christine DALE, Margo
HOPKINS, Mark SEALEY, and Shanaaz ALI were all previously employed as clerks and have either retired,
moved departments or changed employment.
The Members’ Expenses Section processes on average approximately 600 claim forms per month. The volume
is greatest towards the beginning of the month and towards the end of a parliamentary session. We aim to
F process a claim form within seven days from the date it is received to the date of payment. We receive and
validate the claims before releasing payment instruction to the Payments Section on a bi-weekly basis.
I will describe the process by which claims progress through the Members’ Expenses Section. Claim forms have
to be received in a signed hard copy format and arrive at our offices at 14 Tothill Street, SW1 by external post
or internal post from the Central Post Depot at the Palace. Sometimes Peers choose to deliver claim forms
G personally at our address.
Together with the supervisor, we will deal personally with any correspondence that accompanies the claim
forms. More often than not this would be a request for advice or seeking clarification on some aspect.
Although I frequently make a written note as an aid memoire of dealings with peers on the telephone about
matters which I believe might have future relevance, I do this from personal choice rather than as a result of
H any policy that is in place. It is done on an ad hoc basis and I will destroy these notes when they cease to have
any value.
The claim forms go immediately to Clare HOOK, the Members Expenses Supervisor. She will perform
technical checks ensuring the claim form is original and not a photocopy, and that the period for claims falls
within the last three months. If it is outside the time frame, Clare will write to the peer asking them to give a
J written explanation for the delay to the Clerk of The Parliaments who will then consider authorising payment.
Clare will also ensure the name and address have been completed and if these have been mistakenly omitted;
we can often identify the peer from handwriting or using the travel database. The form clearly says that the
address to be written by the peer is the “Main Place of Residence”. We take it on face value that the address
entered is the peer’s main place of residence.
K The claim forms are then passed to the clerks who will sort them into alphabetical order before confirming the
dates for which claims are made coincide with dates recorded on the Attendance Database. This database
which is maintained by the Journal and Information Office, records dates when peers attend a sitting in the
Chamber of The House, attend a Select Committee meeting, vote in a Division or attend a Grand Committee
in the Moses room. The clerk will tick to confirm each date claimed on the form and add up the total number
L of days attended. If a claim has been made for a date when the peer does not appear on the Attendance
Database, a letter is sent asking for the peer to confirm their attendance. The claim form will not be processed
further until the matter has been resolved. If the peer confirms his attendance, this has been accepted on face
value and the Clerk will send an email to the Journal and Information Office asking for the records to be
amended. However since July 2009 the situation has changed and a peer may only “self certificate” his
attendance in this way on one occasion within each Parliamentary session. If it happens again they are required
privileges and conduct: evidence 59

A
to submit an explanation to Philippa TUDOR, the Finance Director who in turn will refer the matter to
Michael POWNALL, the Clerk of the Parliaments if necessary.
The clerks will then do calculations in relation to the categories of claim. Any travel claims will be referenced
against the Travel Database. This computer system which is linked to the accounting system shows an account
number for each peer and where they make car mileage claims, the declared journey between their main B
residence and the Palace. If they travel by train; it will show the railway station used and the car mileage from
their main residence to the railway station. The Travel Database does not contain the address of the main
home. (However, a computer accounting system called “AGRESSO” does have the main address when
provided. The AGRESSO system was introduced in 2006 and replaced the SUN system). The journeys claimed
will be scrutinsed to ensure they fit in with the travel information held. If there is any uncertainty over the
mileage of a journey, we will resolve it using the AA route map on their web site. C
At this stage I should point out that no formal check is made to confirm the main place of residence recorded
on the claim form is the same as on previous claim forms. This would only come to light if (A) a mileage travel
claim on the recent submission between main residence and the House of Lords was significantly different from
the distance held on the travel database for the same journey from the former main residence, or (B) if the
mode of transport changed from that shown on the travel database ie costs for air travel being claimed when D
no record existed. It is possible that if the new main residence was a similar distance to the House of Lords
this change would not be picked up.
The clerk will then check to make sure that any claims for air, rail or boat travel are corroborated with receipts
where necessary. From April 2007 any single fare in excess of £50 or return fare in excess of £100 had to be
receipted if the Members Travel Credit Card was not used. From December 2008 these figures were reduced E
to £25 and £50 respectively. If a claim is not supported by a correctly dated receipt as required that portion of
the claim will not be paid. The clerk will complete the travel claim totals at the bottom of the columns on the
form less any disputed amount.
Some members choose to purchase rail, air, coach or boat tickets using a corporate Barclaycard. In such cases,
they will make all of their claims including travel, night subsistence, day subsistence and office costs on a
different form—“AETC” which has a very similar format. They are required to show details of journeys where F
tickets have been purchased using this facility, but not to claim a monetary value, and once the clerk has
completed the checks described below in relation to the other types of claim, a copy of this claim form will be
passed to Neil JACKSON, Operations Manager who will reconcile the information concerning travel with the
corporate card statement, and raise queries with the Member if necessary.
The clerk will consider claims for Night Subsistence in relation to the attendance database ensuring that it is G
claimed on nights preceding or following a sitting and in relation to the stated travelling dates. The main home
address recorded on the “AGRESSO” computer system and on the claim form will be checked to confirm it
is outside Greater London and therefore the peer is eligible to claim the allowance. The scheme allows those
Members whose main residence is outside Greater London to claim for expenses of overnight accommodation
in London while away from their only or main residence within a specified daily limit. A Member whose main H
residence is outside Greater London and who maintains a residence in London for the purpose of attending
sittings of the House may claim the Night Subsistence within the specified daily limit. Claims for the Night
Subsistence are only permissible in respect of nights spent in London either immediately preceding or
following attendance at a sitting or meeting described earlier. For example, a Member who travels to London
on a Sunday and attends sittings of the House on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and then
returns home on Friday or later may claim the Night Subsistence for a maximum of five nights up to the limit J
of the specified daily limit. However, if the Member returned home on the Thursday evening the maximum
claim for Night Subsistence would be four nights up to the limit of the specified daily limit. Members who
choose to travel home each night cannot claim the Night Subsistence. Where the clerk declines a claim for night
subsistence, because the stated travel dates indicate that the Member travelled home that night, they will add
a note to this effect to the payment remittance advice sent to the peer.
K
Where a member claims night subsistence and travel expenses, but does not state the travel dates, the whole
claim will be declined and returned to the member for the travel dates to be inserted. However, there are a very
few Members who do not claim travel expenses to or from their main place of residence on a weekly or monthly
basis and in these cases night subsistence can be reimbursed for the nights claimed before and after a sitting.
The AGRESSO computer system records a Members’ declared main home into one of three categories. Firstly, L
those members whose main home is within five miles of The Palace of Westminster, which precludes them from
making separate claims for travel costs or night subsistence. Secondly, those whose main home is greater than
five miles from The Palace of Westminster yet within Greater London who are therefore ineligible to claim
night subsistence, but may claim travel costs. Thirdly, those whose main home is outside Greater London and
who may therefore claim both night subsistence and travel costs. This acts as a safeguard when validated
60 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
claims are subsequently loaded onto the computer system. For example, if a claim is inadvertently accepted
by a clerk for night subsistence, and the member’s main home is placed within a category on AGRESSO which
precludes claims for night subsistence, the system will then refuse to accept the claim. In the case of a new peer,
who has yet to supply the Members Expenses Section with details of their main residence, they will
automatically be placed into the category of having a main home within five miles of The Palace of
B Westminster and as a consequence the system will refuse any claims for travel and night subsistence. This is
done to prevent a new peer from inadvertently making incorrect claims through a lack of understanding of
the Members’ Expenses Scheme, in circumstances where we do not have the necessary information to validate
the claims.
The clerk will check that the night subsistence does not exceed the maximum daily rate before adding up the
C totals at the foot of the columns.
Any day subsistence claims will be reconciled against days attended at the House and again checked to ensure
they are within the daily maximum limit. The columns will then be totalled.
Any Office Costs claims will be reconciled against days attended at the House and again checked to ensure
they are within the daily maximum limit. The columns will then be totalled.
D
Additional Office Costs may also be claimed in respect of up to 40 days at the same rate of the Office Costs
limit from 1 August to 31 July when the House is not sitting, or the House is sitting but a Member does not
attend. Forms for Additional Office Costs may be submitted at any time during the relevant year and may be
claimed in increments or in one sum provided that 40 non sitting days have elapsed since 1 August. The clerk
will check with AGRESSO to confirm the member’s running total has not exceeded the maximum figure.
E
In rare circumstances, Members are allowed to make claims for additional assistance because of disability. This
might reflect a need for specialised equipment or the need to travel by taxi. Such allowance is agreed in advance
by the Clerk of the Parliaments and details of agreed amounts are included on the travel database. Again the
clerk will ensure claims made do not exceed the agreed limit.
On the claim form there is a box marked “End date of this Claim”. This refers to the last date on the form for
F which a claim has been made. When the claims are ultimately loaded onto the AGRESSO system, the
computer will bring up a duplicate-claim report if dates for current claims have previously been processed.
Having totalled the columns, the clerk will initial the box marked “Checked”. If the clerk is new and
inexperienced another clerk will double check the process and initial another box marked “Counter-Checked”.
New staff are always trained by the supervisor who is currently Clare HOOK.
G
At this point, the Clerks will input the claims onto the AGRESSO system and a print out will be produced
which lists the total claim payment for each peer. Some peer titles are sufficiently similar for input errors to
be made awarding payment to the wrong peer. The two clerks now swap their claim forms and will check that
the correct peer is receiving the correct payment as listed on the print out.
At this point at least 10% of the claim forms will be checked in all aspects by either the Supervisor or myself
H
for accuracy by the clerks and the box marked “EO Spot-Check” will be initialled signifying this has happened.
The Supervisor then “posts” the claims on the AGRESSO system to the Payments Section who will then effect
payment usually by BACS. The Payment Section will receive reports and paper work from the Supervisor
authorising them to effect payments to the Members.
J If in the course of doing the above checks, a clerk discovers a claim has been incorrectly made under the rules,
they will add a note to the payment remittance advising that this sum has been deleted from the claim and will
not be paid. This will be an end to the matter unless the peer was to raise the issue and show that the claim
was in fact within the rules. Such a matter would normally be referred to the Supervisor or me. The staff within
my section are clearly instructed in their training not to accept any claims that do not fully comply with the
rules of the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme. Any such queries would be discussed, in the first instance with
K the Supervisor for further guidance. There has never been a situation where a claim identified as being
incorrect has been suspected to be deliberately false or misleading. There is no written policy in place on how
such a situation would be dealt with. The clerks would bring such a matter to the attention of their Supervisor
who in turn would bring it to my attention. I would immediately inform Richard GEE and I imagine he would
pass it to Jonathan SMITH who would discuss the matter with Michael POWNALL the Clerk of the
L Parliaments. I can say that the clerks would not validate any claim where there was reason to believe it was
false. I have never been aware of any circumstances where peers have made false claims. There has been various
rumours in the past that some peers might not have made legitimate claims under the Members
Reimbursement Scheme, but not anything of substance which would support the fact false claims had actually
been made. I can only say that neither I nor my staff would entertain authorising a claim which was suspected
to be false.
privileges and conduct: evidence 61

