Lord Swraj Paul faces fresh allegations, for reportedly claiming over £40,000 in expenses for just showing up in the House of Lords. Lord Paul, the 84 year old founder and chairman of the Caparo Group and family, are ranked as Britain's 154th richest according to the Sunday Times Rich list and has an estimated family fortune of £740m ($928m). The Indian-born billionaire made his career as a businessman trading in steel.
Though the allegations have been brought forward by the Sunday Times, it has been clarified that none of the Peers have broken any rules with their claims, which they are entitled to make under the system created seven years ago after MPs' expenses scandal.
Lord Paul claimed £300 for 136 days of attendance between November 2015 and October 2016, earning £40,080 in the process but have allegedly made only three verbal contributions to debates and only voted on two pieces of legislation. He was introduced into the Lords in 1996 by former Conservative Prime Minister John Major. He rose up to become the deputy speaker of the House of Lords, but was suspended for four months in 2010 after it emerged he misclaimed £38,000 of expenses.
The Sunday Times revealed the figures are as part of a wider look into the House of Lords, which now has more than 800 members while facing continual allegations of cronyism and abuse.
In an editorial accompanying its investigation, while The Sunday Times has clarified that the Lords does some useful work and many peers are driven by a belief in public service. But, it has also indirectly highlighted the reputational damage it has suffered in recent years, especially exemplified by former Prime Minister David Cameron's parting shot, where he ensured some of his key supporters were bestowed with a peerage. A total of £19.1m was paid in expense claims to the Lords between November 2015 to October 2016 – the highest ever since its introduction.
Soon MPs and Peers will need to move out of the Houses of Parliament, so that the building can be brough to 21st century, with the required repair work.
Lord Paul told The Sunday Times his allowance claims were 'more than representative' of the work he had done in Parliament, but declined to elaborate further. There was no evidence of wrongdoing or illegality.
Speaking to Asian Voice, Lord Karan Bilimoria said, “The House of Lords' greatest strength is to provide expertise in different fields. For that, a Peer, travelling from outside London can claim £300/head (includes accomodation charge) and £150/day if you are from London.
“We are not paid any salary or allowance. The Peers participate in legislation, voting, being parts of the committee, all party parliamentary group
“For myself, I feel it's a privilege to be a part of the House of Lords and I love contributing as much as possible, and it is always much more than just speaking and voting.”
However, Baroness Shreela Flather told Asian Voice, “I have always felt that if somebody has not contributed to anything for say, 6 months but certainly for a year, they should be asked to retire.
“I have also suggested to the House of Lords enquiry about numbers that there should be an age limit. I have suggested 85 so that those people whose brains are still working can contribute.
“Finally, I have always believed that anybody who has cheated on their expenses like Lord Paul or Baroness Uddin should be made to retire from the House straight away as this gives a very bad impression to people outside.”
When Asian Voice contacted Lord Paul, we were directed towards Lord Paul's tweet about a column written by Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph. It said: “Yet again it is claimed, some peers are turning up at the House of Lords and collecting their £300-a-day allowance without doing any work. “Work” is here defined as speaking or asking question in the chamber, sitting on a committee session or voting. I remain defiantly unshocked by these revelations. First, the allowance sets no such conditions of “work”: it is simply for attending, so no one is necessarily cheating. If Peers are to be paid at all, surely it is much better and cheaper than they get allowances- which do not accure pensions and fringe benefits- than salaries. The allowances are payable only on days when the House sits. More important, has anyone tried to imaginbe how appalling the Lords would be if everyone present did speak, vote and sit on committees? Its business would be complete;y gummed up. Peers should speak only if they truly need to: far too many of them fail to observe this rule already...”
Lord Paul tweeted about Mr Moore's piece, tagging the author, said, “Thanks @CharlesHMoore for your opinion. You have said what the House of Lords is really about.”
