The Conduct of Baroness Uddin

HOUSE OF LORDS
Committee for Privileges and Conduct
6th Report of Session 2010–11
The Conduct of Baroness

Uddin
Ordered to be printed 18 October 2010
Published by the Authority of the House of Lords
London : The Stationery Office Limited

£24.50
HL Paper 39
2 6TH 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).
6TH RPT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 3
CONTENTS
Paragraph Page
The Conduct of Baroness Uddin 11
Introduction 1 11
Process 4 11
The Sub-Committee’s findings 9 12
Lady Uddin’s appeal 18 14
Procedural failures 21 14
Bias 22 14
Standard of proof 23 14
Lack of evidence in respect of Frinton 24 15
Evidence taken before the Committee for Privileges and
Conduct 25 15
Conduct of the Sub-Committee 26 15
The views of the Committee 28 15
The standard of proof 28 15
Procedural failures and bias 34 16
Findings of fact 41 18
Sanction 55 20
Redaction 61 21
Appendix: Report from the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct 23
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
Baroness Uddin’s Claim Forms

Table showing the pattern of Baroness Uddin’s claims for the reimbursement
of travel expenses between May 2005 and December 2009 24
Calendars representing the days on which Baroness Uddin claimed for the
reimbursement of travel 26
Finance Department summary of Baroness Uddin’s claims under the
member’s reimbursement scheme from April 2003 to March 2006 30
Baroness Uddin’s claim forms 30
Article from the Sunday Times Newspaper 3 May 2009
Labour peer Baroness Uddin claims £100,000 expenses on empty flat 44
Letter of Complaint
Letter from Angus Robertson MP to Mr Brendan, Registrar of Lords’
Interests, Dated 3 May 2009 45
Correspondence between Baroness Uddin, the House Authorities and the
Chairman of the Sub-Committee
Email from Baroness Uddin to Ms Clare Hook, House of Lords Finance
Department, dated 5 May 2009 46
Email from Ms Clare Hook, House of Lords Finance Department to
Baroness Uddin, dated 6 May 2009 46
Details expenses claims: attached to preceding email 47
Letter from Baroness Uddin to Mr Michael Pownall, Clerk of the
Parliaments dated 6 May 2009 53
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 8 May
2009 53
Letter to the Clerk of the Parliaments from Baroness Uddin 19 May 2009 54
Email from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk of the Parliaments dated 2 June
2009 54
Email from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 3 June
2009 54
2009 55
Email from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 16 June
2009 55
2009 55
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 19 June
2009 55
Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk of the Parliaments dated 26 June
2009 56
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 2
November 2009 56
Letter from Ms Maureen Buck, House of Lords Finance Department to

Baroness Uddin dated 11 February 2010 56
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 12 March 2010 56
Letter from Ms Maureen Buck, House of Lords Finance Department to
Baroness Uddin dated 22 March 2010 57
Finance Department filing note on Baroness Uddin’s change of address by
Ms Maureen Buck dated 22 March 2010 57
Letter from Mr Brendan Keith, Registrar of Lords’ Interests to Baroness
Uddin dated 22 March 2010 57
Letter from Baroness Uddin to Ms Maureen Buck, House of Lords Finance
Department dated 30 March 2010 59
Email from Baroness Uddin to the Registrar of Lords’ Interests dated 6 April
2010 59
Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Registrar of Lords’ Interest dated 6 April
2010: attached to preceding email 59
Email from Mr Andrew Mackersie, Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’
Interests to Baroness Uddin dated 6 April 2010 59
Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Registrar of Lords’ Interests dated 7 April
2010 60
Letter from the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests to Baroness
Uddin dated 8 April 2010 63
Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Registrar of Lords’ Interests dated 16
April 2010 63
Letter from the Clerk to Baroness Uddin dated 22 April 2010 64
Email from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk dated 14 April 2010 64
Attached to the preceding email: letter from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk 64
Email from the Clerk to Baroness Uddin dated 19 May 2010 65
Email from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk dated 20 May 2010 65
Attached to the preceding email: letter from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk
dated 20 May 2010 65
Email from the Clerk to Baroness Uddin dated 21 May 2010 66
Letter from Baroness Uddin to Baroness Manningham-Buller, Chairman of
the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct dated 14 July 2010 66
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 12 March 2010 68
Letter from Mr Jonathan Calvert and Ms Claire Newell of the Sunday
Times newspaper to the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct
dated 26 March 2010 68
Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Ms Claire Newell

and Mr Jonathan Calvert of the Sunday Times newspaper and Mr
Matthew Hollis, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone,
on Tuesday 28 April 2009 at Mr Hollis’ flat 70
and Mr Jonathan Calvert and Ms Yvonne Adams, a neighbour of
Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April 2009
outside Ms Adams’ flat 71
and Ms Angela Story, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in
Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April 2009 at Ms Storey’s flat 73
and Mr Jonathan Calvert and Mr Ian Allcock, a neighbour of Baroness
Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April 2009 outside the
block of flats 74
Transcript of a covert recording of a second interview between Ms Claire
Newell and Mr Jonathan Calvert and Mr Ian Allcock, a neighbour of
Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April 2009
outside the block of flats 75
and Mr Jonathan Calvert and a woman neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at
her flat in Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April 2009 outside the block of flats 79
and Mr Jonathan Calvert and Mr Ian Allcock, a neighbour of Baroness
Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday 29 April 2009 outside the
block of flats 79
and Mr Jonathan Calvert and Mr Joel Dunn, a neighbour of Baroness
Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday 29 April 2009 at Mr
Dunn’s flat 80
Newell and Mr Jonathan Calvert and Mr Matthew Hollis, a neighbour of
Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday 29 April 2009
outside the block of flats 80
Newell and Mr Jonathan Calvert and Ms Angela Story, a neighbour of
Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday 29 April 2009
at Ms Storey’s flat 81
Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone call between Ms Claire
Newell and Mr Stuart Brown, a former neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at
her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday 29 April 2009 83
Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone call between Mr Jonathan
Calvert and Ms Yvonne Adams, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her
flat in Maidstone, on Friday 1 May 2009 84
Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Mr Jonathan
Calvert and Mr Moshahidur Rahman, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s
at her flat in Maidstone, on Friday 1 May 2009 outside the block of flats 85
Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Mr Chris Pollard

of the Sunday Times newspaper and Mr Mark Ryan, a plumber in
Maidstone on Saturday 2 May 2009 outside the block of flats 86
Calvert and Baroness Uddin’s husband, Mr Komar Uddin on Friday 24
April 2009 88
Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Mr Kevin Dowling
of the Sunday Times newspaper and Mr Fozlu Miah, a neighbour of
Baroness Uddin’s in London, on Wednesday 29 April 2009 89
Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Mr Kevin Dowling
and Mr Rafique Uddin, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s in London, on
Wednesday 29 April 2009 at Mr Uddin’s home 92
and Mr Jonathan Calvert and Ms Toni Hayhow Khan, Baroness Uddin’s
sister-in-law: who currently occupies the flat Frinton which Baroness Uddin
designated as her main residence until August 2005, on Thursday 14
January 2010 93
and Mr Anthony Cooper, a possible neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s in
Frinton and an unidentified man, also a possible neighbour of Baroness
Uddin’s in Frinton, on Friday 15 January 2010 in Frinton 95
Newell and Mr Anthony Cooper, a possible neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s
in Frinton, on Friday 15 January 2010 at Mr Cooper’s home 97
Calvert and Mr Mahee Ferdoues Mahill (Mr Ferdoues) 98
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 102
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 102
Witness Statements taken by the Metropolitan Police Service 103
Witness statement of Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance, House of Lords
Finance Department dated 20 August 2009 103
Witness statement of Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance House of Lords
Finance Department dated 20 August 2009 103
Witness statement of Maureen Buck, Member Services Manager, House
of Lords Finance Department dated 20 October 2009 106
Witness statement of Maureen Buck, Member Services Manager, House
of Lords Finance Department dated 20 October 2009 109
Witness statement of Mark Sealey, Payments Clerk, House of Lords
Finance Department dated 12 November 2009 111
Witness statement of Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance House of Lords

Finance Department dated 19 November 2009 111
Witness statement of Christine Dale, sometime clerk in the House of Lords
Finance Department, dated 19 November 2009 113
Witness statement of Patricia Young, Members Expenses Section Clerk,
House of Lords Finance Department dated 19 November 2009 116
Witness statement of Shanaaz Ali, sometime clerk in the House of Lords
Finance Department, dated 19 November 2009 118
Witness statement of Mr Daniel Revell dated 2 July 2009 120
Witness statement of Ms Sarah Dunn dated 2 July 2009 120
Witness statement of Mr Matthew Hollis dated 2 July 2009 121
Witness statement of Ms Shelley Constable dated 2 July 2009 122
Witness statement of Mr Ian Allcock dated 2 July 2009 123
Witness statement of Ms Ann Manning dated 2 July 2009 124
Witness statement of Mr Mark Ryan dated 2 July 2009 124
Witness statement of Mr Daniel Revell dated 18 July 2009 127
Witness statement of Mrs Penny Revell dated 2 July 2009 127
Witness statement of Ms Yvonne Adams dated 18 July 2009 127
Witness statement of Mr Stuart Brown dated 4 August 2009 128
Witness statement of Ms Gemma Fox dated 6 August 2009 129
Witness statement of Ms Angela Storey undated 130
Witness statement of Ms Angela Storey undated 130
Witness statement of Ms Angela Storey dated 9 August 2009 131
Witness statement of Ms Angela Storey dated 18 November 2009 131
Police summary of a witness statement of a resident from The Chenies 131
Police summary of a witness statement of an employee of Countryside
Residential Lettings Ltd 131
Witness statement of Mr Howard Dellow, Watch Manager, Kent Fire
Brigade dated 10 August 2009 136
Witness statement of Detective Constable David Lonergan dated 3 July
2009 140
Witness statement of Detective Constable David Lonergan dated 18
August 2009 140
Witness statement of John Leach, Police Officer dated 16 June 2009 144
Witness statement of Detective Constable David Lonergan dated 9 July
2009 146
Witness statement of Mr Kevin Hammond, EDF Energy dated 22 July
2009 146
Witness statement of Ms Hazel Williams, South East Water dated 31
July 2009 148
Summarised witness statement of a journalist for the Sunday Times

newspaper 148
Witness statement of Detective Constable Roger Noakes dated 1 July
2009 149
Witness statement of Michael Bushell, Police Staff dated 1 July 2009 149
2009 150
Witness statement of Mr Anthony Gerard Jeyes, Revenues Manager,
Maidstone Borough Council dated 2 July 2009 150
Letter from Mrs Uddin to Maidstone Borough Council dated 19 June
2006: Exhibit AGJ/1 151
Witness statement of Mr David Tatoo, Council Tax and Income
Manager, Tower Hamlets dated 23 July 2009 153
Letter from Ms Penelope Gilham, Financial Crime Department, Royal
Bank of Scotland Group, to Detective Constable Kirsty de St-Denis dated
10 February 2010 153
Statement of Ms Penelope Gilham, Financial Crime Department, Royal
Bank of Scotland Group dated 10 February 2010 153
2009 154
Witness statement of Detective Sergeant Richard Ward dated 29 July
2009 154
Record of police interview with Baroness Uddin on 29 July 2009 155
Prepared statement of Baroness Uddin dated 29 July 2009 158
Witness statement of Detective Sergeant Richard Ward dated 1
November 2009 159
Record of police interview with Baroness Uddin on 7 September 2009 159
Prepared statement of Baroness Uddin dated 7 September 2009 162
Police summary of the witness statement of Police Constable Akhtar 163
Police summary of the witness statement of Police Constable Looker 163
Correspondence with Baroness Pitkeathley
Witness statement of Baroness Pitkeathley dated 6 October 2009 164
Oral evidence, Friday 25 June 2010 165
Photographs exhibited by Baroness Uddin 192
Letter from the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct to Baroness
Uddin dated 16 July 2010 197
Email Baroness Uddin to Mr Andrew Mackersie, the Clerk of the
Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct sent at 16.58 on 21 July 2010 198
Letter from the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct to Baroness
Uddin dated 21 July 2010 and sent by email at 00.09 am on 22 July 2010 198
Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on
Lords’ Conduct dated 23 July 2010 198
Letter from the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct to

Baroness Uddin dated 24 July 2010 202
Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on
Lords’ Conduct dated 26 July 2010 203
Evidence submitted to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct

Letter from Christopher Johnson, Clerk of the Committee for Privileges and
Conduct, to Baroness Uddin dated 21 September 2010 204
Letter from Baroness Uddin to Michael Pownall, dated 5 October 2010 205
Appeal by Baroness Uddin, dated 5 October 2010 205
Witness statement by Baroness McDonagh, dated 5 October 2010 215
Letter from Christopher Johnson to Baroness Uddin dated 5 October 2010 216
Letter from Baroness Manningham-Buller to the Chairman of Committees,
dated 11 October 2010 216
Oral evidence, Monday 11 October 2010 218
THE CONDUCT OF BARONESS UDDIN
Introduction
1. The Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct have investigated the conduct of
Baroness Uddin. The Sub-Committee’s report is printed as an Appendix to
this Report.
2. The Sub-Committee’s investigation into the conduct of Lady Uddin should
be read in parallel with its investigations in the conduct of Lord Bhatia and
Lord Paul. 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 Lady Uddin
appeared on 3 May 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. Following a
decision by the Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service
not to prosecute Lady Uddin, announced on 12 March 2010, the Clerk of
the Parliaments immediately 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
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”.
accordingly forwarded the report to the staff of this Committee in late

September, and a copy was at once sent to Lady Uddin, on 21 September.
She was at the same time notified of her right to appeal against the Sub-
Committee’s findings to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. She
submitted her appeal on 5 October, also indicating her 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 27 and 90–91 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 Committee 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
The Sub-Committee’s findings

9. The focus of the investigation has been Lady Uddin’s use of the Members’
Reimbursement Scheme since 3 May 2005 (in other words, exactly four
years before the complaint was received). The Sub-Committee has divided
this period into three periods:
x During the first period (3 May 2005 to 31 July 2005) Lady Uddin
designated a house in Frinton on Sea, Essex, as her main residence. The
house is owned by Lady Uddin’s brother and sister-in-law, who have lived
there since 1999.
x During the second period (lasting altogether from 1 August 2005 until 1
January 2010) Lady Uddin designated a flat in Maidstone, Kent, as her
main residence. The Sub-Committee has sub-divided this period into
further periods, up to and after 24 April 2009, the date on which Lady
Uddin became aware of the Sunday Times’ interest in her main residence.
x Since 1 January 2010 Lady Uddin has designated a property in Wapping,
London, as her main residence. This property, a three-bedroom house
rented from a housing association, has been Lady Uddin’s family home
since 1993, and there is no question that she is entitled to designate it as
her main residence.
10. According to Lady’s Uddin’s own account, she started using the Frinton
property as a “bolt-hole” in around 2000. She designated it as her “main
residence” in 2001, but continued to live in the family home during the
1 The conduct of Lord Clarke of Hampstead, Committee for Privileges, 4th Report, session 2009–10, HL Paper
112, paragraph 8.
week, spending most weekends in Frinton. She had her own room in the
house, and lived as part of the family.
11. The house in Frinton was owned and occupied by her brother and sister-in-
law; although it was available to her as a bolt-hole, her family home remained
in London. The Sub-Committee concluded that Lady Uddin did not have a
sufficient connection with the Frinton property to designate it as her main
residence.
12. In 2005 Lady Uddin bought the flat in Maidstone, and told the Sub-
Committee that her purpose in so doing was to acquire a bolt-hole of her
own. The Maidstone flat is the only property owned by Lady Uddin. Having
designated it as her main residence, she claimed night subsistence for time
spent away from Maidstone every week when the House was sitting; she
claimed the mileage allowance for journeys to and from Maidstone every
weekend when the House was sitting.
13. The Sub-Committee’s findings of fact in respect of the Maidstone flat, up to
24 April 2009, are set out in paragraphs 101-105 of its report. On the one
hand the Sub-Committee had Lady Uddin’s own evidence, given either in
writing or orally, along with the details of her claims. On the other hand, it
had transcripts of interviews covertly recorded by The Sunday Times, and
extensive evidence, including formal witness statements, collected in the
course of the police investigation. The Sub-Committee placed considerable
weight on these statements, made for the most part by neighbours of Lady
Uddin in Maidstone. Our conclusions on the status of these statements are
set out in paragraphs 34–40 below.
14. Lady Uddin told the Sub-Committee that she had stayed overnight in
Maidstone almost every weekend when the House was sitting. However, the
Sub-Committee pointed to several inconsistencies and contradictions within
her evidence at different times (paragraph 103). The Sub-Committee did not
itself examine the other witnesses, and acknowledged that it was unable to
form judgments as to their individual credibility. However, taking into
account the high level of consistency between the witness statements, and
between those statements and the interviews recorded by The Sunday Times,
the Sub-Committee decided that it could “rely on the essence of these
witness statements taken as a whole” (paragraph 104). These statements
“together prove, well beyond the balance of probabilities, that Lady Uddin in
this period did not stay at the Maidstone property for the minimum of one
weekend per month over the year when the House was sitting.” The Sub-
Committee concluded, on the basis of this finding, that Lady Uddin was
wrong to designate the Maidstone flat as her main residence.
15. On 24 April 2009 Lady Uddin became aware of the Sunday Times’ interest in
the Maidstone flat. From this point there is clear evidence of frequent visits
to the flat. However, taking the circumstances into account, the Sub-
Committee concluded that her presence in Maidstone increased “only in an
attempt to suggest that the property was and had been her main residence
since August 2005”. The Sub-Committee therefore found that,
notwithstanding the frequency of her visits, the flat still “did not acquire the
character of a main residence within any natural meaning of the words”.
16. The Sub-Committee then considered whether Lady Uddin acted in good
faith in making her designations and claims (paragraphs 113–117). For
reasons which are set out in more detail below, we consider these paragraphs
to be particularly crucial. The Sub-Committee concluded that the