A
The claim forms are individually paginated by the clerks and stored in running order. Consequently a peer’s
claim forms will be dispersed throughout the filing system. The forms are kept for a period of three years in
addition to the current financial year before destruction. The paginated reference number is recorded on the
AGRESSO system.
All correspondence between the Members Expenses Section and a peer is stored in a file and retained for an B
indefinite period. Some may be kept with the claim.
I have alluded earlier to the fact the checking clerks are always trained by the supervisor.
Although there is no formal training manual, staff constantly refer to the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme
Guide as their main source of written guidance. This is supported by additional guidance and procedural notes
C
which are updated as and when necessary.

Written statement of Mr Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance, House of Lords Finance Department,
dated 19 January 2010
On 27 November 2009 I handed to acting DI Gibb, correspondence to or from the Finance Department in D
support of night subsistence, including claim forms retained by the finance department in relation to Lord Paul
of Marylebone. The claim forms go back as far as April 2006, which was the process date and other documents
relate to 2004 and later. I refer to these documents as JPS/12.
On Friday 15 January 2010 I handed further documents to DC De St Denis, which I refer to as JPS/13. These
comprised, claim forms and correspondence relating to travel costs and day subsistence and office secretarial E
costs not previously requested in relation to the same peer. The claim forms go back to May 2006 and other
documents go back to 2004.
[Exhibits JPS/12 and JPS/13 not printed.]

F
Witness statement of Detective Constable Kirsty de St-Denis dated 2 February 2010
This statement refers to the splitting of exhibits from the standing file for Lord Paul of Marylebone (exhibits
JPS/12 and JPS/13).
Between 27 November 2009 and 2 February 2010 the following exhibits were split from JPS/12 and JPS/13
and given there own exhibit numbers as follows: G
Exhibit JPS/12/1—Copy of a letter from Lord Paul advising of his place of residence.
Exhibit JPS/12/2—Copy of a letter from Lord Paul advising of his address details from 1 August 2006.
Exhibit JPS/12/3—Copy of reimbursement summary for the year 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
H
Exhibit JPS/12/4—Copy of reimbursement summary for the year 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006.
Exhibit JPS/12/5—Copy of Claim for Repayment of Travelling and Other Expenses for March 2006.
Exhibit JPS/12/6—Copy of Claim for Repayment of Travelling and Other Expenses for April 2006.
Exhibit JPS/12/7—Copy of Claim for Repayment of Travelling and Other Expenses for May 2006. J
Exhibit JPS/12/8—Copy of Claim for Repayment of Travelling and Other Expenses for June 2006.
Exhibit JPS/12/9—Copy of Claim for Repayment of Travelling and Other Expenses for July 2006.
Exhibit JPS/12/10—Copy of Peers’ claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses for Committee
Visits dated 9 May 2006. K

Exhibit JPS/12/11—Copies of receipts issued by Swiss Cottage Car Service and Executive Carriage.
Exhibit JPS/13/1—Copy of Peers’ claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses for Committee
Visits dated 5 June 2006.
Exhibit JPS/13/2—Copy of Committee Visits Claim for Reimbursement of Office and Overnight L
Accommodation Costs dated 9 May 2006.
These exhibits were then given to DC Cummings the exhibits officer.
[Exhibits not printed.]
62 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Witness statement of Detective Constable Kirsty de St-Denis dated 12 February 2010
This statement refers to the opening of exhibits from the standing file for Lord Paul of Marylebone (exhibits
JPS/12 and JPS/13).
On Thursday 21 January 2010 I attended the House of Lords Member’s Expenses Section at 14 Tothill Street,
B London in order to obtain a statement from Maureen BUCK the Member Services Manager. I took exhibits
JPS/12 and JPS/13 with me in order for her to be able to comment on individual documents within the exhibits.
JPS/12 was sealed in Police Exhibit Bag seal number MPSD40998285. I opened this bag in order to be able to
show the contents to Maureen BUCK. Upon completion of the statement I resealed the bag and its contents
in another bag serial number MPSD40715093.
C
JPS/13 was sealed in Police Exhibit Bag seal number MPSD40998284. I opened this bag in order to be able to
show the contents to Maureen BUCK. Upon completion of the statement I resealed the bag and its contents
in another bag serial number MPSD40715092.
These exhibits were then handed to the exhibits officer DC CUMMINGS.
D On Thursday 4 February 2010 I attended the Member’s Expenses Section again to obtain statements from
Shanaaz ALI and Christine DALE in relation to documents they had signed within JPS/12.
After opening exhibit JPS/12 I resealed it using signature seals which I signed and dated. Christine DALE and
Shanaaz ALI also signed the exhibit bag as witnesses.