interpretation advanced by Lady Uddin of the term “main residence” was
itself unreasonable; and moreover that her designation of both the Frinton
and Maidstone properties as “main residences” was “a deliberate
misrepresentation of her position even on the basis of her understanding of
the scheme”. Her travel claims, in the Sub-Committee’s view, were made
only “with the intention of adding verisimilitude to her designation of her
main residences”. In total, the Sub-Committee calculated that she wrongly
claimed £125,349.10 over the period in question.
17. In conclusion, the Sub-Committee recommended that Lady Uddin be
required to make a personal statement of apology to the House; and that she
be suspended from the service of the House for three years or until she has
repaid the sum of £125,349.10, whichever is the later (paragraph 123).
Lady Uddin’s appeal

18. Lady Uddin’s appeal, signed on her behalf by Thompsons Solicitors and
Gavin Millar QC, challenges the Sub-Committee’s interpretation of the facts
in detail. In particular the appeal analyses at length the interviews recorded
by The Sunday Times, and the witness statements made to the police, with a
view to demonstrating that the Sunday Times journalists asked leading or
slanted questions, encouraging biased and unreliable responses; and that the
witness statements contradict each other and also contradict the earlier
interviews with The Sunday Times.
19. The appeal also notes that the Sub-Committee did not bring forward any
clear evidence that Lady Uddin was not in the flat on any of the days when
she claimed to be there (such as evidence to show that she was in another
part of the country). To paraphrase this element within the appeal, the
evidence advanced to show that Lady Uddin did not go to the flat constitutes
an attempt to “prove a negative”.
20. The appeal sets out a number of other specific grounds of appeal. These may
be summarised as follows.
Procedural failures
21. Lady Uddin’s appeal says that the Sub-Committee acted unfairly, in
particular that it failed to comply with the requirement, in the 2001 Code of
Conduct, that Members under investigation be afforded procedural
safeguards as rigorous as those applied in the courts and disciplinary bodies.
For instance, the Sub-Committee failed to test the statements provided by
other witnesses, in the way that Lady Uddin’s evidence was tested in the
course of her meeting with the Sub-Committee.
Bias
22. The appeal says that the witnesses were biased against Lady Uddin, by the
initial questioning by the Sunday Times journalists and by the subsequent
publicity.
Standard of proof
23. The appeal also argues that the Sub-Committee should have applied the
criminal standard of proof to this case, on the basis that “in the public eye
the decision of the House will be tantamount to conviction for a criminal

offence”.
Lack of evidence in respect of Frinton

24. The appeal notes that the witness statements relate only to Lady Uddin’s
Maidstone property; the Sub-Committee’s reasoning on the Maidstone flat
“cannot be relied upon to draw adverse inference as to Lady Uddin’s
credibility in relation to [Frinton].” Even if Lady Uddin erred in designating
the property in Frinton as her main residence, she did so honestly, and on
the basis of advice from her Chief Whip. Lady Uddin’s appeal then addresses
the recommended sanction. It states that she does not have the means to
repay £125,349.10, and that in practice therefore the sanction will result in
indefinite suspension from the House. It is suggested that such a sanction is
“arbitrary”, given that the Sub-Committee “made no enquiry of Lady
Uddin’s means before recommending [it]”. The appeal also argues that “it is
… wrong in principle that the length of a suspension should depend upon the
Member’s means”.
Evidence taken before the Committee for Privileges and Conduct

25. Lady Uddin appeared before this Committee on 11 October 2010. A full
transcript of her evidence is printed in this volume (see p 218).
Conduct of the Sub-Committee

26. Although not part of her Appeal, Lady Uddin also submitted as evidence a
statement by Baroness McDonagh, who accompanied her when she gave
evidence to the Sub-Committee. Lady McDonagh alleges that the Sub-
Committee’s procedures in the course of the meeting were inadequate,
poorly explained or unfair (see pp 215F). The Sub-Committee had already
addressed these issues in general terms (paragraph 13 of the report), but in
order to be fair to the Sub-Committee we invited its Chairman, Baroness
Manningham-Buller, to respond to the specific allegations. Her letter to the
Chairman of Committees is printed at p 216G.
27. Lady McDonagh’s allegations were not presented to us as a ground of
appeal, and we have not been required to reach a formal decision on them.
The views of the Committee
The standard of proof

28. Lady Uddin’s appeal argues that the Sub-Committee should have applied
(and, by implication, this Committee should apply) the criminal standard of
proof (“beyond reasonable doubt”) to this case. Instead, the Sub-Committee
applied the test set out in the Report on procedure: “in order to find against
a Member, the Sub-Committee requires at least that the allegation is proved
on the balance of probabilities”. This Report, and the procedure it describes,
was agreed by the House on 18 December 2008.
29. The words “at least”, in the passage just quoted, indicate that there is an
element of flexibility inherent within this standard of proof. This was
confirmed in our Report on the conduct of Lords Moonie, Snape, Truscott
and Taylor of Blackburn:
11. The standard of proof we have adopted in deciding whether to

uphold or reject the Sub-Committee’s findings has been the same as that
applied by the Sub-Committee: in other words, while taking the civil
standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, as the appropriate
standard, we have, in the light of the seriousness of the allegations, taken
the view that particularly strong evidence should be required before we
may be satisfied that the allegations are proved.1
This Report was agreed by the House on 20 May 2009.
30. Finally, the Guide to the new Code of Conduct, which came into force at the
start of the present Parliament (and which will apply to any future
investigations), states:
119. The civil standard of proof is adopted at all stages in the
enforcement process, not only by the Commissioner, but by the Sub-
Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Committee for Privileges and
Conduct. Thus, in order to find against a Member, the Commissioner
will require at least that the allegation is proved on the balance of
probabilities. 2
This Report was agreed by the House on 16 March 2010.
31. In other words, the House has three times explicitly endorsed the principle
that the civil standard of proof should be adopted in such investigations,
while acknowledging that within the civil standard a substantial degree of
flexibility is allowed in judging the strength of evidence required to justify a
finding against a Member. This is entirely appropriate: these are internal
disciplinary proceedings, and the sanctions to which Members may be
subject (including suspension from the House for a period not exceeding the
lifetime of the current Parliament) are also internal in character. No criminal
liability follows from such a finding. Nor is there any read-across, in either
direction, between, for instance, our findings in this case and the conclusions
reached by the Director of Public Prosecutions (on which Lady Uddin seeks
to rely in paragraph 45 of her appeal).
32. Our approach to the question of the appropriate standard of proof is entirely
consistent with the approach taken in the courts. 3
33. We reiterate the principle that the standard of proof adopted in
investigations should be that set out in the Guide to the Code of
Conduct, namely that the allegation should be proved at least on the
balance of probabilities. We have therefore dismissed this element of
Lady Uddin’s appeal.
Procedural failures and bias

34. Lady Uddin alleges that the witnesses who made statements in the course of
the police investigation were biased against her, by the initial questioning by
1 The Conduct of Lord Moonie, Lord Snape, Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor of Blackburn, Committee for
Privileges, 2nd Report, session 2008–09 (HL Paper 88-I).
2 The Guide to the Code of Conduct, Committee for Privileges, 2nd Report, session 2009–10 (HL Paper 81).
3 See Lord Hoffmann in In re B (Children) (FC) [2008] UKHL 35. See also Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in
In re H (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563, 586D-H, and Lord Bingham of Cornhill
in B v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340.
the Sunday Times journalists and by the subsequent publicity. She also points
to some contradictions either within or between some of those statements.
She argues that the procedure adopted in her case was unfair, in that the
Sub-Committee failed to test the evidence provided by these witnesses, and
did not afford her an opportunity, either personally or through Counsel, to
do so.
35. The Report on procedure, following the 2001 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”. The new Code of Conduct
adopted in 2009, while it omits this provision, states that all those involved in
investigating allegations against Members “shall act in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and fairness”.
36. The Report on procedure also stated that “every effort is made to keep
proceedings informal”. This creates a tension, between, on the one hand, the
assurance of procedural safeguards to Members, and, on the other, the
House’s explicit endorsement of the principle that internal investigations
should not be treated as court proceedings, but should remain informal and
inquisitorial, rather than adversarial, in nature.
37. We consider that the Sub-Committee acted in the present case fully in
accordance with the procedures agreed by the House. However, as we have
noted, inherent in those procedures is a tension. In seeking to reconcile that
tension, we have concluded that, as a point of principle, it is not fair to draw
adverse conclusions as to a Member’s conduct, on the basis of hearsay
evidence that has not been tested.
38. In our Report of May 2009 1 we relied heavily on covert recordings of
conversations between undercover journalists and the four Members
concerned. In that case the four Members were judged on their own words:
however the recordings had been obtained, there was no doubt that they had
spoken the words recorded in the various transcripts. They had ample
opportunity to account for those words in the course of the investigation.
39. In the present case we have been presented with third-party statements. We
intend no reflection on the quality of those statements—we simply consider
that without testing the statements further it would be not be procedurally
fair to draw conclusions from them. We have therefore upheld this
element within Lady Uddin’s appeal, and have attached no weight to
the transcripts provided by The Sunday Times, and the witness
statements supplied by the police, in determining this case.
40. We recognise that the conclusion just reached raises serious questions as to
the process for future investigations. However, a new procedure is now in
place: there will be no more investigations under the 2001 Code. Under this
new procedure, the investigation is conducted by the Commissioner for
Standards, who presents findings of fact and his conclusions as to possible
breaches of the Code to the Sub-Committee. We recommend that, in
light of our conclusions on the present case, the Commissioner and
the Sub-Committee review the procedure agreed in March 2010, with
a view to establishing processes by means of which all relevant
1 2nd Report, session 2008–09 (HL Paper 88-I).

evidence may be taken into account, while ensuring fair treatment for
any Member accused of misconduct.
Findings of fact
41. Having attached no weight to the witness statements and other third-party
evidence, we must now consider Lady Uddin’s own evidence, oral and
written, along with her original claim forms. In so doing, we have paid
particular attention to the Sub-Committee’s analysis of her understanding of
the term “main residence” in paragraphs 113–117 of its report.
42. The key issue in this case is whether or not Lady Uddin’s designation of her
brother’s house in Frinton on Sea and, later, the flat in Maidstone as “main
residences”, was based on a tenable and genuinely held understanding of the
meaning of that term.
43. The underlying purpose of night subsistence payments was clear. They were
intended to enable Members who lived outside London, but who, in order to
attend sittings of the House, were required to stay within London (whether
by staying in temporary accommodation or by acquiring a permanent
residence), to recover some of the costs incurred in so doing:
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 ...
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.
44. These payments were not intended to enable Members who lived inside
London to acquire properties outside London and designate these as their
“main residences”, thereby establishing an entitlement to claim additional
money from the House, while continuing to live inside London. It is a
common element in the three cases we have been considering that in each
case the Members concerned had long-established London residences, in
which they spent the bulk of their time, before acquiring a “main residence”
outside London, in which they spent a much smaller portion of their time.
45. Lady Uddin told us that she came to this country from Bangladesh at the age
of 13, and that since that time her family has been settled in East London
(Appeal, Q 1). Her connection with East London is strong, and her family
home remains the house in Wapping, in which she has lived since 1993. In
evidence to the Sub-Committee, she acknowledged that she had been “based
in London over a long period of time”, and that, because of changing family
circumstances, she needed what she repeatedly described as a “bolt hole”
outside London. For a time she rented a flat in Windsor as a bolt hole; she
later stayed with her brother in Frinton on Sea; later still she acquired the
Maidstone flat. None of these actions affected the basic fact that her home,
her family and her social life were in London.
46. She told the Sub-Committee that she discussed her position with her Chief
Whip at the time (Lord Carter) and her mentor (Baroness Pitkeathley), and
that she acted “on their advice” (Q 222). She never sought the advice of the
Finance Department on the rules (Q 225). When asked whether she did not
have a responsibility to check her interpretation against the rules, she initially
accepted that she did, before again referring to the advice she said had been
given to her by colleagues. But Lord Carter is dead, and Lady Pitkeathley has
provided a statement, in which she says that “I certainly don’t remember
ever discussing with her the definition of ‘main residence’” (p 164E). It is
therefore impossible to substantiate Lady Uddin’s claim that she was advised
by colleagues to designate a property outside London as her “main
residence”.
47. Nevertheless, under detailed questioning by the Sub-Committee, Lady
Uddin consistently attributed her actions to the advice she was given (see
QQ 219–237). For instance, asked why the Maidstone flat was her “main
residence”, she replied: “Because that was my understanding. That was the
advice I had been given once I had described my circumstances and so I was
told that these are the rules as laid out” (Q 230). Throughout these
exchanges, Lady Uddin failed to advance, on her own behalf, any
justification for describing these properties as “main residences”. Ultimately,
her explanation was that she had “two homes” and “two lives” (Q 237);
however, this does not explain how, in balancing the demands of these “two
homes”, she came to designate one rather than the other as her “main
residence”.
48. It is telling that in the course of these exchanges Lady Uddin described the
Maidstone flat as her “main bolt hole” (Q 236). The term occurs throughout
her evidence and the Sub-Committee’s report. In presenting her appeal,
Lady Uddin put the following gloss upon it: “It was a place of sanctuary, a
place of home, a place where I felt safe—all those things ... I took it to be
important—a place of safety, a place that was critical to my survival.”
(Appeal, Q 6)
49. The Sub-Committee’s commentary on this point, reached in the context of
Lady Uddin’s designation of her brother’s house in Frinton, was as follows:
99. We accept that the Frinton property was of great value to her as a
“bolt hole”. Due however to her return on each occasion to her children
and husband in the week, we do not accept that the property ever
acquired the character of a main residence for the purpose of the
members’ reimbursement scheme.
50. We would go a step further. We do not consider that a “bolt hole”, as
described by Lady Uddin, could fall within any natural understanding of the
term “main residence”. A bolt hole is merely a place of escape.
51. We are aware of the minimum requirement on frequency of visits agreed by
the House Committee, and applied by the Clerk of the Parliaments in his
investigations, namely 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” (quoted at paragraph 87 of the Sub-
Committee report). But this requirement is not, and was never intended to
be, a definition of “main residence”. It is simply a minimum requirement,
intended to be incorporated “into [the Clerk of the Parliaments’] assessment
of cases where frequency of visit was an issue”. 1 Frequency of visits is not an
issue in a case such as the present, where no reasonable or defensible
understanding of the term “main residence” has been advanced.
1 House Committee minutes, quoted at paragraph 87 of the Sub-Committee’s report.

52. We therefore endorse the Sub-Committee’s finding that “The clear purpose
of the scheme is the recovery of expenses necessarily incurred in attending
the House when away from one’s ‘main residence’ on any natural meaning of
those words. Lady Uddin’s understanding of the scheme defeats its objective
and her understanding of ‘main residence’ is unreasonable” (paragraph 115).
She was therefore wrong to claim money from the House in respect of either
the Frinton or Maidstone properties.
53. We must consider also the Sub-Committee’s finding that in so doing, Lady
Uddin acted in bad faith. She says that she acted on advice, but admits that
at no stage did she seek the advice of the House authorities. Despite being
repeatedly asked about the term “main residence”, she has at no stage
demonstrated an understanding of the term falling within its natural
meaning. In the words of the Sub-Committee, “Lady Uddin’s understanding
of the scheme was that she could designate as her main residence anywhere
where she was staying at weekends if it could be considered her home. If one
had more than one residence, it was a question of election: ‘main’ had no
meaning.” While Lady Uddin told us of her bitter regret at any part she had
played in the damage done to the public perception of Parliament. She has
not acknowledged that she acted wrongly in making the claims, and has
offered only “a sincere and abject apology if I have in any way, without any
intention, by following what I thought was the right thing to do, broken the
House rules”.
54. We dismiss Lady Uddin’s appeal against the Sub-Committee’s
finding that she wrongly claimed £125,349.10 in night subsistence and
mileage allowance; instead, we endorse that finding. We further find
that Lady Uddin did not make her claims for night subsistence away
from the properties and for the mileage allowance in good faith.
Sanction
55. The Sub-Committee has recommended “that the House sanction Lady
Uddin by requiring her to make a personal statement of apology to the
House and thereafter suspending her from the service of the House for three
years or until she has repaid the amount wrongly claimed whichever is the
later.”
56. As a point of principle, and regardless of the circumstances of the present
case, we have decided that the length of suspension should not be
determined by reference to the time of repayment. Repayment is not a
sanction: it is an act of restitution, the returning of money wrongly claimed
and paid. The over-riding priority must be that this money should be
returned to the House, and thus to the public purse. Lady Uddin’s appeal
makes the point that she does not have the means to repay so large a sum.
We are not in a position to comment on her financial circumstances, but it is
clear that the sanction recommended by the Sub-Committee risks having the
effect of preventing her indefinitely from returning to the House. Not only is
there a danger that an “indefinite suspension” could exceed the powers of the
House, which are limited to suspension “for a defined period not longer than
the remainder of the current Parliament” 1, but there is also a possibility that
an indefinite suspension would result in the money never being recovered.
57. We endorse the finding that Lady Uddin has wrongly claimed, and
has received, the sum of £125,349.10, to which she was not entitled.
The recovery of this money is not a disciplinary matter, and so is not
a matter for this Committee. We therefore recommend that it is for
the Clerk of the Parliaments, as Accounting Officer, consulting the
House Committee as necessary, to consider what arrangements with
Lady Uddin may be necessary to secure repayment of this sum to the
House.
58. With regard to apology and suspension, we consider that the greater penalty,
suspension, renders the lesser, apology, unnecesary. Nor would it be fair, in a
case where the Member concerned has maintained his or her innocence of
any misconduct, to require an apology immediately prior to suspension. We
therefore confine our recommended sanction to suspension.
59. In considering the appropriate length of suspension in Lady Uddin’s case, we
have placed due weight on the Sub-Committee’s recommendation. We are
fully aware of the seriousness of the present case, in particular the lengthy
period over which claims were made wrongly and in bad faith. But we are
also aware that the only suspensions imposed by the House hitherto, in May
2009, were for the remainder of the 2009-10 session (just under six months,
of which over two months fell in recess). A suspension of three years is of a
different order, and much longer also than the suspensions recommended in
the other two cases we have considered with this one. We have also taken
into account the fact that the House has no power to suspend a Member for
longer than the remainder of the Parliament. Even in a five-year Parliament,
a suspension for three years could not be imposed after the first two years. In
other words, the imposition of a suspension of that duration would set a
“tariff” that, for most of a five-year Parliament, would exceed the maximum
duration of suspension available to the House. Thus, while fully
acknowledging the seriousness of this case, we do not consider a three-year
suspension appropriate.
60. We recommend that Baroness Uddin be suspended from the service
of the House until the end of the current session of Parliament. We
understand that the session is to continue until Easter 2012.
Redaction
61. The Sub-Committee reported that Lady Uddin has requested the redaction
of certain sensitive material in the report and evidence, in particular material
relating to her family circumstances. The Sub-Committee felt that this
material was essential to its analysis of the facts of the case, and therefore
rejected her request, while inviting us to consider the redaction of other
material, specifically that relating to her children.
62. We have decided to accede to Lady Uddin’s original request, on the basis
that these materials are of only tangential relevance to our main findings in
this case. We have also decided to redact certain personal address details,
1 The Powers of the House in respect of its Members, Committee for Privileges, First Report, session 2008–09
(HL Paper 87), paragraph 8.
both of Lady Uddin, and of her family and neighbours. All such redactions
are indicated by the blocking out of the relevant text.
APPENDIX: REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS’

CONDUCT
Members’ reimbursement scheme: the conduct of Baroness Uddin
Introduction and summary

1. This report responds to a letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments dated 12
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 Baroness Uddin’s use of the members’
reimbursement scheme.
2. We find that the facts of Lady Uddin’s occupation of her designated main
residences for the purpose of the members’ reimbursement scheme both in
Frinton and in Maidstone did not meet the criteria endorsed by the House
Committee on 26 January 2010 (p16E) 3. She wrongly claimed £125,349.10 and
should be required to repay this amount. We further find that Lady Uddin did not
make her claims for night subsistence away from the properties and for the mileage
allowance in good faith. We recommend that the House sanction Lady Uddin
by requiring her to make a personal statement of apology to the House and
thereafter suspending her from the service of the House for three years or
until she has repaid the amount wrongly claimed, whichever is the later.
The allegation, complaint and process of investigation
Allegation and complaint

3. On 3 May 2009, the Sunday Times newspaper alleged that Lady Uddin had
designated as her main residence a flat in Kent which neighbours said had been
unoccupied for years (p44):
“A Labour peer who lives in the East End of London has claimed about
£100,000 in parliamentary expenses on a flat in Kent that neighbours
say has been unoccupied for years ... Inquiries by The Sunday Times have
established that the Lady bought a two-bedroom flat in Maidstone in
2005 and has named it as her main home to claim almost £30,000 a
year in accommodation expenses from the House of Lords. Residents
from the five other flats in the same block as Uddin’s property all say
they have never seen her there. They could see through the windows
that the bedrooms were unfurnished.”
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.
4. Mr Angus Robertson MP complained about Lady Uddin’s alleged conduct on 3

May 2009 (p45).
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 this 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 Lady Uddin’s right of appeal 2.
Procedure in this investigation

6. On 5 May 2009, the Lord President (Lady Royall of Blaisdon) announced that
the Clerk of the Parliaments, as Accounting Officer, would carry out an initial
investigation into the allegations against Lady Uddin 3. Lady Uddin then met and
corresponded with the Clerk of the Parliaments in relation to his investigation.
The Metropolitan Police had meanwhile decided to investigate whether Lady
Uddin 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 Lady Uddin until the criminal process had concluded. On 12 March 2010 a
joint Crown Prosecution Service/Metropolitan Police Service panel decided not to
prosecute Lady Uddin and the Clerk of the Parliaments resumed his own
investigation; he immediately asked the Sub-Committee to “investigate and
determine the facts of the complaint” (p56J).
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 3 May 2005. We have not limited our investigation to the allegation
made by the Sunday Times newspaper but have instead generally investigated Lady
Uddin’s use of the members’ reimbursement scheme. We have focused on Lady
Uddin’s claims for night subsistence and travel. Lady Uddin’s claims for day
subsistence, office costs and Select Committee expenses are not at issue.
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, adopted on Monday 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 Lady Uddin told us that, in the light of the allegation, she referred herself for investigation (pp60C; 66D)
but there is no record of such a reference.
4 Report on procedure, paragraph 11 bullet 4.
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
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.
Procedural fairness
9. Lady Uddin, in correspondence with the Registrar, stressed her concern that the
investigation might be unfair (p60G):
“I am told that the enquiry into my affairs has been occasioned by an
article appearing in the Sunday Times. This does not seem to me to be
appropriate when others have had the opportunity simply to have their
explanations accepted by Mr Pownall. My case appears to have been
singled out for special treatment. I simply do not understand why that is
the case when I have satisfied the criteria set out above.
I am deeply concerned as to how the adjudication the committee is to
undertake can respect the principle of natural justice and the
requirements of a fair trial when there has been such extensive media
coverage, both of my own affairs and of the criteria applied by Mr
Pownall.
First, at the time of announcement of the cessation of the criminal
investigation into my affairs, Mr Pownall made unprecedented public
comment on the criteria he had set for the purpose of the House’s
internal investigations. He went on to add to the standards he had
previously published and remarked that his standards were not intended
to apply to the criminal investigation.
I ask how it can be appropriate for criteria to be determined as
investigations proceed and for the Officer responsible then to comment
on their application in the media.
Secondly, it seems to me that wide spread media coverage has involved a
public debate of the merits of my expenses and allowances claim. That
cannot be fair.”
10. She continues in her statement (p62K):
25. Whilst respecting the absolute authority of the House and its procedures I
have failed to understand why some explanations made by some members in
respect of their allowances have been accepted by the Clerk of the Parliaments,
Mr Pownall, in February 2010 whilst claims made by myself have been the
subject of such intense scrutiny.
11. She further complains that she was given insufficient opportunity to consult
her friend during the oral evidence session; and that the deadlines we set for her
thereafter were too tight (pp201L; 198L; 201E).
12. Lady Uddin has been referred to this Sub-Committee when others were not
because her case was investigated by the police but the others were not. The Clerk
of the Parliaments considered that any case investigated by the police fell into the
“complex or serious” category and so required the Sub-Committee’s assistance 1.

In endorsing the Clerk of the Parliaments’ approach to certain cases, the House
Committee “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” (p16K).
13. We have been careful to follow the requirements of the report on procedure,
especially in relation to procedural safeguards. We have taken no account of media
coverage of Lady Uddin save that the allegation about her use of the members’
reimbursement scheme was made in the initial article. We consider the question of
precedent and the decided cases at paragraphs 87-92. In our opinion, the
process in this case has been fair and appropriate. Lady Uddin’s concerns
about the conduct of the evidence session and subsequent timetable are for
the Committee for Privileges and Conduct to consider on any appeal.
Evidence
14. The Sub-Committee had as written evidence the amounts claimed by Lady
Uddin since April 2001 (p47A) and her claim forms since March 2006 2 (pp31-
43); correspondence between the House authorities and Lady Uddin (p46-67); a
letter from the Sunday Times and transcripts of most 3 of the telephone
conversations and interviews on which their article was based (pp68F-101); and
witness statements taken by the Metropolitan Police Service in the course of their
investigation of Lady Uddin (pp103-63). 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 Lady Uddin. We
took oral evidence in private from Lady Uddin, 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.”
1 Report from the Committee for Privileges on the procedure for considering complaints against Members
(4th Report 2007-08 HL Paper 205) paragraph 11; see also paragraph 5 of this report.
2 The amounts paid to all members each financial year under each head of the members’ reimbursement
scheme since April 2001 are published on the Parliament website. The House of Lords Finance
Department has retained the amounts paid each month to members under each head since April 2003 and
has retained claim forms since 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 Sub-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. We did not receive the recording of one interview:
the printed transcript of that interview is marked as unverified. A journalist also appears to have
interviewed Lady Uddin at least once by telephone (Q37) but we were not provided with any record of any
such conversation.
4 Report on procedure, paragraph 25.
15. Lady Uddin brought Lady McDonagh with her to the evidence session.
16. 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.
Redaction
17. The police rightly redacted certain personal information in the witness
statements which they provided to the Sub-Committee, including addresses. We
have printed the statements as received, without adapting them into House style
(pp103-63). Using the contents of the statements, the material provided by the
Sunday Times and publically available information including the electoral roll, we
have recreated the addresses of those of Lady Uddin’s neighbours who gave
statements. We have used the addresses in this report and in the contents page of
the evidence volume. We have done so because knowledge of each witness’s
address is important to attributing credibility and weight to each statement.
18. Lady Uddin asked us to redact certain details in this report and the evidence
(p202A). We have not done so because we consider it important to submit a
complete account to the Clerk of the Parliaments and Committee for Privileges
and Conduct. The Committee for Privileges and Conduct, when considering in
what form to report to the House, may wish to consider whether to redact
information about Lady Uddin’s children.
The facts
19. The report on procedure says1:
“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.
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.”
20. To fulfil these paragraphs, we showed Lady Uddin a draft of our account of
the facts set out in paragraphs 21 to 85. She challenged a number of points in our
draft. We have taken account of some but not all of her points in the version below
and, as required, we draw attention to the memoranda by Lady Uddin
printed at pp198J and 203C.
21. The facts of the case are as follows.
1 Report on procedure, paragraphs 26 to 28.

The members’ reimbursement scheme

22. 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

23. 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.”
24. 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.
(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.”
25. It is clear from the resolutions that the purpose of the scheme is the
recovery of expenses necessarily incurred in attending the House.
26. 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
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.”
27. 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.
28. The claim form used until October 2008 read (p31):
“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)) ...
(d) Travelling Expenses (please ensure all travel dates are entered) (see
note (v))”
Thereafter paragraph (d) read (p35F):
“(d) Travelling Expenses see note (v)”
29. At the bottom of the form, the claimant has to print his name, sign, date the
claim and enter his main place of residence.
30. 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
1 Until April 2009, the guide was entitled “Members’ reimbursement allowance scheme general guide”.
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.”
31. 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)).”
32. 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).”.
33. 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.
Lady Uddin’s designated main residences, claims and circumstances
Lady Uddin’s designated main residences

34. Lady Uddin successively designated three main residences in the period from 3
May 2005 to the end of the last Parliament on 12 April 2010. Until 1 August 2005
it was XXXXXXXXX, Frinton on Sea, Essex CO13 XXX. From 1 August 2005
to 1 January 2010 it was 3 The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone, Kent ME15
6EE. In this report, we divide this period at Maidstone into two: before and after
24 April 2009, the date on which Lady Uddin became aware of the Sunday Times’
interest in her main residence (p88L; Q32). On 1 January 2010 Lady Uddin
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.
designated XXXXXXXX, Wapping, London, E1W XXX as her main residence

(Q28).
Period 1: Frinton: 3 May 2005 to 31 July 2005
Facts relating to the Frinton property: circumstances

35. Lady Uddin became a member of the House in 1998. On an unknown 1 date in
2001, she designated XXXXXXXX, Frinton on Sea, Essex CO13 XXX as her
main residence. The property is a large house which used to be a care home
(p96H; Q228). Lady Uddin’s brother and sister-in-law own the property and have
lived there since 1999 (p94A; Q20).
36. The House of Lords Finance Department has retained the amounts claimed
each month by members under each head since 2003 but has only retained claim
forms from March 2006; members’ earlier claim forms have been disposed of in
accordance with the department’s disposal policy. From the data held, it appears
that Lady Uddin claimed night subsistence, day subsistence, office costs and the
mileage allowance for weekly journeys by car from and to Frinton almost every
weekend when the House was sitting for the period May to July 2005 (p24E). This
pattern of claim is true for the period back to the start of retained records in 2003
and appears also to be true of the period back to the point of designation in 2001
(p47A; QQ289-90).
37. Lady Uddin has XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. By the year
2000 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX she required
a “bolt hole” for breathing space XXXXXXXX (p163D; p61K). She initially
rented a one bedroom flat in Windsor for this purpose but could not afford the
rent. So she began to use her brother’s home as a bolt hole (p61K; p163D). She
decided to continue living in the marital home with her children in the week
(QQ219; Q267). She had two separate lives: one family, one to herself (Q237).
The stress in Lady Uddin’s personal life was confirmed by her peer mentor (Lady
Pitkeathley) (p164F) and we have taken these circumstances on trust.
38. In oral evidence, Lady Uddin told us that her brother invited her to stay in his
house (Q289), he was happy for her to say there (Q219) and that she lived as part
of their family (Q275). She had an allocated room (Q269) in which she kept
clothes and papers (QQ271-2).
39. The police did not investigate this period but the Sunday Times interviewed
Lady Uddin’s sister-in-law, who has lived at the property since 1999. She could
not recollect Lady Uddin ever having lived at the property (p93H). Lady Uddin
said that her sister-in-law had been “terrified” by the journalist and was simply
trying to make him go away (Q267).
1 The relevant record has been disposed of in accordance with the Finance Department’s disposal policy.
Facts relating to the Frinton property: travel and frequency of visit