E This exhibit was then given to A/DS NOAKES who returned it to the exhibits officer DC CUMMINGS.

Witness statement of Ms Maureen Buck, Member Services Manager, House of Lords Finance
Department, dated 2 February 2010
Further to my earlier statement where I described the procedure adopted by the Members’ Expenses Section
F in processing the claims made by peers under the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme; I have been asked to
review claim forms in relation to Lord PAUL of MARYLEBONE which have been supplied to police.
The claim forms relating to Lord PAUL of MARYLEBONE are part of exhibits JPS/12 and JPS/13.
The claim form for March 2006 has my initials as checking it. No one counter checked the forms or did EO
spot checks.
G
The April and May 2006 claim forms have Shanaaz ALI’s initials as the checking clerk and my initials as the
clerk who counter checked or spot checked them. On the May 2006 form a travel expense on 6 May is
disallowed as Lord PAUL had already claimed for the travel on 5 May under his Committee Visit claim form.
I will go into this further, later on in my statement.
H The June 2006 claim form has Shanaaz ALI’s initials as the checking clerk, Christine DALE’s initials as the
clerk who counter checked it and my initials as the EO spot checking it.
The July 2006 claim form has Shanaaz ALI’s initials as the checking clerk and Christine DALE’s initials as
the clerk who counter checked it. No one has signed as spot checking it.
Also within the collection of forms supplied to the police are Peers’ Claim Forms for Travelling, Subsistence
J
and Incidental Expenses used in connection with Committee/Sub-Committee visits.
The form dated 09.05.06, signed by Lord PAUL and stamped with the number 0061282 shows the initials of
Shanaaz ALI checking it and it is stamped as received by us on 25 May 2006.
The form dated 05.06.06 and signed by Lord PAUL shows the initials of Shanaaz ALI and a comment that it
K has been agreed by Meg HAWKINS in the Committee Office.
The form dated 26.06.06 and signed by Lord PAUL does not show anyone’s initials as checking it and it is
stamped as received by us on 18 July 2006.
The form dated 05.07.06 and signed by Lord PAUL does not show anyone’s initials as checking it.
L The reverse of these forms is entitled House of Lords Invoice Authorisation Form A. This is signed and
authorised by someone in the committee office before it reaches us. We then make the payment if it has been
authorised, but the money comes out of the Committee Office Budget which is separate.
Also within the collection of forms supplied to the police are forms which are entitled Committee Visits Claim
for Reimbursement of Office and Overnight Accommodation Costs. This is Form ME6.
privileges and conduct: evidence 63

A
The form signed and dated by Lord PAUL on 09/05/06 and stamped 0061148 shows the initials of Shanaaz
ALI as checking and my signature as authorising. I made amendments to this claim as it was incorrect. Lord
PAUL tried to claim for night subsistence but was incorrect in his claim. I will explain this later. This was for
a trip to Italy.
The form signed by Lord PAUL for a meeting in York on 23 June 2006 was not dated. It shows the initials of B
Shanaaz ALI as checking but no signature as authorising. Amendments were made to this claim as it was
incorrect. Lord Paul tried to claim for night subsistence but was incorrect in his claim.
The form signed by Lord PAUL for a meeting in Reading on 30 June is dated 11/07/06. It shows the initials
of Shanaaz ALI as checking but no signature as authorising. Amendments were made to this claim as it was
incorrect. Lord PAUL tried to claim for night subsistence but was incorrect in his claim.
C
The forms and rules for Select Committee visits are slightly more complicated than the usual claim forms. On
the form ME6, members can claim Office Costs, Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home
(AMA) and Night Subsistence.
As far as attendance goes, being at a committee meeting in the Palace of Westminster is as good as being in
the Chamber. The Clerk of the relevant committee produces an attendance list in the same way as it is produced D
for attendance in the Chamber.
If a committee meeting takes place outside of the Palace of Westminster, whether in the UK or abroad, this is
not classed as an attendance so is not recorded as such. Therefore if a member does not attend the Chamber
or a committee meeting within the Palace, no attendance is recorded and they cannot claim expenses under
the usual reimbursement scheme.
E
Accommodation Maintenance Allowance (AMA) can only be claimed for the night of the Meeting. If the
member is put up in a hotel this is paid by the committee office. The member can then also claim AMA for
the second home that they maintain in London for the purpose of attending the House. They receive two thirds
of the amount they would usually receive for night subsistence. This is only available if a second home in
London is maintained. The computer system would not allow a payment to go through if there was no second
home registered, even if it was overlooked by a clerk. F
If a member stays overnight in London before the day of travel in order to make the travel connection the
following day they can claim the full amount, ie three thirds, in the same way that they can claim for staying
in London overnight the night before attending the House. If this is the case they fill out the shaded area on
the form ME6 entitled Night Subsistence. This section is then also signed and authorised by the Clerk of the
Committee. The same also applies for the night that they return to London if it is too late for them to return G
to their main residence and they have to stay in London. If they are staying in London purely to attend the
House the following day then this would be claimed under the usual Reimbursement Scheme.
Going back to the ME6 form submitted on 9 May 2006 by Lord Paul for his trip to Italy, and the
Reimbursement Scheme claim for May 2006 I will now explain why certain claims were disallowed.
Lord Paul states at the top of the form that he left home/London on 2 May 2006 and the meeting was on 2–5 H
May. He then returned to London/home on 5 May.
Therefore under AMA he is only entitled to claim for the nights of the Meeting ie 2nd, 3rd and 4th. He cannot
claim for the 5th under this heading as he has already returned to London/home. The AMA at this time was
£103 per night so he was entitled to £309.
J
Under Committee Visit Night Subsistence he is entitled to claim for staying in London the night before he
travelled in order to make the connection ie the night of 1 May. He is not entitled to claim for 5 May unless
he can show that it was too late to return home, which it could not have been because he went on to claim for
mileage from London to Home. Also the 5th May 2006 was a Friday so he would not have to attend the House
the following day as they do not sit on a Saturday. He is therefore entitled to claim £154.50 for that one night of
1 May. Added together with his Committee Visit office costs claim of £268.00 he received £731.50 for that visit. K
Lord PAUL claimed for 65 miles from London to Home (Oxford) on 5 May 2006 under his Committee Visit
expenses. He cannot then claim for the same mileage and same journey on 6 May 2006 under Reimbursement.
That was disallowed.
On the Form ME6 for a visit to York on 23 June 2006 Lord PAUL tried to claim for Committee Visit Night
Subsistence for the night of 23 June 2006. Again this was a Friday and the House would not have been sitting L
the next day so it was disallowed.
On the Form ME6 for a visit to Reading on 30 June 2006, Lord PAUL tried to claim for Committee Visit Night
Subsistence on the night of 30 June 2006. Again this was a Friday and the House would not have been sitting
the next day. Lord PAUL could not have returned to London too late to be able to get back home as I received
64 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
an e-mail from Meg HAWKINS in the Committee Office confirming that he “caught the 11 something train,
so was back in London by lunch time.” Therefore it was also disallowed. This e-mail dated 19 July 2006 is
included within the documents provided to police under exhibit numbers JPS/12 and JPS/13.
It became apparent that Lord PAUL did not have a complete understanding of the Committee Visit claims
B process so the Finance Director at the time wrote to him on 20 July 2006 to explain further.
The Committee Visit forms are submitted as and when they are completed rather than at the end of the month
when the monthly Reimbursement Scheme forms are submitted. This invariably means that the forms all get
to us at different times. If the Committee Visit form reaches us first that would be paid first and we would then
check what has been claimed on this form against the monthly Reimbursement form when it is received to
ensure nothing is paid twice. If the forms arrive at the same time any mistake would be taken off of the
C
Committee Visit Budget first.
If the Committee Visit takes place in London these claims do not come into play. If the meeting is in London
and the member does not go into the Chamber that day they are not entitled to claim for any day subsistence
expenses.
D Also within the exhibit JPS/12 is a letter from Lord PAUL dated 7 January 2005 advising the Accounts Office
of his place of residence. This letter bears my initials and the reference number 1PAU001-2 which was his
reference number on our old system.
There is then a form ME20 Member’s Details dated 31 July 2006 advising of his main residence from 1 August
2006. This form bears my initials twice showing that I received it on 4/08/06 and then went on to input it into
E the system.
I can say that I have never had any reason to suspect that any of Lord PAUL’s claims under the Members
Reimbursement Scheme have been deliberately false or misleading. Nor have any staff within the Finance
Department brought any such suspicions to my attention. If I or anyone else formed a suspicion that he had
knowingly misrepresented his main place of residence or any other fact in his claims, or made a claim for
expenditure which he had not incurred, then the claim would not be validated and payment would not be
F
made. The matter would be referred to Richard GEE for further consideration. I believe that any errors in his
claims were down to him misunderstanding the process and were not deliberate.