40. From the data held, it appears that Lady Uddin claimed the mileage allowance
for weekly journeys by car from and to Frinton every weekend when the House
was sitting for the period May to July 2005 (p24E).
41. In oral evidence, Lady Uddin told us that she had stayed at the property most
weekends (QQ261; 290) but lived in her London residence with her children in
the week (QQ262-5). She and her family spent a large part of the summer recess
of 2009 in Frinton (Q228).
Period 2: Maidstone before Lady Uddin became aware of the Sunday Times’ interest: 1
August 2005 to 24 April 2009
Facts relating to the Maidstone property: circumstances

42. In 2005, Lady Uddin decided to acquire a property in her own right. She
bought No 3 The Chenies as a newly-built flat and this is the only property which
she owns herself (p61K; p163F). (In London, she, her younger children and
husband live in a house rented by her husband under a housing association
tenancy.) She has paid full council tax on the property since 1 August 2005, the
date on which the property both was first occupied for the purpose of council tax
(p150G; p151A) and was designated as her main residence (p30L). She claimed
night subsistence away from Maidstone every week when the House was sitting
and claimed the mileage allowance for weekly journeys by car from and to
Maidstone every weekend when the House was sitting, with a few exceptions
(paragraph 56 below).
43. In oral evidence, Lady Uddin told us that her purpose in acquiring the
Maidstone property was to have a place of her own (Q310) as a “bolt hole”
(Q220) in the light of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (paragraph 37 above). It provided
her with her own space (Q101) as a sanctuary (Q85). Her husband was either
unaware of the property (p88L) or, in Lady Uddin’s explanation, he knew about
the flat but was clear that it was not in any way his (Q42). When invited to
comment on the transcript of the oral evidence session, Lady Uddin said that she
had an agreement with her husband that she would stay at Maidstone for one or
two nights a week for a break, to prepare for the week ahead and to concentrate on
XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Q96).
Description of The Chenies

44. The Chenies is a cul de sac to the east of a road called Chancery Lane in
Maidstone, Kent. The only building on The Chenies is a terraced row of new-
build flats on the north side of the road. The road has both bays for residents’
parking and space for others to park on the street. There is a map of Chancery
Lane and its locality at (p145) and pictures of 1-6 The Chenies at (pp141-3;
p192E-194E). A single front door and staircase serves six flats; two on each floor.
1-6 The Chenies is the first entrance having turned into the road from Chancery
Lane.
45. The police took statements from twelve of Lady Uddin’s current or former
neighbours (pp120-31). We have noted earlier that the witness statements were
redacted but it appears to us that the occupation of 1-6 The Chenies was as
follows:
First floor on
X - Matthew Hollis street side; second X - Sarah Dunn
floor on rear side
Entrance. Ground
floor on street
3 - Lady Uddin X - Yvonne Adams
side; first floor on
rear side
Lower ground
X - Shelley Constable;
floor on street
previously Gemma Fox; X - Angela Storey
side; ground floor
previously Stuart Brown
on rear side
46. No 3 is the entrance level flat on the left hand (west) side; it has a
kitchen/living room, two bedrooms, a bathroom and a balcony overlooking a
nature reserve (p126; QQ54-9). The other flats are similar if not identical (QQ62;
152).
Description of Lady Uddin’s flat

47. Lady Uddin told us that her flat had been furnished throughout: it had always
had furniture, curtains and lampshades (QQ 64-76; 152), some due to it having
been the show flat 1 (Q152), but it had been basically furnished in accordance with
her lifestyle (Q205; Q216; 219). There was no bed in the second bedroom because
she used it to pray and meditate, though some clothes and belongings were stored
there (Q205). There were toiletries in the bathroom (Q199). She asserted that
there was nothing wrong in sleeping on the floor on a mattress (Q216) though it
strikes us that she would not have needed to do so since she told us that the flat
had always had one bed and a sofa bed (QQ 73; 65; 206). She later told us that
she slept in the bed in the main bedroom (p200J). She did not use the balcony of
the flat, but opened its doors in good weather (Q78-9).
48. The reason for setting out Lady Uddin’s description of the flat in some detail
is because her neighbours and others, both in interviews with journalists and in
formal statements to the police, individually state that the flat was unfurnished
until the weekend of 25-26 April 2009.
49. We quote four of the statements. Ms Yvonne Adams, who lives across the
staircase from Lady Uddin’s flat, says (p128E):
“Since the very beginning there have been white sheets at the two front
windows of flat 3. All the other flats have lattice blinds or curtains so
white sheets look tacky. On one occasion one of the sheets partly fell
down. There was a ceiling light on. There was no lampshade, just a bare
bulb. It was night time and it illuminated the whole flat. All the internal
doors were wide open. I could see right into flat 3 and there was
absolutely no furniture.”
1 Ms Yvonne Adams, who lives across the staircase from Lady Uddin’s flat, also claims to have bought the
show flat (p127J).
50. Mr Stuart Brown, who lived below Lady Uddin’s flat from 1 April 2006 to 9
April 2009, says in relation to investigating a water leak and alarm on 4 June 2007
(p129C):
“I looked through the letterbox at number 3. There must have been a
light on because I could see damp on the carpet. I could see the hall and
part of the living area which contained the kitchen. It reminded me of
when we first moved into our flat; there were no personal items there at
all. The carpets in all the flats were light in colour. We had put a rug
down in our flat to prevent any mud from spreading. There was no rug
in flat 3 and nothing like a glass or mug or anything to suggest the flat
was occupied.”
51. Mr Ian Allcock, who lives further down The Chenies, says (p123H):
“Since I have lived at The Chenies, I have seen all the flats occupied
apart from flat 3 which up to fairly recently has always been empty. The
reason why I can be certain about the property being unoccupied was
the fact that there were no curtains at the window and you could see in.
About a year ago, I was going to work at my usual time when I was
surprised to see a light on in the flat, before that it had always been dark,
this allowed me to see into the right hand bedroom which was
apparently devoid of furniture. This light stayed on for months and I can
remember saying to my wife “I wouldn’t want to pay their electric bill”.
I assumed that someone had been shown around the flat and the agent
had failed to turn off the light.
Another reason why I believe the flat was unoccupied was I have never
seen any of the windows or patio doors open, even in the hottest
weather.”
52. On Saturday 25 April, Mr Mark Ryan, a plumber and builder, went to
Chancery Lane in his marked commercial van, to quote for a job coincidentally for
the brother of a friend of Lady Uddin’s (a Mr Moshahidur Rahman: p124L;
p86D; Q192). He was approached by “an Indian guy” who said “my boiler’s not
working, can you have a look”. He agreed to do so and went into No 3 The
Chenies where he saw a woman he later recognised to be Lady Uddin. His
statement continues (p125B):
“We went into the kitchen/diner/sitting room (all one room). There was
a breakfast bar and the boiler was to the left. I had a look at the boiler
and filled it up with water to increase the pressure. The room was not
lived in. I remember seeing a cupboard under the boiler and there being
nothing in it. It is unusual because I could get access straight to the
pipes, no pots or pans or cleaning stuff. I ran the taps. I can’t remember
the details of what was in the kitchen, but it definitely wasn’t a place
where you would stay at the weekend. The whole place looked like the
rent hadn’t been paid for six months and the tenant had done a runner.
I then bled the radiators. I went into the bathroom, there were no towels
and no shower gel or shampoo or anything like that. It definitely wasn’t
clean but it wasn’t dirty, it just wasn’t lived in.
There was a bedroom at the back of the flat. It had a mattress on the
floor but with no sheets or pillows, again it was not a lived in room.
There was also a clothes rack for drying clothes, I think I had to move it
to get access to the radiator, there were no clothes on it.
I then went into the second bedroom. The room was empty apart from
some clothes that were slung on the floor. There may have been some
built in cupboards but there was no other furniture, there was certainly
no bed in it. I was only in the flat for at most ten minutes.”
53. Mr Ryan drew an accurate sketch of the flat as an exhibit to his statement to
the police (p126; QQ54-7).
54. Lady Uddin did not accept that the flat was unfurnished (Q142) and invited
us to take no account of these statements on four different grounds. First, that it is
not possible to see into her flat from the street (QQ152-6) and that Mr Ryan, the
only witness to have been inside the flat, had in fact only been in the hall and
kitchen and not in the other rooms (QQ192-3; 198-9; 206). Secondly, that each
witness was biased against her due to having been asked leading questions by
journalists and by having seen the adverse publicity she had received in the press
(QQ150; 157; 200; 201; 212; pp200L; 203F). Thirdly, that the witnesses used
loose language in their statements (Q200). Last, that her neighbours were wrongly
comparing the basic (but appropriate to her lifestyle and pattern of weekend
occupation) furnishing of her flat to their flats occupied full-time as homes
(Q216).
55. The neighbours and plumber had earlier made similar, consistent observations
to the journalists from the Sunday Times before the newspaper had published their
article of 3 May 2010 which alleged that Lady Uddin had not lived in the
Maidstone property. Transcripts of those interviews are at (pp70-101). Lady
Uddin invited us to take no account of these statements on the ground that the
journalists’ questions had been leading (pp 200L; 203F).
Usage and frequency of occupation

56. Lady Uddin claimed the mileage allowance for weekly journeys by car from
and to Maidstone every weekend when the House was sitting, with the exception
of 18 November 2006; 3 March 2007; 3 November 2007; and 6 and 13 December
2008 (pp26-9). The claimed days of travel to Maidstone are usually Friday or
Saturday; the return to London is usually on Sunday. For the three months April
to June 2008 she recorded on her claim forms journeys from and to the property
every weekend but did not claim the mileage allowance 1. When the Finance
Department queried this, she told them that she had been given a lift (p38D).
57. Lady Uddin told us that she had indeed stayed overnight at Maidstone every
weekend when the House was sitting (QQ49; 45). She usually went on her own
but was often accompanied by the son XXXXXXXXXX, who would also stay
overnight (QQ98; 124). Her youngest son (a child) might have stayed once or
twice, she was uncertain (QQ96-100); but she was clear that she ensured that her
lifestyle did not affect her children (Q101). She would shop for necessities at a
petrol station or at Bluewater or Lakeside shopping centre on her way to
Maidstone rather than shop in Maidstone (Q114). She showers two or three times
a day and tended to shower in London at the end of the day, before travelling to
Maidstone (Q116-22) but also used the shower at Maidstone (Q120). She spent
her time reading or listening to the radio, keeping herself to herself (QQ105-6;
144). She cooked in the kitchen (Q90). The time she spent at Maidstone was
1 The same is true of the journeys on 15 and 22 July 2007 and certain of those made in March, April,
October and November 2009.
often at unsocial hours (p62B), arriving late on Friday night or Saturday morning
and leaving early on Saturday or Sunday morning (Q144). In the course of the
weekend she might visit her brother or mother and might return to London in the
day to be with her children (Q108). She did not develop friendships or have much
contact with her neighbours in either London or Maidstone because her family
and other friends were sufficient (QQ107; 161; 112). She had however visited Ms
Yvonne Adams’ flat (Q152), been seen by Ms Adams every 6 weeks when with a
group of people (Q144) and Mr Matthew Hollis had visited her flat in relation to
water leaks (Q158). These events are not referred to in either of those neighbours’
statements, though Ms Adams may have so seen Lady Uddin (p128A) and the
inference can be drawn that Mr Hollis’s former girlfriend (but not him) may have
met Lady Uddin (p70K). Letters from the managing agent were forwarded to her
London residence (Q288) on her instruction (p131H).
58. Lady Uddin told us that she continued to use the flat in the recess though was
less precise in her answers (QQ81-89). Distilling her answers on the use she made
of the flat in the recess, she used it once a week at weekends, returning to London
for the week. She and her family spent a large part of the summer recess of 2009 at
her brother’s home in Frinton (Q228).
59. We rehearse this account in some detail because her neighbours state, in
contrast, that the flat was unoccupied until the weekend of 25-26 April 2009. One
neighbour recalls the flat being occupied for a period: Mr Daniel Revell, who lives
further down The Chenies, says (p127B):
“I did not see anyone who lived at number 3 but I did see someone in
the flat. I would qualify this by saying that I could see lights on and even
the lights of a television being watched. All of the above incidents
happened in the first few months of us moving into the flat, which was in
December 2005. I cannot recall exactly when the net curtains came
down but it was about 2 years ago [statement made 18 July 2009]. From
that point the flat has stood empty and you could see a light was on in
the hall but the flat was bare.”
60. Ms Yvonne Adams, who lives across the staircase from Lady Uddin’s flat,
recalls six-weekly brief visits (p128A):
“The only movement in flat 3 was when a group of five or six Indians,
they looked like a family, went in to air the place. They opened the back
window and doors, they put the curtains at the back of the flat out of the
window, that’s why it was obvious they were airing the place. The
balcony out the back of my flat is only about 10 feet from the balcony at
the back of flat 3, so I could see it clearly. These five or six Indians only
stayed for ten or fifteen minutes. I may have seen them in passing
coming in through the communal door. This event only occurred
approximately every six weeks. It was always at a weekend, during the
day time, but I can’t remember what part of the day.
Flat 3 had curtains at the back of the flat. They were always drawn, day
and night. I love my balcony because it overlooks a nature reserve to the
rear of The Chenies. Every time I looked over to flat 3’s balcony all I
could see was leaves. I also remember a jumper overhanging their
balcony. After a while algae started to form on the jumper, it all went
green.
I can’t emphasise enough I am 100% certain no one has ever lived in flat
3.”
61. Mr Matthew Hollis, who lives above Lady Uddin’s flat, says that her flat was
unoccupied (p121K):
“Flat 3 is directly below my flat. There is without question no one who
has lived in number 3 until the last two of three months [statement
made 2 July 2009]… Before the last two or three months I heard
absolutely nothing in the flat below – guaranteed. I never heard or saw
anybody connected to flat 3. In fact about a year ago I had some
washing drying over the balcony. It fell off and landed on Lady Uddin’s
balcony. I totally forgot about it. I thought about hooking it up but in
the end forgot about it.”
62. Ms Sarah Dunn, who lives above Ms Adams, recalls the incident (p121A):
“I remember an incident probably last summer where the people at flat
5 hung some washing on their balcony and at some point some of the
washing blew off ... a couple of long sleeve tops or shirts had fallen onto
the balcony of number 3. These shirts remained there for months and in
fact long enough for the shirt to have gone green and mouldy.”
63. As does Ms Anne Manning, a resident in Chancery Lane adjacent to The
Chenies, (p124H):
“But up to the last few weeks (about May 2009), we saw no activity on
the middle balcony - that is in strict contrast to the balcony above and
patio below and many of the other balconies to the rear of The Chenies.
The balcony of the middle flat nearest to us for many months had what
looked like an old sweater hanging over the balcony. It sort of irritated
me because I kept thinking why doesn’t someone take it in. Since about
May 2009 it has disappeared.”
64. Mr Moshahidur Rahman, the brother of a friend of Lady Uddin’s, a local
resident and the person from whom Lady Uddin told us that she sought help when
her boiler was broken (Q192), said to the Sunday Times that he thought Lady
Uddin lived in London always and had never met her (p85L; 86A).
65. Lady Uddin invites us to take no account of these statements on the grounds
noted above (paragraph 54 above; Q160) and on the further ground that the
variety in the accounts is in fact consistent with weekend occupation (Q161).
66. The police obtained Lady Uddin’s water and electricity accounts and those of
neighbours for comparison. As Lady Uddin says, it would be unfair to compare
the consumption of a full-time Chenies resident with that of a person usually in
London when the House of Lords was sitting. It is however fair to consider
whether Lady Uddin’s use of water and electricity is consistent with the pattern of
weekend occupation she asserts.
67. EDF Energy calculate, from readings of a meter in a communal cupboard, that
Lady Uddin’s flat used about 3.29 kWh a day. A standard consumer uses 9kWh a
day (p146K). Some appliances use electricity whether or not a flat is occupied: a
fridge is a good example. A 100 watt incandescent bulb uses 2.4 kWh of electricity
if alight all day. The usage in Lady Uddin’s flat is consistent with a flat lightly
occupied at weekends or with an unoccupied flat illuminated on a timer for part of
each day.
68. Lady Uddin’s flat has a water meter fixed to the supply. Water bills exhibited
by other residents in the block suggest that South East Water provide the supply
and Southern Water the drainage (Q138). Lady Uddin claimed that she was
simultaneously billed by South East Water, Southern Water and a third company,
Mid Kent Water (Q126; 133). Mid Kent Water merged with South East Water in
December 2007 1: the two companies did not simultaneously supply water or
drainage to the same households. South East Water calculate, from readings of the
meter in the street, that flat 3 used the following volumes of water (p148D):
Approximate
Usage in
average usage per Cumulative Meter reading date
period
month
4m3 1 August 2005
5m3 0.45m3 or 450 litres 9m3 20 June 2006
1m3 0.17m3 or 17 litres 10m3 13 December 2006
3m3 0.38m3 or 38 litres 13m3 23 August 2007
0m3 0m3 or 0 litres 13m3 11 December 2007
0m3 0m3 or 0 litres 13m3 9 June 2008
5m3 0.83m3 or 83 litres 18m3 10 December 2008
0m3 0m3 or 0 litres 18m3 13 February 2009
69. South East Water estimate that an average person uses 84m3 a year (230 litres
a day) and a low usage person 39m3 a year (p148J). An average person occupying
a flat on their own each weekend would thus use 1.84m3 of water a month and a
low usage person 0.85m3 a month. Lady Uddin’s metered usage is less than this in
each period. South East Water replaced the meter on 13 February 2009 because
they suspected that it had stopped working (p148H).
70. Lady Uddin invites us to take no account of the metered water usage on three
grounds. First, that the companies’ billing was chaotic, mistaken and by three
companies (Q126). Secondly that the meter was broken (Q140). Last that it
accurately reflects weekend usage (Q126; 131).
Travel by car from and to Maidstone

71. Lady Uddin claimed the mileage allowance for weekly journeys by car from
and to Maidstone every weekend when the House was sitting with the exceptions
noted at paragraph 56. The claimed days of travel to Maidstone were usually
Friday or Saturday; the return to London was usually on Sunday. She told us that
she made these journeys (Q51) on the days stated on her claim forms (QQ49-50).
72. From 17 September 2003 to 31 May 2008, Lady Uddin’s car was a Honda
CR-V Auto SE Sport; thereafter it was a BMW X5 3.01 SE Auto (p153K). There
are pictures of both of these “sport utility vehicles” at (p154A): they are large cars
(Q249). Lady Uddin told us that she might arrive late on a Friday night and leave
early on a Saturday morning (Q144) (the latter despite her claim forms indicating
1 See, for example, the South East Water Limited annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 March
2008.
return on Sundays); that she might go away from the flat (including returning to
London) in the course of a weekend’s residence at Maidstone (QQ100; 108); that
she parked either in her designated parking bay or on the street if her bay was
occupied by someone else (Q288; 246); and that she had her parking permit for
her numbered bay, bay 8 (QQ254-6).
73. Each flat in The Chenies has a numbered parking bay. In June 2006, the
managing agents, Countrywide Property Management, sent numbered permits to
the residents but sent the wrong permit to each resident (p132). Lady Uddin was
sent the permit intended for flat X (bay 3) but the occupant of that flat, Mr Daniel
Revell, said in his statement that she did not pass it on to him. He was initially
reluctant to use his rightful bay given that someone else (i.e. Lady Uddin) was in
possession of the permit but, on seeing that the bay was not being used, he started
to use it (p120C):
“The company sent out permits which we were supposed to display in
the car windscreen but unfortunately they sent the permit for bay 3 to
flat 3 and likewise for the rest. I gave the permit that I received for bay 7
to the resident in flat 19 but I never received our one back from flat 3.”
74. The correct bay for Lady Uddin’s flat was bay 8 (Q254). Lady Uddin’s
neighbours state that that bay was used regularly by another resident of The
Chenies. An anonymous resident of The Chenies, who received the permit
intended for Lady Uddin, said in her statement (as summarised by the police)
(p131E):
“That they received by mistake a car parking permit from the site’s
Management Company, which related to a parking space allocated to
Lady Uddin. They received their correct permit from another resident,
but were unable to pass on Lady Uddin’s permit to her as they could not
get any answer from repeated visits to Lady’s property. Furthermore this
same witness noting that Lady Uddin’s car parking space was not being
used instructed her lodger to make use of it. This arrangement
continued until the media attention started, after which a black BMW
X5 started using it.”
75. Mr Ian Allcock confirmed this (p123H):
“As far as I am aware all the residents use the correct bays except Peter
who lives in no. XX who doesn’t own a car and a young girl who lives in
or associates with the woman in flat XX, she parks her car in the bay
that is allocated to flat 3.”
76. Lady Uddin did not recall this confusion (QQ255-6).
77. Mr Allcock saw the BMW at about the time the story broke: it blocked the car
park; over the next few weekends, it would “turn up on a Friday night or Saturday,
unload some items, then leave” (p124B). Ms Sarah Dunn said (p121D):
“Since this appeared in the papers I can recall that on a Sunday night
my husband and I were returning home and saw a tall Asian man
standing in the car park smoking a cigarette.. We had driven past him to
park further along the car park and as we came back to the communal
entrance door, I saw that he let himself in with a key. We followed him
in and as he appeared out of place and I had not seen him before, I
actually watched where he went. I saw him go into number 3... I
remember seeing a large black car in the car park and it had tinted
windows. I have never seen this car before this night. I don’t know the
make but the closest comparison I can give is that it is the size and shape
of a Range Rover. I thought it was a strange car to be connected to these
flats as most people here are usually 2 or 3 people per flat as they all
have 2 bedroom flats and this car was a large family car.”
78. The neighbours’ statements are consistent that Lady Uddin’s car was not seen
in The Chenies until the weekend of 25-6 April 2009, though not all of the
statements mention the car.
79. A neighbour of Lady Uddin’s in London said to a journalist from the Sunday
Times that the BMW was visibly in London at the weekends, though it is unclear
to what period he was referring (p90F).
Period 3: Maidstone after Lady Uddin became aware of the Sunday Times’ interest: 25
April 2009 to 31 December 2009
80. Lady Uddin told us that her conduct in relation to the flat did not change in
the light of the Sunday Times’ interest in the property (Q158), though she herself
presented us with photographic evidence that she had recently increased the
furnishing of the flat (p196H).
81. Lady Uddin’s neighbours at Maidstone say in their statements to the police
that there was a change. Ms Yvonne Adams, who lives across the staircase from
Lady Uddin’s flat, says (p128G):
“Things all changed the Friday before the article came out in The
Sunday Times. I didn’t see anybody but a mat appeared outside flat 3’s
door, net curtains were hung at the front window and I heard a lot of
activity in the flat. It seemed to me that someone was moving in and at
this time I had no idea that a newspaper article was going to be
published. Although I heard noises I never smelt anything like cooking.”
82. The occupants of the flats above and below Lady Uddin’s made similar
statements. Mr Matthew Hollis, who lives above, said (pp121K-122D):
“Flat 3 is directly below my flat. There is without question no one who
has lived in number 3 until the last few months [statement made 2 July
2009]. I know this because I have heard someone in flat 3 late on Friday
nights in the last two or three months. The floors here are so thin I can
hear them banging around. In fact the first couple of times I heard them
in there recently I thought about phoning the police. Over the last
couple of months I have heard them leave on Saturday morning about 9
or 10am….
I have seen the BMW X5 on most Fridays in the last two or three
months and once I saw a Transit van on a Saturday morning unloading
a load of furniture. I heard the furniture being taken into Flat 3. I heard
all the furniture banging very clearly.”
83. Ms Angela Storey, who lives below, said (p130J):
“I should also mention that in May sometime, just after the story broke,
I was lying in bed when I noticed a lot of noise coming from upstairs. I
couldn’t tell if it was coming from flat 4 or flat 3 but the walls are very
thin and you could tell it was coming from upstairs. I would describe the
noise as someone picking up and dropping stuff and the sounds of
moving stuff around. I spoke to a neighbour Penny a couple of days later
and she mentioned to me that flat 3 had curtains up and looked like
someone had moved in. I had noticed that a door mat had appeared
outside flat 3.”
84. Lady Uddin invited us to take no account of these statements on the ground
that each witness was biased against her due to having been asked leading
questions by journalists and by having seen the adverse publicity she had received
in the press (QQ150; 157; 160; 200; 201; 212; pp200L; 203F).
London
85. Mr and Lady Uddin have lived at XXXXXXXXXX, Wapping, London E1W
XXX since 1993. It is a three-bedroom house rented by Mr Uddin from a housing
association (QQ9-13) and occupied by him, their younger children and Lady
Uddin. Throughout the period under investigation, Lady Uddin stayed in this
property during the week and had childcare responsibilities (Q219). She claimed
that it had not been her home since 2001 (Q280) but also referred to it as such
(Q122). Mr Komar Uddin and Mrs P M Uddin have paid full council tax on the
property since 14 July 1993 (p153B). XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Lady
Uddin said that she did not have neighbourly friendships in London (Q112).
Sunday Times journalists interviewed at least two of Lady Uddin’s neighbours in
London, both of whom appeared to have had some knowledge of and contact with
Lady Uddin and her family (pp89B-93F).
The issues
86. This case raises three issues: 1) whether Lady Uddin’s designated main
residences in the period under investigation met the criteria endorsed by the
House Committee for these investigations; 2) whether Lady Uddin correctly
claimed for travel from and to those main residences; and 3) if the facts identify
one or more wrongly designated main residences, whether Lady Uddin acted in
good faith in making her designations and claims for night subsistence and travel.
Issue 1: whether Lady Uddin’s designated main residences in the period

under investigation met the criteria endorsed by the House Committee
87. On 26 January 2010, the House Committee endorsed the Clerk of the
Parliaments’ approach to determining allegations about members use of the
members’ reimbursement scheme, as recorded in the published extract of the
minutes of that meeting (p16E):
“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.”
88. 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 (p5A).
89. “Visit” is used in the criteria 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. In the case of a property occupied by a relative other than a
spouse or partner, “very specific circumstances” are required, “subject to
the thresholds established and depending on the detail of the Member’s
responsibilities”.
90. 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. In that report, we found that 1:
“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
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.”
91. The report from the Committee for Privileges was agreed to by the
House and is binding.
1 The conduct of Lord Clarke of Hampstead, 4th Report from the Committee for Privileges, session 2009-10,
HL Paper 112, paragraphs 26 to 32.
Recent cases
92. 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. These decided cases do not however form
any precedent. Each of the Clerk’s published reports constitutes the application to
specific circumstances of the criteria endorsed by the House Committee: the
questions the Clerk faced when deciding the cases he did, and the questions we
face in deciding this case, are questions of fact. They establish no principle, rule or
threshold. The Clerk’s several decisions are thus not statements of precedent and
they do not bind us as we determine the facts of this case. We have proceeded on
the basis that we may take into account any fact relevant to the circumstances,
even if the Clerk did not take such a fact into account in the cases he decided.
Opinion of the Sub-Committee
Period 1: Frinton: 3 May 2005 to 31 July 2005

93. The criteria endorsed by the House Committee require that a main residence
be visited a minimum of one weekend per month over the year when the House
was sitting and for periods during recesses. In the case of a property occupied by a
relative other than a spouse or partner, “very specific circumstances” are also
required, “subject to the thresholds established and depending on the detail of the
Member’s connection with the property, including relevant financial
Frequency of visit
94. We have little evidence in relation to the short period which we may examine
during which the Frinton property was Lady Uddin’s designated main residence.
For want of evidence, we make no finding as to precisely how frequently
Lady Uddin stayed overnight at the Frinton property but, on the balance of
probabilities, taking into account our findings below as to Lady Uddin’s
credibility as a witness, it was not as frequently as almost every weekend
when the House was sitting from 2001 to 2005.
95. Frequency of visit is however not the only criterion relevant here. In the case of
a property occupied by a relative other than a spouse or partner, the House
Committee set additional criteria (p16J):
“[designation of a property occupied by a relative other than a spouse or
partner] could in very specific circumstances be appropriate, subject to
the thresholds established and depending on the detail of the Member’s
Thus, frequency of visit remains essential but there is i) a further dominant
criterion: “the detail of the Member’s connection with the property, including
relevant financial responsibilities”; and ii) a subordinate criterion: “very specific
circumstances”.
“Very specific circumstances” and “connection with the property”

96. The criteria endorsed by the House Committee provide no guidance as to
what constitute “very specific circumstances” and a sufficient “connection with the
property” for it appropriately to be designated as a member’s main residence. We
thus have to establish our own criteria to decide those facts.
97. In terms of “very specific circumstances”, we consider that XXXXXXX is a
legitimate circumstance in which a person might designate a family member’s
home as her main residence. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. In our opinion, the
circumstances of Lady Uddin’s designation of her brother’s property as
her main residence might meet the very specific circumstances required
under the test endorsed by the House Committee.
98. There is however one further, dominant, limb of the test to consider:
connection with the property. In terms of this limb of the test, we consider that the
connection must be such to find that, irrespective of occupation by a relative other
than a spouse or partner, the property was Lady Uddin’s “main residence” within
any natural meaning of those two words taken together. We accept that “main
residence” is not defined either in the resolution establishing, or in the guidance
on, the members’ reimbursement scheme. The consequence is that it would be
unreasonable retrospectively to apply a single definition. It does not mean however
that a designation which defies any natural meaning of those words may be
allowed.
99. The connection would certainly be sufficient if, in circumstances of XXXXX
XXXXX, the claimant had moved XXXXXXXXXX and into the designated
property. That is not here the case. Lady Uddin needed what she described as a
“bolt hole” for breathing space but continued to live in the family home for the
working week throughout the year. She may have stayed at the Frinton property
on occasional weekends or more frequently. We accept that the Frinton property
was of great value to her as a “bolt hole”. Due however to her return on each
occasion to her children and husband in the week, we do not accept that the
property ever acquired the character of a main residence for the purpose of the
members’ reimbursement scheme. Although Lady Uddin claimed to have led
two separate lives, in practice her behaviour was insufficient to validate
that claim. We find that Lady Uddin’s connection with the Frinton
property was insufficient for it to meet any natural meaning of “main
residence” for the purpose of the members’ reimbursement scheme.
100. We thus conclude that Lady Uddin did not have a sufficient
connection with the Frinton property to have designated it as her main
residence given her brother’s ownership and permanent occupation of the
property. She was therefore wrong to have designated it as her main
residence for the purpose of the members’ reimbursement scheme and to
have claimed night subsistence away from it.
Period 2: Maidstone before Lady Uddin became aware of the Sunday Times’ interest: 1
August 2005 to 24 April 2009
101. It is clear that Lady Uddin owns and is financially responsible for the
Maidstone property. In these circumstances, the criteria endorsed by the House
Committee, and by which we are bound, are as follows (p16G):
“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.”
102. Lady Uddin claimed to have stayed overnight at Maidstone almost every
weekend when the house was sitting. The statements made to the police say
otherwise without exception. On which account should we rely?
103. We accept Lady Uddin’s account of the circumstances of her marriage. We
have however some difficulty with Lady Uddin’s account of the facts of her
occupation of her designated main residences. First, she was reluctant to answer
specifically the written questions put to her by the Registrar (pp63B-64C) and to
discuss her case with the police (p161K). Secondly, in oral evidence, she was at
times evasive (QQ94-7; 116-20; 299-301) and at others her account was
inconsistent (QQ129, 254-5; QQ126-41; Q216, p200J; Q242, p56B) to the point
of contradiction (QQ70-1, 206, p200J; Q144, pp26-9). She provided several
further significant details as footnote corrections to her evidence (QQ79; 96; 122;
152; 205). Nor do we accept her reasons for why we should take no account of the
witness statements given to the police. First, the witnesses are clear that the flat
was unfurnished, not that it was lightly furnished. As to Lady Uddin’s contention
that it is not possible to see into her flat from the street, we consider that it would
be possible to see into her flat if illuminated at night and without curtains.
Secondly, as to Lady Uddin’s contention that the witnesses were biased in their
statements to the police due to their having earlier been asked leading questions by
journalists and by having seen the press coverage, we consider that neither factor
was sufficient to prejudice the witnesses to the point that each was prepared to lie
to the police. The neighbours’ accounts in their interviews with the Sunday Times
are consistent with each other and consistent with their statements to the police.
The neighbours were interviewed by the Sunday Times journalists before the
newspaper published its allegation.
104. We have however considered carefully what weight we should attach to the
witness statements given to the police. Each of the statements by Lady Uddin’s
neighbours, the plumber and the utilities companies was given to the police under
the formula “this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief 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” (p103B). Nonetheless, we are conscious that we have not examined these
witnesses ourselves and so have not been able to form judgments as to their
individual credibility. We consider that, in view of their number, we can rely
on the essence of these witness statements taken as a whole. We consider
that the statements to the police about the furnishing of Lady Uddin’s flat,
her water usage, and her and her car’s visibility at Maidstone together
prove, well beyond the balance of probabilities, that Lady Uddin in this
period did not stay at the Maidstone property for the minimum of one
weekend per month over the year when the House was sitting. We find that
Lady Uddin deliberately misled us as to the frequency of her stays at
Maidstone.
105. Lady Uddin was wrong to have designated the Maidstone property as
her main residence for the purpose of the members’ reimbursement
scheme and to have claimed night subsistence away from that property in
the period 1 August 2005 to 24 April 2009.
Period 3: Maidstone after Lady Uddin became aware of the Sunday Times’ interest: 25
April 2009 to 31 December 2009
106. Lady Uddin became aware of the Sunday Times’ interest in her Maidstone
property on 24 April. We accept that, from this point, there is third-party evidence
of her having stayed overnight in the Maidstone property at least one weekend a
month. We find that, in this period, Lady Uddin met the minimum
frequency of occupation required under the criteria endorsed by the House
Committee.
107. While frequency of occupation is a necessary criterion, even in these
circumstances it is not a sufficient criterion: “other evidence” is also to be taken
into account (p16G). We are entitled to consider whether the Maidstone property
became Lady Uddin’s main residence on 25 April 2009 or whether, due to other
evidence, her main residence in fact remained elsewhere. Despite XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX, Lady Uddin’s life in the week has always remained at her
London residence where her younger children and husband live; and her London
residence again became her main residence on 1 January 2010. We find that
Lady Uddin’s presence at Maidstone increased from 25 April 2009 only in
an attempt to suggest that the property was and had been her main
residence since August 2005. We find that, despite Lady Uddin’s presence,
the Maidstone property did not acquire the character of a main residence
within any natural meaning of the words. Lady Uddin remained wrong to
have claimed night subsistence away from the Maidstone property in the
period 25 April 2009 to 31 December 2009.
Conclusion
108. With the assistance of the Finance Department, we have calculated that Lady
Uddin wrongly claimed £121,139.50 in night subsistence over the three periods.
Lady Uddin should be required to repay this amount.
Issue 2: whether Lady Uddin should have claimed for travel from and to
her main residences
109. Lady Uddin should not have designated either the Frinton or the Maidstone
property as her 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 neither the Frinton property nor the Maidstone
property was Lady Uddin’s main residence, she was not eligible to claim
for travel from and to either Frinton or Maidstone. We do not need to find
precisely how many of the journeys she in fact made.
110. With the assistance of the Finance Department, we have calculated that Lady
Uddin wrongly claimed £4,209.60 under the mileage allowance for journeys by
car over the period. Lady Uddin should be required to repay this amount.
Issue 3: if the facts identify one or more wrongly designated main