Witness statement of Ms Shanaaz Ali, sometime clerk in the House of Lords Finance Department, dated
10 February 2010
G
Further to my statement dated 19 November 2009, I have been asked to consider and describe my involvement
in the validation of claim forms under the House of Lords Members’ Reimbursement Scheme for Lord Paul
of Marylebone.
Between January 2006 and January 2007 I was employed as a Members Expenses Clerk within the Members
Expenses Section of the House of Lords Finance Department. I then worked within the Payroll Section from
H
February 2007 until September 2008, and currently work in the Refreshment Section.
I have been asked to describe my employment as a Members Expenses Clerk. The staff within the Members
Expenses Section comprised the supervisor, Maureen BUCK, and two clerks, Christine DALE and me.
My role was to check claim forms submitted by peers under the House of Lords Members Reimbursement
J Scheme to ensure they were accurate. Initially I was given on the job training for about a week, by Maureen
BUCK. There was no training manual as such, and I made notes on what Maureen said so I could refer to
them later if necessary.
The claim forms would arrive by post and Maureen would check to ensure the forms were correctly signed and
dated by the peers. She would then divide the claim forms and pass them to the two clerks to be processed.
K First of all I would check the claim dates on the form to ensure the peer had attended the House of Lords on
those particular days. This was done by making reference to the Peers Attendance database, which holds a
record of attendance at either a sitting of the House of Lords or a select committee. I would tick alongside each
date on the form once it had been confirmed and write the total number of days at the foot of the column. If
a particular date wasn’t on the database I would first ascertain that it didn’t relate to a Saturday, Sunday, a
L non-sitting day or recess when the House didn’t sit which would indicate an error by the peer. If it was a week
day, I would write a letter to the peer asking them to confirm that they attended on the day in question. The
form would not be processed further until a response was received either by letter or phone. I would make a
note of any telephone response. If they confirmed their attendance, the claim would be accepted and continue
to be processed. I cannot remember whether the Attendance database was updated to reflect the new
attendance date and if so who was responsible for doing it.
privileges and conduct: evidence 65