residences, whether Lady Uddin acted in good faith in making her
designations and claims
111. Having found that Lady Uddin wrongly designated the Frinton and
Maidstone properties as her main residences and that she made claims for night
subsistence and travel to which she was not entitled, we now turn to the issue of
good faith. If Lady Uddin did not act in good faith when making her designations
and claims for night subsistence and travel, then she is liable to sanction. If
however Lady Uddin had good reason to believe that her designations and claims
were valid, sanction might be inappropriate.
112. We look separately at her understanding of the scheme, designations and
claims for night subsistence; and then her claims for travel.
Understanding of the scheme, designations and claims for night subsistence

113. Lady Uddin maintained to us that she had not broken the rules of the scheme
(Q234) but had acted in good faith throughout (p61E) and that both the Frinton
and Maidstone properties had validly been her main residences for the purpose of
the scheme (Q300).
114. In testing Lady Uddin’s good faith, we are not assessing her 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.
115. Lady Uddin’s understanding of the scheme was that she could designate as
her main residence anywhere where she was staying at weekends if it could be
considered her home (QQ225; 301). If one had more than one residence, it was a
question of election: “main” had no meaning (QQ284-5). The clear purpose of
the scheme is the recovery of expenses necessarily incurred in attending
the House when away from one’s “main residence” on any natural
meaning of those words. Lady Uddin’s understanding of the scheme
defeats its objective and her understanding of “main residence” is
unreasonable.
116. Lady Uddin says that she came to this understanding on advice from her
Chief Whip (Lord Carter), mentor (Lady Pitkeathley) and other members. Before
designating the Frinton property as her main residence, Lady Uddin says that she
described the circumstances of XXXXXXXX to her Chief Whip and others; told
them that the property was her brother’s home; that she was staying there at
weekends; and that she was “spending money” (QQ222; 226; 230). Lady Uddin
says: “It was made clear to me by my Chief Whip and my colleagues that if I was
staying at weekends in a place that could be determined to be my home that I was
able to then claim overnight subsistence” (Q225). “I was guided to designate the
place where I was at the weekends and that this was acceptable within the rules”
(Q230). Lord Carter is deceased and Lady Pitkeathley does not recall discussing
the rules of the members’ reimbursement scheme or her domestic arrangements in
any detail with Lady Uddin (p164D).
117. This advice, if received, mitigates Lady Uddin’s understanding of the
scheme for the same reason that it helped to mitigate part of the conduct of
Lord Clarke of Hampstead 1, but it does not obviate her lack of good faith
for two reasons. First, she accepted that it remained her own responsibility
to make her designation and claims in accordance with the rules (Q236).
Secondly, Lady Uddin’s actual circumstances did not meet her own
understanding of the scheme. On the original day of designation, she may
1 The conduct of Lord Clarke of Hampstead, 4th Report from the Committee for Privileges, session 2009-10,
HL Paper 112, paragraphs 26 to 32.
have had the intention of living two separate lives, weekday and weekend
each week (Q233-7), but the facts in relation to her occupation of both
properties do not meet even her own understanding of the rules. She was
not at Frinton every weekend and it did not become her home. It should
quickly have become clear to her that she was not staying at Maidstone at
weekends. It should also have been clear to her that, in those
circumstances, she was not making her claims for night subsistence when
away from her designated main residence in good faith; and that the
continued designation had become a deliberate misrepresentation of her
position even on the basis of her understanding of the scheme.
Claims for travel

118. Lady Uddin claimed the mileage allowance for journeys by car from and to
both of her successively designated main residences almost every weekend when
the House was sitting. In oral evidence, she confirmed that she had made each of
these journeys. In relation to Frinton, we have decided not to find precisely how
often Lady Uddin travelled to the property but have found that it was not as
frequently as almost every weekend when the House was sitting (paragraph 94
above). In relation to Maidstone, we have found that she travelled to the property
less than once a month (paragraph 104 above).
119. We find that the vast majority of Lady Uddin’s claims for journeys in
the period under investigation were not made in good faith and that Lady
Uddin made these claims with the intention of adding verisimilitude to her
designation of her main residences.
Conclusion
120. We find that Lady Uddin did not act in good faith in making her
claims for night subsistence away from the Frinton and Maidstone
properties; in maintaining her designation of each of those properties as
her main residences; and in claiming the mileage allowance for weekly
journeys by car from and to the Maidstone property.
Sanction
121. We have found that, despite difficult personal circumstances which might
have legitimised the intention underlying her original designations, the facts of
Lady Uddin’s occupation of her designated main residences both in Frinton and in
Maidstone did not in fact meet the criteria endorsed by the House Committee.
Lady Uddin deliberately misrepresented her living arrangements to take advantage
of the night subsistence and travel elements of the members’ reimbursement
scheme, a scheme designed for the recovery of expenses necessarily incurred in
attending the House. There is every indication that this misrepresentation started
before 2005 and would have continued beyond 2009 had she not been discovered.
122. Lady Uddin maintained throughout that she had acted in good faith; so she
has not yet either repaid money or apologised. The day before we heard evidence
from Lady Uddin, she wrote to us to reiterate that she had acted on advice and
complied with the rules. She went on to say that, despite this compliance, she
“should have maintained a higher standard” and volunteered a payment of £5,500
“in recompense” (p67E). The sum is slightly more than she claimed for travel but
was not meant to represent a sum wrongly claimed (QQ302-6). Lady Uddin
wrongly claimed £125,349.10.
123. We recommend that the House sanction Lady Uddin by requiring her
to make a personal statement of apology to the House and thereafter
suspending her from the service of the House for three years or until she
has repaid the sum of £125,349.10 wrongly claimed, whichever is the later.
Her apology must be unconditional, and agreed in advance with the
Chairman of the Sub-Committee, to be sufficient. We consider that the
suspension should be renewed in the next Parliament if Lady Uddin has
not repaid the money by the end of the current Parliament, but that can
only be a matter for the next Parliament.
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE MEMBERS’ REIMBURSEMENT A
SCHEME
House of Lords Journal 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
House, or F
(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
4.1 General—Expenses Related to Attendance
K 4.3 Spouses’and Children’s Travel
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
7.6 Insurance Costs
C
8 PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
8.1 Travel and Subsistence
8.2 Office Costs
D
8.5 Expenses of a Rapporteur
8.6 Insurance Costs
9 BRITISH-IRISH INTER-PARLIAMENTARY BODY(BIIPB)
9.2 Office Costs
9.3 Accommodation Maintenance Allowance for Second Home E
10 TRAVEL AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HOUSE
10.3 Insurance Costs
11 LAW LORDS F
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
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.
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.

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.
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

4.4.1 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.
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.
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.
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).

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
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).
A
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)

9.1.1 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

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

10.1.1 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. 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.
A
11 LAW LORDS

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
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).
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 p30.]
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.
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.
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.

A
The Clerk of the Parliaments’ Report on Lord Rennard
Published 20 October 2009
Letter from Mr Michael Pownall, 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 of 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
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.
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.
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.
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’
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
supervision of the system of financial support for Members) took the decision to refer the current system of
debated and agreed to take forward the proposals submitted by the SSRB. In the course of 2010, the current K
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
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.
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
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
publication policy, we will make this letter available on the Parliamentary website.
supervision of the system of financial support for Members) took the decision to refer the current system of
H
debated and agreed to take forward the proposals submitted by the SSRB. In the course of 2010, the current
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.
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.
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
A
BARONESS UDDIN’S CLAIM FORMS
Baroness Uddin’s claim forms for the period March 2006 to February 2010 are reproduced at pp31–43.
Prefaced to those forms are:
B (i) A table showing Baroness Uddin’s travel patterns between May 2005 and December 2009. The data
from May 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 Baroness Uddin’s claim forms.
(ii) Calendars representing the days on which Baroness Uddin claimed the mileage allowance for
C
journeys by car between March 2006 and February 2010. The data are taken directly from Baroness
Uddin’s claim forms.
(iii) A summary of Baroness Uddin’s expense claims from April 2003 to March 2006 using data provided
by the Finance Department.
D
(i) Table showing the pattern of Baroness Uddin’s claims for the mileage allowance for
journeys by car between May 2005 and December 2009
Travel every
E
Amount Number of Number of weekend in term
Month Reimbursed single journeys return journeys time?
Frinton: no May 2005 £187.20 6 3 Yes
claim forms June 2005 £187.20 6 3 Yes
available July 2005 £187.20 6 3 Yes
F
Maidstone: no August 2005 — — — —
claim forms September 2005 — — — —
available October 2005 £112 7 3.5 Yes
November 2005 £128 8 4 Yes
G December 2005 £80 5 2.5 Yes
January 2006 £96 6 3 Yes
February 2006 £96 6 3 Yes
Maidstone: claim March 2006(1) 8 4 Yes

H forms available; April 2006 4 2 No
before the Sunday May 2006 6 3 Yes
Times article June 2006 8 4 Yes
July 2006 8 4 Yes
August 2006 — — —
September 2006 — — —
J October 2006 7 3.5 Yes
November 2006 6 3 No
December 2006 7 3.5 Yes
January 2007 7 3.5 Yes
February 2007 6 3 Yes
K March 2007 5 2.5 No
April 2007 5 2.5 Yes
May 2007 6 3 Yes
June 2007 7 3.5 Yes
July 2007 6 6 Yes
August 2007 — — —
L
October 2007 7 3.5 Yes
November 2007 7 3.5 Yes
December 2007 6 3 Yes
January 2008 7 3.5 Yes
A
Travel every
Amount Number of Number of weekend in term
Month Reimbursed single journeys return journeys time?
February 2008 6 3 Yes
March 2008 9 4.5 Yes B
April 2008 4 2 Yes
May 2008 7 3.5 Yes
June 2008 9 4.5 Yes
July 2008 — — —
August 2008 — — —
September 2008 — — — C
October 2008 6 3 Yes
November 2008 9 4.5 Yes
December 2008 1 0.5 No
Janaury 2009 6 3 Yes
February 2009 6 3 Yes D
March 2009 8 4 Yes
April 2009 4 2 Yes
Maidstone: claim May 2009 8 4 Yes

forms available; June 2009 7 3.5 Yes
after the Sunday July 2009 6 3 Yes E
Times article August 2009 — — —
October 2009 3 1.5 No
November 2009 5 2.5 No
December 2009 — — — F
(1)Baroness Uddin claims to have travelled as shown on the calendars overleaf but, on a few occasions, did not
claim the mileage allowance for certain journeys. The amount paid to Lady Uddin in this period thus does not
necessarily indicate the number of journeys claimed to have been made and for this reason the amounts have
not been included in the table.
G
L
A
(ii) Calendars representing the days on which Baroness Uddin claimed the mileage allowance for
journeys by car
FEBRUARY 2006 MARCH 2006

B MAIDSTONE MAIDSTONE
Key: MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
Days on which travel 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
reimbursement was claimed
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Days on which a journey was
C recorded but the mileage 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 13 14 5 16 17 18 19
allowance was not claimed
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Months during which night
susistence was claimed 27 28 27 28 29 30 31
Recess
D
APRIL 2006 MAY 2006 JUNE 2006
MAIDSTONE MAIDSTONE MAIDSTONE
MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU MO TU WE TH FR SA SU
E 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
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 MAIDSTONE MAIDSTONE MAIDSTONE
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
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
H
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
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
K
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
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
L 30 31
A
JANUARY 2007 FEBRUARY 2007 MARCH 2007
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 B
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
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
C

D
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
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 E
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
30
F
JULY 2007 AUGUST 2007 SEPTEMBER 2007
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G
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
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 H

J
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2
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 K
29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
L
A
JANUARY 2008 FEBRUARY 2008 MARCH 2008
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2
B
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
28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
C
31

D
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1
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
E 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
30
F
JULY 2008 (NO CLAIMS) AUGUST 2008 SEPTEMBER 2008
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
G 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
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
H

J 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 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
K 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31
L
L
A
(iii) Finance Department summary of Baroness Uddin’s claims under the member’s reimbursement
scheme from April 2003 to March 2006
Member Day Members Additional Members’ Office Members’ Overnight Members’ Travelling Grand Total
Subsistence Office Costs Costs Subsistence Expenses
April 2003 £682.00 £572.00 £1,490.00 £175.03 £2,919.03
B May 2003 £806.00 £676.00 £1,738.00 £218.79 £3,438.79
Jun 2003 £1,240.00 £500.00 £1,040.00 £2,978.00 £350.06 £6,108.00
Jul 2003 £868.00 £728.00 £1,860.00 £175.03 £3,631.03
Aug 2003 £1,500.00 £1,500.00
Sep 2003 £434.00 £364.00 £994.00 £175.03 £1,967.03
Oct 2003 £960.00 £802.50 £2,054.00 £262.55 £4,079.05
Nov 2003 £1,024.00 £854.00 £2,566.00 £393.82 £4,837.82
Dec 2003 £768.00 £642.00 £1,670.00 £175.03 £3,255.03
Jan 2004 £960.00 £802.50 £2,310.00 £306.31 £4,378.81
C Feb 2004 £512.00 £428.00 £1,158.00 £131.27 £2,229.27
Mar 2004 £576.00 £481.50 £1,294.00 £218.79 £2,570.29
Apr 2004 "£576.00 "£481.00 "£1,536.00 "£218.79 "£2,812.29
May 2004 £2,240.00 £1,872.50 £5,632.00 £802.86 £10,547.36
Jun 2004 £1,024.00 £856.00 £2,560.00 £4,440.00
Jul 2004 £896.00 £620.00 £749.00 £2,176.00 £4,441.00
Nov 2004 £2,376.00 £1,500.00 £1,980.00 £5,947.00 £726.33 £12,529.33
Dec 2004 £900.00 £780.00 £2,250.00 £124.80 £4,054.80
Mar 2005 £3,075.00 £2,665.00 £7,500.00 £561.60 £13,801.60
D Apr 2005 £300.00 £800.00 £260.00 £750.00 £62.40 £2,172.40
May 2005 £675.00 £585.00 £1,800.00 £187.20 £5,347.20
Jul 2005 £900.00 £720.00 £2,250.00 £187.20 £4,057.20
Aug 2005 £1,005.00 £1,005.00
Oct 2005 £1,078.00 £938.00 £2,781.00 £112.00 £4,909.00
Nov 2005 £1,463.00 £1,273.00 £3,553.00 £128.00 £6,417.50
Dec 2005 £693.00 £603.00 £1,699.50 £80.00 £3,075.50
Jan 2006 £1,001.00 £871.00 £2,472.00 £96.00 £4,440.00
Feb 2006 £1,001.00 £871.00 £2,472.00 £80.00 £4,424.00
E Mar 2006 £1,309.00 £1,139.00 £3,244.50 £128.00 £5,820.50
Grand Total £28,385.00 £5,925.00 £24,031.50 £68,663.50 £5,826.51 £132,831.51
(iv) Baroness Uddin’s claim forms
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
A
ARTICLE FROM THE SUNDAY TIMES NEWSPAPER, 3 MAY 2009
LABOUR PEER BARONESS UDDIN CLAIMS £100,000 EXPENSES ON EMPTY FLAT
A LABOUR peer who lives in the East End of London has claimed about £100,000 in parliamentary expenses
B on a flat in Kent that neighbours say has been unoccupied for years.
Baroness Uddin, who worked closely with Tony and Cherie Blair, has been claiming allowances intended for
peers living outside London although she resides only four miles from the Lords.
Inquiries by the Sunday Times have established that the baroness bought a two-bedroom flat in Maidstone in
2005 and has named it as her main home to claim almost £30,000 a year in accommodation expenses from the
C House of Lords.
Residents from the five other flats in the same block as Uddin’s property all say they have never seen her there.
They could see through the windows that the bedrooms were unfurnished.
Yvonne Adams, who has lived next to the flat for three years, said: “I can’t emphasise enough how no one has
lived there. They just haven’t. I know that for a fact.”
D Adams said she went on to her rear balcony every day and had never seen anyone on the balcony next door.
Until recently, there were piles of leaves on the balcony and sheets over the bedroom windows had fallen down.
“There has never been a stick of furniture in there,” she said.
Last weekend, hours after the Sunday Times had challenged Uddin about her “main residence”, the baroness’s
BMW 4x4 car was spotted at the Maidstone flat and members of her family arrived.
E A plumber who went into the flat to help the family with a broken boiler said: “It looked like they were just
moving in. They told me they were just moving in.” By Sunday night, curtains covered the windows, a light
was on in the hall and a mat was placed outside the front door.
The Sunday Times has also challenged Uddin about a further £83,000 worth of expense claims she made before
she bought the Maidstone flat in September 2005.
F
She has claimed that her main residence has been outside the capital since 2001 but refuses to say where, despite
repeated questions.
Last night Angus Robertson, the leader in Westminster of the Scottish National party, which has campaigned
for stricter controls on expenses, said he wanted two inquiries into the baroness’s expense claims. “I will be
writing to the police and the House of Lords authorities asking them to investigate this report,” he said.
G
Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat frontbencher, said: “An empty property can’t be a peer’s main
residence. The Lords authorities must check the facts of this case and investigate.”
Insisting she had done nothing wrong, Uddin said: “Should the House of Lords authorities wish to investigate
the matter I will, of course, cooperate fully.” She said she stayed at the flat “regularly” and that it had furniture.
H Yesterday she appeared at the flat but refused to prove it was furnished by showing a reporter around. “I’m
telling you it is. You’ll just have to accept that,” she said.
The baroness, who became Britain’s first Muslim woman peer in 1998, has lived with her family in a house in
Wapping, east London, since the early 1990s. Neighbours there say they regularly see her. By contrast, none
of the residents of the Maidstone apartment block could remember seeing her.
J The occupiers of apartments directly above and below the flat said they had always believed it was empty.
L
A
LETTER OF COMPLAINT
Letter from Mr Angus Robertson MP to Mr Brendan Keith, Registrar of Lords’ Interests,
dated 3 May 2009
Investigation into Baroness Uddin’s Parliamentary Allowances B
You will be aware of reports in the media over recent days in relation to Baroness Uddin’s expense claims, and
I am writing to ask you to investigate whether an offence has been comitted.
An article in the Sunday Times (3 May 2009) alleges that the Baroness has reportedly claimed £100,000 for a
flat in Kent which has been unoccupied for years. There are also questions raised about a further £83,000
worth of expense claims made before she bought the Maidstone flat in September 2005. It would therefore C
seem germane to any investigation to establish what she claimed as her primary residence during the period
between 2001 and 2005.
If these facts are correct I know you will share my concerns that such actions would represent a gross misuse
of public money.
On consideration, I would ask you to start an immediate inquiry into the serious allegations raised by the D
Sunday Times. As a courtesy I am copying this letter to Baroness Uddin.
I look forward to your response.
3 May 2009
E
L
A
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BARONESS UDDIN, THE HOUSE
AUTHORITIES AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE
Email from Baroness Uddin to Ms Clare Hook, House of Lords Finance Department,
B dated 5 May 2009
I trust you are well.
You will have become aware of the Sunday Times article about my expense.
In this regard I seek your kind assistance and advice, could you kindly let me know whether I can get a print
out of expense details dating back to 1998, and at what point I would have registered my addresses.
C
Of course I understand that you may need to take advice and time to sort out something so significant but as
I cannot recall any of it I will need to ensure the records are accurate when I make reference to them.
Please call me if you need to speak with me, my mobile is .
5 May 2009
D
Email from Ms Clare Hook, House of Lords Finance Department, to Baroness Uddin,
dated 6 May 2009
Following help from a colleague in the Finance Department I am now pleased to reply to your email as follows:
Attached is a listing of the expense details we hold. The summary information is that available on the
E Parliamentary website at
http://www.parliament.uk/about lords/holallowances/hol expenses04.cfm.
Note that from 2006 –07 the published travel costs have additionally been broken down by mode of transport.
Further information by financial year is included for 2003–04 to 2008–09—this is held at a summary level.
F For the financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03 no information is now held other than that already published.
Prior to 2001–02 individual Member information is no longer held.
Since 1st August 2005 the address of your main residence has been;
3 The Chenies
Chancery Lane
G Maidstone
Kent
ME15 6EE
As discussed, I have posted photocopies to you of the above address information.
The main residence address immediately prior to that was;
H
Frinton on Sea
Essex
CO13
The record of the date from which this address was your main residence is no longer held.
J
6 May 2009
L
A
Attached to preceding email: details of expenses claims
Summary
Overnight
Financial Year subsistence Day subsistence Office costs Travel costs Notes
2008–09 £25,145 £10,026 £11,602 £624 Draft figure—still to be sent to the Member B
2007–08 £29.675 £11,868 £13,197 £992
2006–07 £27,418 £10,998 £13,299 £1,024
2005–06 £24,023 £9,620 £10,025 £1,248
2004–05 £24,529 £9,935 £10,541 £1,997
2003–04 £21,576 £8,830 £9,391 £2,693
2002–03 £21,188 £9,227 £9,287 £1,906
2001–02 £15,712 £7,005 £8,745 £2,195 C
2008–09
Ap/Ar ID(T) TransNo Trans.date Period(T) Updated Account Account(T) Text Amount
Uddin, Baroness 2514617 30/04/2008 April 2008 22/05/2008 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2514616 01/05/2008 May 2008 22/05/2008 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2515063 22/05/2008 May 2008 10/06/2008 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 48.00 D
Uddin, Baroness 2516087 30/06/2008 June 2008 24/07/2008 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 48.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519565 30/10/2008 October 2008 24/02/2009 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 96.00
Uddin, Baroness 2518712 26/11/2008 November 2008 08/01/2009 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 144.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519566 04/12/2008 December 2008 24/02/2009 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 16.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519567 28/01/2009 January 2009 24/02/2009 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 96.00
Uddin, Baroness 2520851 27/02/2009 February 2009 23/04/2009 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 96.00
Uddin, Baroness 2520852 31/03/2009 March 2009 23/04/2009 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 80.00
K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses 624.00 E
Uddin, Baroness 2514617 30/04/2008 April 2008 22/05/2008 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 2,317.00
Uddin, Baroness 2515063 22/05/2008 May 2008 10/06/2008 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 2,648.00
Uddin, Baroness 2514616 01/05/2008 May 2008 22/05/2008 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 165.50
Uddin, Baroness 2516087 30/06/2008 June 2008 24/07/2008 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 3,310.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519565 30/10/2008 October 2008 24/02/2009 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 3,480.00
Uddin, Baroness 2518712 26/11/2008 November 2008 08/01/2009 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 3,480.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519566 04/12/2008 December 2008 24/02/2009 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 522.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519567 28/01/2009 January 2009 24/02/2009 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 2,610.00 F
Uddin, Baroness 2520851 27/02/2009 February 2009 23/04/2009 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 2,958.00
Uddin, Baroness 2520852 31/03/2009 March 2009 23/04/2009 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 3,654.00
K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence 25,144.50
Uddin, Baroness 2514617 30/04/2008 April 2008 22/05/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 907.50
Uddin, Baroness 2515063 22/05/2008 May 2008 10/06/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,072.50
Uddin, Baroness 2514616 01/05/2008 May 2008 22/05/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 82.50
Uddin, Baroness 2516087 30/06/2008 June 2008 24/07/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,320.00
Uddin, Baroness 2516652 31/07/2008 July 2008 19/08/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 0.00 G
Uddin, Baroness 2516652 31/07/2008 July 2008 19/08/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519565 30/10/2008 October 2008 24/02/2009 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,376.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519565 30/10/2008 October 2008 24/02/2009 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2518712 26/11/2008 November 2008 08/01/2009 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2518712 26/11/2008 November 2008 08/01/2009 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,376.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519566 04/12/2008 December 2008 24/02/2009 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519567 28/01/2009 January 2009 24/02/2009 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,038.00 H
Uddin, Baroness 2520851 27/02/2009 February 2009 23/04/2009 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,211.00
Uddin, Baroness 2520852 31/03/2009 March 2009 23/04/2009 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,470.50
K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp 10,026.00
Uddin, Baroness 2514617 30/04/2008 April 2008 22/05/2008 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 786.50
Uddin, Baroness 2515063 22/05/2008 May 2008 10/06/2008 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 929.50
Uddin, Baroness 2516087 30/06/2008 June 2008 24/07/2008 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,144.00
Uddin, Baroness 2516652 31/07/2008 July 2008 19/08/2008 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 0.00 J
Uddin, Baroness 2516652 31/07/2008 July 2008 19/08/2008 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519565 30/10/2008 October 2008 24/02/2009 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,200.00
Uddin, Baroness 2518712 26/11/2008 November 2008 08/01/2009 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,200.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519566 04/12/2008 December 2008 24/02/2009 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 150.00
Uddin, Baroness 2519567 28/01/2009 January 2009 24/02/2009 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 900.00
Uddin, Baroness 2520851 27/02/2009 February 2009 23/04/2009 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,050.00
Uddin, Baroness 2520852 31/03/2009 March 2009 23/04/2009 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,275.00
K105 Members’ Office Costs 8,706.50 K
Uddin, Baroness 2516652 31/07/2008 July 2008 19/08/2008 K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All Additional Office Costs 2007-08 645.00
Uddin, Baroness 2517094 21/10/2008 October 2008 23/10/2008 K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All Additional Office Costs 2008-2009 2,250.00
K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All 2,895.00
47,396.00
L
A
2007–08
Uddin, Baroness 2508420 30/04/2007 April 2007 26/06/2007 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 80.00
B Uddin, Baroness 2509406 26/07/2007 July 2007 02/08/2007 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 64.00
Uddin, Baroness 2512652 31/01/2008 January 2008 21/02/2008 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 112.00
Uddin, Baroness 2513261 28/02/2008 February 2008 18/03/2008 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Rail Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2513261 28/02/2008 February 2008 18/03/2008 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Airline Travel 0.00
C Uddin, Baroness 2513938 27/03/2008 March 2008 24/04/2008 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 112.00
K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses 992.00
Uddin, Baroness 2508420 30/04/2007 April 2007 26/06/2007 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 2,073.50
Uddin, Baroness 2509405 28/06/2007 June 2007 02/08/2007 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 3,349.50
Uddin, Baroness 2509406 26/07/2007 July 2007 02/08/2007 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 3,349.50
D Uddin, Baroness 2511504 18/12/2007 December 2007 21/12/2007 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 2,151.50
Uddin, Baroness 2512652 31/01/2008 January 2008 21/02/2008 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 3,475.50
Uddin, Baroness 2513261 28/02/2008 February 2008 18/03/2008 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 0.00
K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence 29,675.00
Uddin, Baroness 2508420 30/04/2007 April 2007 26/06/2007 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 795.00
Uddin, Baroness 2508421 24/05/2007 May 2007 26/06/2007 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,192.50
E Uddin, Baroness 2509405 28/06/2007 June 2007 02/08/2007 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,351.50
Uddin, Baroness 2509406 26/07/2007 July 2007 02/08/2007 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,351.50
Uddin, Baroness 2510573 30/10/2007 October 2007 13/11/2007 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,237.50
Uddin, Baroness 2511503 30/11/2007 November 2007 21/12/2007 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,320.00
Uddin, Baroness 2512652 31/01/2008 January 2008 21/02/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,402.50
Uddin, Baroness 2513261 28/02/2008 February 2008 18/03/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2513261 28/02/2008 February 2008 18/03/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,072.50
F Uddin, Baroness 2513938 27/03/2008 March 2008 24/04/2008 K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,320.00
K095 Member Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp 11,868.00
Uddin, Baroness 2508420 30/04/2007 April 2007 26/06/2007 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 690.00
Uddin, Baroness 2508421 24/05/2007 May 2007 26/06/2007 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,035.00
Uddin, Baroness 2509406 26/07/2007 July 2007 02/08/2007 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,173.00
G Uddin, Baroness 2511504 18/12/2007 December 2007 21/12/2007 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 715.00
Uddin, Baroness 2512652 31/01/2008 January 2008 21/02/2008 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,215.50
Uddin, Baroness 2513261 28/02/2008 February 2008 18/03/2008 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 929.50
Uddin, Baroness 2513261 28/02/2008 February 2008 18/03/2008 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 0.00
K105 Members’ Office Costs 10,291.50
Uddin, Baroness 2509407 30/07/2007 July 2007 02/08/2007 K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All Additional Office Costs 2006-07 690.00
Uddin, Baroness 2509921 25/09/2007 September 2007 27/09/2007 K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All Additional Office Costs 2007-08 1,500.00
H Uddin, Baroness 2512652 31/01/2008 January 2008 21/02/2008 K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All Additional Office Costs 2007-08 715.00
55,731.50
L
A
2006–07
Uddin, Baroness 2501296 25/05/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Rail Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2501295 27/04/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Airline Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2501295 27/04/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 64.00 B
Uddin, Baroness 2501295 27/04/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Rail Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2501296 25/05/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Airline Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2502719 25/07/2006 July 2006 03/08/2006 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 128.00
Uddin, Baroness 2505639 31/01/2007 January 2007 13/02/2007 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 112.00 C
Uddin, Baroness 2506970 29/03/2007 March 2007 17/04/2007 K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses Car Travel 80.00
K065 Members’ Travelling Expenses 1,024.00
Uddin, Baroness 2502718 29/06/2006 June 2006 03/08/2006 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 3,090.00 D
Uddin, Baroness 2502719 25/07/2006 July 2006 03/08/2006 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 2,935.50
Uddin, Baroness 2504801 19/12/2006 December 2006 04/01/2007 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 2,233.00
Uddin, Baroness 2505639 31/01/2007 January 2007 13/02/2007 K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence Night Subsistence 3,190.00
K085 Members’ Overnight Subsistence 27,418.00 E
Uddin, Baroness 2501296 25/05/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2501296 25/05/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,309.00
Uddin, Baroness 2502718 29/06/2006 June 2006 03/08/2006 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,232.00
Uddin, Baroness 2502719 25/07/2006 July 2006 03/08/2006 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,155.00
Uddin, Baroness 2504002 31/10/2006 October 2006 23/11/2006 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,192.50
Uddin, Baroness 2504800 30/11/2006 November 2006 04/01/2007 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,192.50 F
Uddin, Baroness 2504801 19/12/2006 December 2006 04/01/2007 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 874.50
Uddin, Baroness 2505639 31/01/2007 January 2007 13/02/2007 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Trave Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,272.00
Uddin, Baroness 2506969 28/02/2007 February 2007 17/04/2007 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,033.50
Uddin, Baroness 2506970 29/03/2007 March 2007 17/04/2007 K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp Day Subs and Incidental Travel 1,351.50
K095 Members Day Subs/Inc Travel Exp 10,997.50
Uddin, Baroness 2501295 27/04/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 335.00 G
Uddin, Baroness 2501296 25/05/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,139.00
Uddin, Baroness 2502719 25/07/2006 July 2006 03/08/2006 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,005.00
Uddin, Baroness 2504801 19/12/2006 December 2006 04/01/2007 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 759.00
Uddin, Baroness 2505639 31/01/2007 January 2007 13/02/2007 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 1,104.00
Uddin, Baroness 2506969 28/02/2007 February 2007 17/04/2007 K105 Members’ Office Costs Office Costs 897.00 H
K105 Members’ Office Costs 9,554.00
Uddin, Baroness 2501295 27/04/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All Additional Office Costs 2005 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2501296 25/05/2006 May 2006 01/06/2006 K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All Additional Office Costs 2005 0.00
Uddin, Baroness 2502718 29/06/2006 June 2006 03/08/2006 K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All Additional Office Costs 2005-06 1,675.00
Uddin, Baroness 2503203 02/10/2006 October 2006 04/10/2006 K115 Members Add’L Office Costs All Additional Office Costs 2006-07 2,070.00
52,738.50 J
L
A
2005–06
Accnt Code Period Trans Date Amnt D C Allocation Treference Descriptn Entry Date Entry Perd Due Date Anal T2 Posting Date
K065 2005001 20050407 62.40 D 052367 Baroness Uddin 20050802 2005005 20050407 1UDD001 20050802
B K065 2005004 20050721 187.20 D 052706 Baroness Uddin 20050913 2005006 20050721 1UDD001 20050913
K065 2005011 20060228 80.00 D 2500155 agresso trans 20060523 2005012 20060228 1UDD001 20060523
C K065 1,248.00
K085 2005002 20050526 1,800.00 D 052368 Baroness Uddin 20050802 2005005 20050526 1UDD001 20050802
K085 2005004 20050721 150.00 D 052706BAL Baroness Uddin 20050927 2005006 20050721 1UDD001 20050927
D K085 2005008 20051130 618.00 D 054900 Baroness Uddin 20060207 2005011 20051130 1UDD001 20060207
K085 2005011 20060228 2,472.00 D 2500155 agresso trans 20060523 2005012 20060228 1UDD001 20060523
K085 24,022.50
E K095 2005003 20050630 1,200.00 D 052630 Baroness Uddin 20050901 2005005 20050630 1UDD001 20050901
F K095 2005011 20060228 1,001.00 D 2500155 agresso trans 20060523 2005012 20060228 1UDD001 20060523
K095 9,620.00
G K105 2005007 20051031 938.00 D 053546 Baroness Uddin 20051206 2005009 20051031 1UDD001 20051206
K105 8,220.00
H K115 2005001 20050407 800.00 D 052367 Baroness Uddin 20050802 2005005 20050407 1UDD001 20050802
K115 1,805.00
44,915.50
L
A
2004–05
K065 2004008 20041028 269.57 D 0404128 Baroness Uddin 20041214 2004009 20041028 1UDD001 20041214 B
K065 1,996.80
K085 2004002 20040527 2,432.00 D 0401381 Baroness Uddin 20040615 2004003 20040527 1UDD001 20040615 C
K085 2004012 20050228 2,250.00 D 050784 Baroness Uddin 20050426 2005001 20050228 1UDD001 20050426 D
K085 24,529.00
K095 2004008 20041028 660.00 D 0404128 Baroness Uddin 20041214 2004009 20041028 1UDD001 20041214 E
K095 9,935.00
K105 2004002 20040527 802.50 D 0401381 Baroness Uddin 20040615 2004003 20040527 1UDD001 20040615 F
K105 2004012 20050228 845.00 D 050784 Baroness Uddin 20050426 2005001 20050228 1UDD001 20050426 G
K105 8,421.00
K115 2,120.00
47,001.80
L
A
2003–04
K065 2003001 20030331 339.45 D C 0203 Baroness Uddin 20030410 2003001 20030331 1UDD001 20030410
K065 2003001 20030331 "339.45 C C 0203 Baroness Uddin 20030411 2003001 20030331 1UDD001 20030411
B K065 2003002 20030523 218.79 D 1388 Baroness Uddin 20030610 2003003 20030523 1UDD001 20030610
C K065 2003007 20031030 262.55 D 3732 Baroness Uddin 20031118 2003008 20031030 1UDD001 20031118
K065 2003012 20040331 218.79 D LEX03-04 Baroness Uddin 20040625 2004003 20040331 1UDD001 20040625
K065 2,581.71
D K085 2003001 20030331 2,852.00 D C 0203 Baroness Uddin 20030410 2003001 20030331 1UDD001 20030410
K085 2003001 20030331 "122.00 C C 0203ADJ Baroness Uddin 20030410 2003001 20030331 1UDD001 20030410
K085 2003001 20030331 "2,852.00 C C 0203 Baroness Uddin 20030411 2003001 20030331 1UDD001 20030411
K085 2003001 20030331 122.00 D C 0203ADJ Baroness Uddin 20030411 2003001 20030331 1UDD001 20030411
K085 2003001 20030430 "122.00 C 1389ADJ Baroness Uddin 20030610 2003003 20030430 1UDD001 20030610
E K085 2003003 20030610 1,860.00 D 1388 Baroness Uddin 20030610 2003003 20030523 1UDD001 20030610
K085 2003003 20030610 "1,860.00 C 1388 Baroness Uddin 20030611 2003003 20030523 1UDD001 20030611
K085 2003003 20030610 "1,612.00 C 1389 Baroness Uddin 20030611 2003003 20030430 1UDD001 20030611
K085 2003003 20030610 122.00 D 1388ADJ Baroness Uddin 20030611 2003003 20030522 1UDD001 20030611
K085 2003003 20030610 122.00 D 1389ADJ Baroness Uddin 20030611 2003003 20030430 1UDD001 20030611
F K085 2003003 20030630 3,100.00 D 1879 Baroness Uddin 20030710 2003004 20030630 1UDD001 20030710
K085 2003007 20031030 "122.00 C 3732BAL Baroness Uddin 20031118 2003008 20031030 1UDD001 20031118
G K085 2003008 20031106 640.00 D 3733 Baroness Uddin 20031118 2003008 20031106 1UDD001 20031118
H K085 2003011 20040212 "122.00 C 0400597B Baroness Uddin 20040504 2004002 20040212 1UDD001 20040504
K085 2003012 20040331 "242.00 C OVNGHT UDD Baroness Uddin 20040614 2004003 20040331 1UDD001 20040614
K085 2003012 20040331 1,536.00 D LEX03-04 Baroness Uddin 20040625 2004003 20040331 1UDD001 20040625
K085 20,112.00
K095 2003001 20030331 1,178.00 D C 0203 Baroness Uddin 20030410 2003001 20030331 1UDD001 20030410
K095 2003001 20030331 "1,178.00 C C 0203 Baroness Uddin 20030411 2003001 20030331 1UDD001 20030411
J K095 2003003 20030610 806.00 D 1388 Baroness Uddin 20030610 2003003 20030523 1UDD001 20030610
K095 2003003 20030610 "806.00 C 1388 Baroness Uddin 20030611 2003003 20030523 1UDD001 20030611
K K095 2003008 20031106 256.00 D 3733 Baroness Uddin 20031118 2003008 20031106 1UDD001 20031118
K095 8,830.00
L K105 2003001 20030331 "988.00 C C 0203 Baroness Uddin 20030411 2003001 20030331 1UDD001 20030411
A
K105 2003009 20031218 642.00 D 4447 Baroness Uddin 20040106 2003010 20031218 1UDD001 20040106 B
K105 7,390.50
K115 2,000.00
40,913.21 C
Letter from Baroness Uddin to Mr Michael Pownall, Clerk of the Parliaments, dated 6 May 2009
Following our conversation I am writing to seek clarification on a number of issues that have been raised in
relation to my expenses. These are- D
1. Process
Please would you kindly let me know in writing the process and terms of your investigation? By this I am
asking what it is you will actually be investigating. How will you be conducting such an investigation, for
example will I be called to give evidence, am I entitled to representation and so on. Once your investigation is E
concluded who do you report your findings to and in what format. I am seeking your reassurance that my
personal family details remain confidential.
2. Timescale
F
It would be extremely helpful to know how long your investigation is likely to take and when you are likely
to begin.
3. House Rules
Lastly please can you let me know under which rule you are investigating my expenses. Also please explain G
in detail which rule it is being suggested that I may have broken. Please send me a copy of the relevant rule
or rules.
I am sure you will appreciate that this is a very difficult situation for myself and my family. I very much look
forward to proving that I have not broken any House rules as quickly as possible. I would therefore appreciate
your response as soon as is practicable. H
Many thanks for all your assistance.