A
I would then add up the total claims for night subsistence putting a total at the foot of the column, having first
made sure the claim was for a night immediately before a sitting. I cannot remember now if they could claim
for a night after a sitting. I would check that the dates pertaining to travel claims on the form coincided with
the dates claimed for night subsistence. If they did not, or there was no date shown for the travel claim, I would
write to the peer asking for clarification and the claim form would remain on hold until it was resolved.
B
I cannot remember if I ever dealt with claims for night subsistence where travel costs were not also claimed.
In the case of travel costs I would check the particulars of each journey and if the journey was by car, the
mileage claimed, against the peers profile held on the database. This database showed where the peer lived and
the distance between their home and the House of Lords. I understood the address on the database to be the
one where the peer commuted from to the House of Lords. I would then check that the claim dates for travel C
costs related to when the peer attended the House of Lords and do the same for day subsistence and office
costs. I would then total the monies claimed for day subsistence, office costs and travel costs at the foot of
each column.
Some peers would claim Additional Office Costs on the same form, albeit a specific form existed for this
purpose. In these circumstances I would refer to a spreadsheet which showed a running total for the Additional
D
Office Costs claimed in the current year, which ran from 1 August to 31 July to ensure the maximum allowance
hadn’t been reached. I would then enter the figure in the “Addt Office” box at the foot of the form.
I cannot remember what action I took in relation to spouse travel claims.
The peer enters an address on the form described as “Main Place of Residence”; I cannot remember exactly
what this denotes but it probably refers to the address from which they travel to the House of Lords. I would E
check that the main place of residence recorded on the form matched the one shown on the AGRESSO system.
If it did not match, I would have brought it to the attention of Maureen, although I cannot remember if this
situation ever arose. However, if they had omitted to write their main place of residence on the form we would
still process the claim.
I would put the total claimed for travelling in the “Travelling Expenses” box having added the claims for F
different forms of travel.
I would add the totals for night subsistence, day subsistence and office costs and put the total in the “Travelling
Expenses” box and having done this, I would sign the “Checked” box.
After stamping each claim form with a unique number, I would put details on the AGRESSO computer
system. I remember entering the total numbers of night subsistence, day subsistence and office costs. Rates G
were already uploaded on AGRESSO and would automatically work out the total.
I and the other clerk would then swap our claim forms and check the name and amounts against the computer
print out, before signing the “Counter checked” box on the claim form as well as the print out.
Maureen would do a spot check on some of the claim forms and sign the box marked “EO Spot-Checked”.
H
At the conclusion she would set up a payment run which notified the Payments Section of the amounts that
had to be paid to the peers.
I am not sure why, but the claim forms went to David English in the Payments Section before being returned
to the clerks. We would then file them in numerical stamped order and they were retrievable should they be
required at a later date to answer a query.
J
Any correspondence that might be generated or received in relation to a claim form would be attached to it
before filing. For instance, this might include letters sent to a peer who had forgotten to add their name, or
sign or date a form or if there was a query over their attendance on a certain day or if dates of travel had not
been included.
I have been asked if I ever dealt with a claim form where I suspected the peer had deliberately made a false or K
misleading claim and I can say I did not. If that situation had arisen, I would have referred the matter to
Maureen and put the claim on hold.
I have been shown claim forms made by Lord Paul of Marylebone and contained within JPS/12 and asked to
comment on my involvement with those dated March 2006 to July 2006 when Lord Paul designated his main
place of residence as The Cottage, Bignell Park Hotel, Chesterton, Bicester, Oxon OX26 1UE. L
I can say first off that I have no recollection of ever having answered any enquiries from Lord Paul of
Marylebone or of having given him any advice.
The March 2006 claim form was checked by Maureen BUCK. It was not counter-checked or spot-checked
by anyone.
66 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
The April 2006 claim form was checked by me and Maureen BUCK has signed as counter-checking and spot-
checking.
The May 2006 claim form was checked by me and Maureen BUCK has signed as counter-checking and spot-
checking.
B The June 2006 claim form was checked by me and counter-checked by Christine DALE. Maureen BUCK is
shown as spot-checking. Some changes were made due to his attendance at a select committee visit on 23 June
and a non-sitting day on 30 June.
The July 2006 claim form was checked by me and counter-checked by Christine DALE.
I have also been shown committee visit expense claim forms in relation to Lord Paul of Marylebone contained
C within JPS/12 and asked to comment on my involvement with them.
The Peers’ Claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses form dated 09.05.06 for Lord Paul
attending a Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to Italy has been checked by me. The reverse of the
form entitled House of Lords Invoice Authorisation Form A does not show anybody entering the details on
the computer. It is possible that this wasn’t entered onto the system. If there was a problem I would probably
D take it to Maureen BUCK.
The Peers’ Claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses form dated 05.06.06 for Lord Paul
attending a Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to Italy has also been checked by me. I also added
a note at the side stating that Meg HAWKINS in the Committee Office has okayed the travel by phone at
3.10 pm on 21/6/06. The reverse of the form entitled House of Lords Invoice Authorisation Form A shows the
E computer entries being entered by me on 21/6/06 and Christine DALE checked them.
The House of Lords Committee Visits Claim for Reimbursement of Office and Overnight Accommodation
Costs Form ME6 for the Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to Italy, which is signed and dated by
Lord Paul on 09/05/06, has been checked by me and authorised by Maureen BUCK.
The Peers’ Claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses form dated 26.06.06 for Lord Paul
F attending a Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to York does not show any members expenses section
signatures on the front. The reverse of the form entitled House of Lords Invoice Authorisation Form A shows
me as having entered the details on the computer on 24/7/06. It would appear that I have filled in the
accounting period and period adjustments row. This is usually already done when we receive the form. Period
Adjustments refers to claims being made for a different month.
G The House of Lords Committee Visits Claim for Reimbursement of Office and Overnight Accommodation
Costs form ME6 for the Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to York, which is signed but not dated
by Lord Paul, has been checked by me but is not shown signed as authorised.
The Peers’ Claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses form dated 05.07.06 for Lord Paul
attending a Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to Reading does not show any members expenses
H section signatures on the front. The reverse of the form entitled House of Lords Invoice Authorisation Form
A shows me as having entered the details on the computer on 24/7/06. It would appear that I have filled in the
accounting period and period adjustment rows. There is no invoice number shown which would be needed to
be able to input it on the computer. I can only assume that the visit code was used instead.
The House of Lords Committee Visits Claim for Reimbursement of Office and Overnight Accommodation
J Costs form ME6 for the Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to Reading, which is signed and dated
11/7/06 by Lord Paul, has been checked by me but is not shown signed as authorised.
A file is kept of who is on which committee visit. As long as the form is signed by the clerk it is okay. I would
then input the figure onto the computer system. If it was not signed it would go to the clerk to be signed. If
there is a stamped number on the form that means it was paid.
K Office Costs claimed on an ME6 can be claimed for every day that the member is involved in the committee
meeting.
Accommodation Maintenance Allowance as claimed on the Form ME6 is only valid for nights that the
member spends away in a hotel.
As far as committee visit night subsistence is concerned, I can’t remember exactly what this covers but I
L remember that you have to check the dates to make sure they were entitled to it.
I never had any reason to suspect that the claims made by Lord Paul were deliberately misrepresented or
misleading or related to expenditure that had not been incurred by him. If I had at any time suspected this to
be the case, then I would not have processed the claim form and would have referred the matter to
Maureen BUCK.
privileges and conduct: evidence 67

A
Witness statement of Ms Christine Dale, sometime clerk in the House of Lords Finance Department,
dated 17 February 2010
Further to my statement dated 19 November 2009, I have been asked to consider and describe my involvement
in the validation of claim forms under the House of Lords Members’ Reimbursement Scheme for Lord Paul
of Marylebone [sic]. B
In May 2005 I started employment as a clerk within the House of Lords Finance Department Members’
Expenses Section. I retired on 11 June 2008 but do occasionally come back to assist when they are short staffed
and have worked 35 days since retiring.
When I first started, the Members Expenses Section comprised Maureen BUCK who was the supervisor and
one other clerk named Jason POWELL. C
I was given a copy of the General Guide to the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme. There was no training manual
as such, but I was given on the job training by Maureen over a period of weeks. However about three years ago
when a new computer system called AGRESSO was introduced, I do remember everyone within the Members
Expenses Section was asked to write down how they carried out their job and from this Maureen and Clare
produced a policy document based on best practice. D
The incoming post is opened by the secretary and stamped with the date. The peers’ claim forms go initially
to Maureen or Clare, who will deal with any enquiries which might accompany the claims. I play no part in
answering those enquiries.
Maureen or Clarke HOOK would then divide the claim forms and pass them to the two clerks.
Initially I would ensure that the claim form had the original signature of the peer although this was something E
Maureen or Clare would check before giving us the forms. In cases where it was missing it was sometimes
possible to work out who the form related to either from the handwriting or from the nearest town to the peer’s
home which is recorded on the Travel database. If the peer was identified, the form would be returned to them
for signing, if not it would be pinned to a board until such time as the originating peer contacted the office.
Next I would check the dates of claim correspond with the dates recorded on the Attendance database of when F
the peer attended a sitting or Committee Meeting at the House of Lords. I would place a tick alongside each
date on the form as it was confirmed. If a date didn’t correspond, I would put a cross against the date and
write a letter to the peer asking them to confirm their attendance on that day. The claim form would not be
progressed until a response was received either by phone or in writing. If a response was by phone, then I would
make a handwritten note on a copy of the letter sent out and this would be attached to the claim form. In a
case where the peer confirmed his attendance then I would send an email to the Journal office asking them to G
include this date on the database. The same procedure would be adopted if the situation arose again with the
peer on a future claim form. If it was the case they accepted making a mistake the day and the amount claimed
would be removed from the period of claim. I would add up the number of confirmed attendance days and
write the total at the bottom of the attendance column, and initial it.
I would then consider claims for night subsistence and ensure that they were only made for a night either H
immediately before or immediately after an attendance at a sitting at the House of Lords or a Select Committee
meeting. In cases where claims for night subsistence were accompanied by claims for travel, I would also check
to ensure that dates of travel were included with the claim and that they were not inconsistent with days on
which night subsistence was claimed. This was to ensure night subsistence wasn’t being claimed for a night
preceding a day in which travel was claimed for a journey to the House of Lords; and also that night J
subsistence wasn’t being claimed on a day in which a travel claim was being made for a journey from the House
of Lords to the peer’s main residence. I would also make sure each claim didn’t exceed the permitted
maximum.
I would then write the total number of days claimed at the bottom of the night subsistence column and add
the total sum claimed. If different amounts were claimed for night subsistence I would not total the number
K
of nights claimed, merely the total sum claimed. This was to prevent an error occurring later when the
information was inputted onto the AGRESSO database.
I would then check that day subsistence claims coincided with attendance at sittings or Select Committee
meetings at the House of Lords and did not exceed the daily maximum allowed. Again I would write the total
number of days claimed at the foot of the column if the maximum had been claimed on each occasion and add
the total claimed for this expense in the total box. I would then do the same for office costs. L
In relation to travel costs, these would be checked with reference to the Travel database, which shows the
nearest town to the peer’s main place of residence. If applicable it shows which train station and/or airport the
peer uses to make the journey from their home to the House of Lords, together with the distance if the journey
is made by car. The journeys claimed would be checked to ensure they coincided with the details recorded. In
68 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
the past, peers had to provide receipts for return journeys by rail, boat or air that exceeded £100 but more
recently this figure was reduced to £50. I would therefore check to see if a receipt was required and had been
attached. A failure to provide a receipt would result in me striking out this amount and I would add a note to
the payment slip advising the peer of the deduction.

B If car mileage was being claimed two different rates applied. The first 10,000 miles claimed in the year attracted
a rate of 40 pence per mile and above this the rate dropped to 25 pence per mile. I would refer to a spreadsheet
produced by the SUN computer database, which was later superseded by the AGRESSO database, which
showed the aggregated mileage claimed for the year. This allowed me to work out the correct mileage claim
rate. Having done this I would total the separate claims for rail/coach/air fares and car mileage and then put
a total in the boxes at the bottom of the columns on the right of the form. I would add the claims for night
C subsistence, day subsistence and office costs and put the total in the “Other Expenses“ box, and I would add
the sub-totals in the three travel columns and enter the total in the Travelling Expenses box.
A separate claim form exists for Spouse travel, but often peers would claim for this on the same form. I would
refer to the AGRESSO database to ensure the annual maximum limit hadn’t been exceeded before adding the
total claimed in the “Spouse’s Travel” box. On the SUN database system, we had an Excel spreadsheet for
D spouses’ travel.
Some peers were authorised to claim a predetermined annual limit to assist with extra costs incurred through
disability. The details are held on the Travel database, again to allow us to check limits are not exceeded. Once
satisfied the claim was in order, I would add the total to the “Disabled Extra” box.

E A separate form existed for peers to claim Additional Office Costs, but yet again peers would use the same
form to make this claim. They are allowed to claim up to 40 days per year at the office costs rate. Such a claim
would be checked against the AGRESSO report to make sure the limit had not been exceeded. Once I had
entered a total for additional office costs I would add together all of the totals at the bottom of the form, and
enter the grand total in the “Total amount” box.

F Before stamping each claim form with a unique reference number, I would enter the last date of claim on the
form in the box provided. I would then add my initials to the “checked” box.
The next stage would be to input information on the AGRESSO system. This would include the figure for
night subsistence, day subsistence, office costs, rail/air and car travel, Spouse’s Travel, Disabled costs, and
Additional Office costs. The AGRESSO system would then produce a final claim figure which I would check
G against my figure in the “Total Amount” box on the form.
When I had input all of the form, I would obtain an AGRESSO input report. I would then swap claim forms
with the other clerk and check that the final AGRESSO figure matched the Total Amount figure calculated
by the other clerk on their forms. I would also check that the AGRESSO report showed the correct peer was
due to receive payment. When the SUN system was in place, the procedure after swapping claim forms with
H the other clerk was different. We would actually repeat the entire validation process already completed by the
other clerk in order to double check the claims were correct.
Having checked the other clerk’s claim forms I would initial each form in the box provided to show it had been
counter-checked and they would do the same to mine.
The forms would then go to Maureen or Clare together with the AGRESSO print outs and she would then
J carry out spot checks before adding her initials to the “EO Spot-Check” box. She would then run the payment
report. After all of the claims had been posted for payment, the forms would be returned to one of the clerks
for filing in numerical order according to the stamp number. I am aware that there was a separate alphabetical
filing system for other correspondence with peers.
I have been asked to give my understanding of what I consider “Main Place of Residence” to mean. I have
K never seen a written definition but as far as I am concerned, it means where a peer lives. This address had to
be completed on the claim form and I cannot think of an example where a form was passed to me without one.
I have also been asked was action I would have taken had I suspected that a claim form submitted by a peer
contained a deliberately false or misleading claim. I can say that I never encountered such a situation, but had
I done so, I would not have processed the claim and would have referred the matter to Maureen or Clare.
L I have been shown claim forms in relation to Lord Paul of Marylebone contained within JPS/12 and asked to
comment on my involvement with those date March 2006 to July 2006 when Lord Paul designated his main
place of residence as The Cottage, Bignell Park Hotel, Chesterton, Bicester, Oxon OX26 1UE.
I can say first off that I have no recollection of ever having answered any enquiries from Lord Paul of
Marylebone or of having given him any advice.
privileges and conduct: evidence 69

A
The March 2006 claim form was checked by Maureen BUCK. It was not counter-checked or spot-checked
by anyone.
The April 2006 claim form was checked by Shanaaz ALI and Maureen BUCK has signed as counter-checking.
The May 2006 claim form was checked by Shanaaz ALI and Maureen BUCK has signed as counter-checking.
B
The June 2006 claim form was checked by Shanaaz ALI and I counter-checked. Maureen BUCK is shown as
spot-checking.
The July 2006 claim form was checked by Shanaaz ALI and I counter-checked.
When these forms were checked they were always done in red and always counter-checked in a different colour.
C
I have also been shown committee visit expense claim forms in relation to Lord Paul of Marylebone contained
within JPS/12 and asked to comment on my involvement with them.
The Peers’ Claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses form dated 09.05.06 for Lord Paul
attending a Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to Italy has been checked by Shanaaz ALI. The
reverse of the form entitled House of Lords Invoice Authorisation Form A does not show anybody entering D
the details on the computer.
The Peers’ Claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses form dated 05.06.06 for Lord Paul
attending a Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to Italy has been checked by Shanaaz ALI. The
reverse of the form entitled House of Lords Invoice Authorisation Form A shows the computer entries being
entered by Shanaaz ALI on 21/6/06 and I have checked them. E

The House of Lords Committee Visits Claim for Reimbursement of Office and Overnight Accommodation
Costs Form ME6 for the Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to Italy, which is signed and dated by
Lord Paul on 09/05/06, has been checked by Shanaaz ALI and authorised by Maureen BUCK.
The Peers’ Claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses form dated 26.06.06 for Lord Paul F
attending a Science and Technology Committee visit to York does not show any members expenses section
signatures on the front. The reverse of the form entitled House of Lords Invoice Authorisation Form A shows
Shanaaz ALI as having entered the details on the computer.
The House of Lords Committee Visits Claim for Reimbursement of Office and Overnight Accommodation
Costs Form ME6 for the Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to York, which is signed but not dated G
by Lord Paul, has been checked by Shanaaz ALI but not shown signed as authorised.
The Peers’ Claim for Travelling, Subsistence and Incidental Expenses form dated 05.07.06 for Lord Paul
attending a Science and Technology Sub Committee visit to Reading does not show any members expenses
section signatures on the front. The reverse of the form entitled House of Lords Invoice Authorisation Form
A shows Shanaaz ALI as having entered the details on the computer on 24/7/06. H
The House of Lords Committee Visits Claim for Reimbursement of Office and Overnight Accommodation
Costs Form ME6 for the Science and Technology Sub Committee to Reading, which is signed and dated
11/7/06 by Lord Paul, has been checked by Shanaaz ALI but not shown signed as authorised.
The committee visit claim forms are already signed by the committee office when we receive them. If they aren’t
signed we would send them back to the committee office. They cannot be accepted without a signature. As J
long as the form is signed as authorised by the committee office I would accept it as they are responsible for
what it allowed to be paid from their budget. If there were receipts attached I would always check them against
what has been authorised to ensure that they add up.
Whichever claim form is received by us first is the one that is paid, whether it is the committee visit budget or
the usual attendance budget. If a duplicate claim is then received it would be sent back stating it had already K
been claimed.
For the Form ME6 I would check to see if the dates are correct against a list that is produced of who is on
which committee visit. I would still check it even if it has been signed by the committee clerk.
Accommodation Maintenance Allowance as claimed on the Form ME6 is only valid for nights that the L
member spends away and they receive two-thirds of the full amount claimed under the normal attendance
budget. This comes from our budget.
As far as committee visit night subsistence is concerned, I can’t remember exactly what this covers but I think
it is for the day before and the day after a visit if a member cannot get home.
70 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
If I was unsure whether it was correct I would check it with Maureen Buck. If it was incorrect there would be
an explanatory note or remittance advice sent to the member.
I vaguely remember a rule coming in regarding weekends but can’t remember it exactly.
There were a few of Lord Paul’s claims that had to be altered but I think this was down to him not having read
B the guide book properly. It was sometimes the claim for night subsistence that had to be changed.

Witness statement of Mr Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance, House of Lords Finance Department,
undated
C Further to my earlier statement, I have been asked to provide details of payments made by the House of Lords
Finance Department to Lord PAUL of MARYLEBONE for expenses claimed under the Members’
Reimbursement Scheme covering the period from January 2005 to July 2006 inclusive.
Payments made prior to 1 April 2006 were processed via the SUN accounting system; post April 2006
payments were processed using the Agresso system. The information I will supply is taken from records held
D on computer. The information placed on the system was done so by persons employed within the Finance
Department and will have been added in the ordinary course of their work. I have no reason to suspect that
the information is incorrect for any reason or that the systems malfunctioned, resulting in the records being
distorted.
The process for making the payments to Members has been the same for both systems for the period January
E 2005 to July 2006. The Members Expenses Section check and process the expense claims and prepare them
for payment. Once authorised, either by the Members Expenses Supervisor or the Members Expenses Section
Manager, the pending claims stay on the system until payment is made by the Payments Section—this is the
final stage of the process which makes the physical payment to the Member. Payments may be made by the
issuing of a payable order, similar to a cheque, or a direct transfer into a nominated bank account. When the
Payments Section makes a payment to a peer it is on the understanding the Members Expenses Section has
F authorised the payment and it is therefore not within the remit of the Payments Section to validate or
approve claims.
In the course of making a payment to a peer, the Payments Section produces a payment remittance note which
is forwarded to the clerks who in turn will send it by post to the peer.

G Some of the listings are from the Agresso system and show:
In the column headed “Claim number” this shows the unique claim number that will have been put on each
claim form by the Members’ Expenses Section, followed by a computer generated automatic general payment
number. Sometimes the automatic general payment number will relate to more than one claim form number.
The “Date Rec’d” column refers to the date the claim form was received by the Finance Department. The
H “Trans type (T)” column shows the term “posting Expenses”. This simply means it relates to members’ expense
claims. Another term in this column is “Update GL with payments” which refers to the general ledger being
updated as part of accounting for the payments process. The column “Accounts period (T)” refers to the
relevant accounting period for the claim. The “Text” column gives a limited description of the expense. The
“Claim/trans date” is the last date for which a claim is made on the relevant claim form. The “Amount”
column shows figures in red and black which refer to a double entry book keeping system. The negative red
J figures are what is owed by the Finance Department in relation to a claim form(s). The black figure represents
the sum paid to the peer to balance out the red figures. The “Pay method” column refers to the method by
which the peer is paid and shows the term “IP” which means payment by bank transfer. The “Payment date”
column shows the date the payment is made to the peer.
A number of payments were paid via the SUN system. The listings relating to these are provided and contain
K similar information but in a different format. The “Account” column is a unique account number for each
peer. The “Period” column refers to the accounting period. The “Trans Date” column refers to the last date
of claim on a claim form. The “Jrnal No” and “Jrnal Line” columns refers to when the transaction was
inputted on the computer system as this is done in batches and relate to claims by a number of different peers.
The “Amount” column is the same as for the Agresso system. The “Jrnal Type” column refers to the type of
L input screen. The “Jrnal Srce” column shows the person who put the entry on the system and the term
“PAYMT” is generated when a payment batch is run. The “Treference” column shows the unique claim form
paginated reference number and another longer number in this column is automatically generated when a
payment is made to the peer. The “Description” column gives a brief account of the expense. The “Entry Date”
is the date the entry is put on the system. The “Entry Perd” refers to the period in which it was entered onto
the system. The “Posting Date” column refers to the date the entry was posted.
privileges and conduct: evidence 71

A
The bank account operated by the House of Lords Finance Department from which payments were made to
Lord PAUL of MARYLEBONE in relation to his expense claims under the Members Expenses Scheme is
as follows:

In relation to Lord PAUL of MARYLEBONE, I can confirm that during the relevant period all payments B
were made by bank transfer to: I produce
computer printouts detailing the payments made to Lord PAUL of MARYLEBONE as JPS/15 which cover
the period January 2005 to July 2006.
I can say that had the Payments Section been made aware by the Members Expenses Section or from any other
source that a claim made by a peer was false, then the payment would not have been made to that individual. C

Witness statement of Ms Yvonne Mabs Francis, Landlord, dated 22 December 2009


I am the above named person and I live at Bignell Cottage, Chesterton, Bicester, Oxfordshire OX26 1UE.
I am making this statement in connection with an investigation being conducted by the Metropolitan Police.
I have been asked to comment on my address Bignell Cottage. D
I live here with my partner Philip Jones and have lived here for 30 years. My son also lives here at the moment
and my daughter is staying here at the moment as well.
It is my family home and my old business Mabs Francis Ltd is also registered here. It is a family business with
no one else involved. Nobody else has lived here other than family members.
I own the house with a small mortgage and it is freehold. E

The Bignell Park Hotel shares the same postcode as us and my daughter worked there in the holidays when
she was a student. There is no other connection between this house and that hotel and we are far enough away
from it to have no connections.
We have never head of Lord Paul or received any mail for him. He has no connection to this house that I am
F
aware of.
We have received mail today for someone with a foreign sounding name who probably works or lives at the
hotel but never had anything for Lord Paul.
I would never use the line Bignell Park Hotel in my address as we are on completely the opposite side of the
road and some distance away. G
I can think of no reason why Lord Paul or anyone else would give this as their address and I have not given
my consent for this address to be used by anyone else.
I have previously given my address as Bignell Cottage, Bignell Park, Chesterton but stopped doing that some
time ago. Some old correspondence still arrives addressed that way occasionally, but I have never used Bignell
Park Hotel in my address as it is somewhere different altogether. H

L
72 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 73

A
Witness statement of Ms Prenusha Chetty, Hotel Manager, Bignell Park Hotel, dated 12 January 2010
I am the above named person and I am the manager of Bignell Park Hotel, Chesterton, Oxfordshire. I have
been the manager of the hotel since October 2008, prior to that I was the deputy manager and prior to that,
the assistant manager.
I first started working for the hotel on 19 May 2003 as the restaurant supervisor and have worked my way up B
since then.
When I started in May 2003 the manager was a man by the name of Mark Stevens. He left in January 2007
and moved to South Africa.
The next manager was a man by the name of Jean-Louis Jegard. He sadly passed away in October 2008 which C
led to me being promoted to hotel manager.
I have been asked about the period between January 2005 and July 2006.
At this time I would have been the assistant manager and deputy manager. Duting this time I was responsible
for conferences and weddings and also the restaurant. I didn’t have much to do with the front of house. I didn’t D
start becoming really involved in the reception area until I became manager.
The hotel itself has 22 rooms and the manager’s flat which has one bedroom, kitchen, lounge, bathroom and
passage. It is a self-contained flat and can be accessed via the hotel or outside door.
I currently live in the manager’s flat and have done since March 2008.
E
The previous manager, Jean-Louis did not live on site as he was also managing another hotel. Mark Stevens
lived in the flat when he was the manager.
There is no separate address for the flat; my mail just comes addressed to me at the hotel. I have been asked
if I have ever heard it referred to as “The Cottage”; I haven’t. It is just a ground floor flat with a single storey.
It is the only staff quarters on site. F
I have been asked if I know Lord Paul. I have only known hime since I came to work for the hotel in 2003. I
knew that he was the man that owned the hotel above the managing director. Sometimes he would eat in the
restaurant and I would speak to him. I never readily questioned whether he was staying here or had just come
to eat.
G
As I said, I didn’t have anything to do with the front of house as such but there is one occasion that I recall
taking tea to a bedroom and he was staying in that room. I can’t be sure exactly when it was but it was definitely
when Mark was here. I used to see Lord Paul here more often when Mark was here. I haven’t seen him much
in the past couple of years. I don’t know why that is as I don’t really get involved with anything like that.
I used to see him from time to time around the hotel if he was going to Blenheim Palace or for a board meeting. H
It would only be about six or seven times a year roughly and would only be for a day at a time. I’m not sure
how he would travel here because I didn’t really pay any attention.
The flat is not included in my contract and it is not stipulated that I must live there. I have never been told
that I would have to move out on short notice or anything like that.
If we are told that a manager is coming up we would make sure that there is a room for them to stay here even J
if it means moving a guest to a different hotel. After all it is the management and there are only 22 rooms.
I am not aware of Mark Stevens ever being told that he would have to move out on short notice.
I do not have access to the historical guest records to see if Lord Paul ever registered here as a guest. They are
kept on the server by our sister hotel The Osborne Hotel in Torquay. I will try to find out if there is a record K
of Lord Paul staying here as a guest.
I am not aware of Lord Paul ever having any mail delivered here or keeping any belongings here.

Police summary of exhibit provided by Prenusha Chetty, Hotel Manager, Bignell Park Hotel L
Prenusha Chetty provides an exhibit (PC-1) which is a list of guests who stayed at The Bignell Park Hotel
between 1 July 2005 and 31 June 2006. This document has been examined and Lord Paul was not recorded
during this period as staying at the hotel.
[Exhibit PC-1 not printed.]
74 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Letter from Mr Mark Sly, Subpoena Unit, Companies House to Detective Constable Kirsty de St-Denis,
Metropolitan Police Service, dated 12 January 2010
Dear Kirsty,

B CAPARO HOTELS LIMITED


Please find enclosed Witness Statement as requested.
For your information my date of birth is , and place of birth is .
I hope everything is to your satisfaction but should you have any problems please do not hesitate to contact
me. Please quote our reference as shown above if you have any query on this matter or in the event of a “further
C to” statement being required.
Your sincerely
Mark Sly
Subpoena Unit

D Witness statement of Mark Sly, Subpoena Unit, Companies House, dated 12 January 2010
I am employed in the office of the Registrar of Companies at Companies House, Crown Way, Cardiff. In
accordance with section 1080 of the Companies Act 2006 the Registrar has custody of statutory documents
relating to companies which are registered in England and Wales.
When documents are submitted to Companies House they are examined to ascertain whether they are
E acceptable for registration. Those that are acceptable are registered on the Registrar’s computer records,
scanned and their images are stored electronically. Documents which are registered are stored in the
Companies House archives by reference to the date upon which they were received.
Documents that are not acceptable are returned to their “presenter” (ie the individual or organisation
delivering the documents on the company’s behalf) or the company’s registered office, as appropriate.
F Documents which are returned to their presenter are not scanned but a record of the rejection is recorded on
the Registrar’s internal computer records.
The following information given in exhibits marked MS/1 and MS/2 has been extracted from the computer
database records held at Companies House. The persons registering the information from the documents
received would have no reason to update the records incorrectly. However, there is a remote possibility that
G the computer records may contain data capture errors.
I have examined the computer records kept by the Registrar relating to CAPARO HOTELS (previously
known as OSBORNE HOTEL (TORQUAY 1918) LIMITED and OSBORNE HOTEL TORQUAY
LIMITED), company number 149618. According to that record, it shows that it was incorporated on 14
February 1918.
H I produce the following exhibits relating to the above company:
I produce (marked MS/1) a computer printout listing “Company Details”.
I produce (marked MS/2) a computer printout detailing “Company Appointments”. This printout only shows
the appointments of those officers that were in situ from 24/06/1991 onwards which was the date the
appointments database was compiled. Therefore, it is not possible to give the exact appointment date for the
J officers who were appointed as at 24/06/1991.
I produce (marked MS/3) a true document image of the Certificate of Incorporation on Change of Name dated
1 August 2001 together with a Special Resolution passed on 26 July 2001 notifying of a change of company
name from Osborne Hotel Torquay Limited to Capara Hotels Limited.
The above exhibits, marked MS/1 and MS/2, were created on 12/10/2010 using data extracted from the
K computer database records held at Companies House.

Police summary of exhibits provided by Mr Mark Sly, Subpoena Unit, Companies House
MARK SLY from the Office of the Registrar of Companies at Companies House produces three exhibits in
relation to Lord Paul. MS-2 is a list of former and current directors and officers of CAPARO Hotels Ltd one
L of which is The Hon Ambar PAUL. This record shows that Lord Paul was appointed on 22/04/1997 as a
director and that appointment was current as of 12/01/2010.
[Exhibit MS-2 not printed.]
privileges and conduct: evidence 75

L
76 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 77

L
78 privileges and conduct: evidence

A
Witness statement of Mr Erling Sorenson, Hotelier, dated 15 February 2010
I am the above named person and I am currently the owner of Amberfold Hotel in Midhurst, West Sussex.
This statement refers to my ownership of the Bignell Park Hotel, in Chesterton, Oxfordshire.
I originally bought the Bignell Park Hotel in 1991 and it was called Wood’s Restaurant. It had some rooms
B but was really just a restaurant.
In 1995 we obtained planning permission to extend and had extra rooms built and an owners’ cottage. The
owners’ cottage was built in 1997 or 1999. It was a one storey cottage attached to the end of the building. It
could be accessed via the hotel corridor and had its own private lane and front door. It was an ideal set up for
owner occupiers.
C
It was a one-bedroom cottage. At one time we were thinking of building another extension onto the hotel but
didn’t get round to doing it in the end.
I lived in the cottage for about two years before we sold the hotel in 2001 to Caparo. The owner of the company
was Lord Paul and his family. I met his accounts team but I never met him. He had a manager who was going
to come in.
D
We physically left the hotel on 5 July 2001 and I have only been back on one occasion since then.
I have no idea who lived in the cottage after we left or what Lord Paul’s arrangements with the hotel were.
When we first bought Wood’s Restaurant it was one building. There were no other buildings attached.

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 79

L
80 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 81

L
82 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 83

L
84 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 85

L
86 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 87

L
88 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 89

L
90 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 91

L
92 privileges and conduct: evidence

L
privileges and conduct: evidence 93

You might also like