6 May 2009
J
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 8 May 2009
Thank you for your letter of 6 May.
In response to your questions about the process of the investigation, I refer you to the written statement by
the Lord President on 5 May, which was as follows:
K
“On Sunday 3 May allegations were made in the media regarding the expenses claims of a Member of
the House. The Clerk of the Parliaments, as Accounting Officer, will carry out an initial investigation of
the allegations and will report his findings to committees of the House as appropriate.
General issues relating to Members’ expenses have been under consideration for some time by the House
authorities and are already on the agenda for the next meeting of the House Committee on 19 May.” L
It is my responsibility both as Accounting Officer and as Clerk of the Parliaments (see paragraph 1.1.1 of the
current guide to the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme) to ensure that the rules of the scheme are properly
applied. This responsibility was recognised by the Committee for Privileges in paragraph 14 of its 4th Report
of Session 2007–08.
A
The records of your claims are being reviewed. You will understand that until I have reviewed these I am unable
to say what further form the investigation will take, but I shall be in touch again as soon as I am in a position
to do so.
8 May 2009
B
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 19 May 2009
I am now in a position to write to you further about the investigation which the Leader of the House confirmed
on 5 May I would undertake into the allegations about your expense reimbursement claims.
C As you may know, the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service issued a joint statement on
Friday, 15 May as follows:
“Before the recent media exposure about alleged misuse of parliamentary expenses, the Metropolitan
Police Commissioner instigated meetings between the MPS and CPS in relation to a number of
D allegations made to police.
Due to the increase in subsequent allegations received by the MPS, the Commissioner and Director of
Public Prosecutions have decided jointly to convene a panel to assess allegations in order to advise on
whether criminal investigations should be started.
E A panel, comprising officers and a senior CPS lawyer, will commence a series of meetings next week.”
I have been informed by the Police that the panel mentioned above will be investigating allegations made
against Members of both Houses, In these circumstances, I propose to suspend my investigation into the
allegations made against you until I have received the findings of the panel.
F I will write to you again to let you know where things stand.
19 May 2009
Email from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk of the Parliaments dated 2 June 2009
G
I write to seek advice and clarification on two matters and would be grateful for a steer.
— Please can you let me know whether I need to register that my sister in law manages my office as a part
time student, I only pay some travel expenses sometimes.
H — Also what rule is applicable for members to claim fees on sitting days for those who may be appointed by
a government department to undertake work as a chair of a taskforce for instance.
It maybe that I have to go elsewhere in the House for this, but thought I should write to you in the first instance.
I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.

J
2 June 2009
Email from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 3 June 2009
Further to my letter to you 19 May, I am now writing to let you know that the Metropolitan Police Service
K have asked me to allow them access to some specific material relating to your expense claims which is held by
the Finance Department here at the House of Lords. The material requested includes claim forms and any
correspondence, e-mails or messages relating thereto.
I have taken the view that this material should be disclosed to the Police by the Finance Department, but I
L wanted to give you the opportunity (before I reply to the Police) to agree that you are content for this to be
done.
I should stress that this does not mean that the Police are conducting any formal investigation at present. As
I explained in my letter of 19 May, they are currently assessing a number of allegations relating to the alleged
misuse of House of Lords expenses.
A
I will if I may contact you about this by telephone tomorrow (Thursday) or here at the House if you are present
tomorrow; if it is more convenient, do please look in or ring me here .
I will if I may reply to your e mail of yesterday in the course of tomorrow.

3 June 2009 B
I am forwarding an email sent to you a couple of weeks ago for some advice,1 I would most appreciate your
guidance on these two matters.
C
I look forward to hearing from you.
16 June 2009
Email from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 16 June 2009 D
I am sorry to have delayed this reponse to your email of 2 June.
The answer to your first query is that it is not necessary for you to register specifically that your sister in law
manages your office as a part time student. If she has a security pass for the Parliamentary Estate, her name
will already appear in the Register of Members’ staff which is available electronically. But there is no need for E
a further reference in the main Register of Members’ interests.
On your second query, Members can only claim expenses under the Lords expenses system in respect of their
attendance here at the House or at a select committee. It is also possible to claim expenses incurred in respect
of travel in the UK on Parliamentary business, although this has to be approved in advance on each occasion.
It is not possible to claim expenses or fees in respect of work outside the House, whether or not for a F
Government Department.
I hope this is clear but please do not hesitate to let me know if I can help further on these points.
16 June 2009
G
Thank you, this is most helpful.
Please forgive me for stressing you on the second point, I am sorry I was not clearer. I would like to know if
H
members chairing government taskforces etc are eligible to receive from those department fees for such work
on sitting days (i.e. can they claim attendance allowances as well receive the fees for same days).
I look forward to hearing from you, this is not an urgent matter and I do not wish to rush you in any way.
17 June 2009
J
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 19 June 2009
Thank you for your letter of 19 June [Not printed. There is no record of such a letter.] concerning the
investigation which the Leader of the House confirmed on 5 May I would undertake into the allegations about
your expense reimbursement claims. K
By way of reminder, I enclose my letter to you of 19 May in which I explained that whilst the joint panel of
the Metropolitan Police Service and The Crown Prosecution Service was assessing the allegations, including
the allegations into your own claims, it was necessary for me to suspend my own investigation until I had
received the findings of the panel.
L
I have not heard the outcome of the joint panel and I am afraid that I am not, therefore, in a position to respond
to the various points in your letter. I will, however, retain it for future reference; and I can assure you that I
will write to you again on your points as soon as I have heard the outcome from the panel.
1 See email from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk of the Parliaments dated 2 June 2009.
A
I am sorry that I cannot give you a fuller answer at this stage.
19 June 2009
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 26 June 2009
B I was informed earlier this week by PICT that you have asked for your Parliamentary laptop to be reformatted.
As you know, this work is in hand: you have been issued with a replacement; and the laptop will be
returned shortly.
I thought it right to let you know that, in view of the current Police investigation, I have, in my capacity as
joint Data Controller for PICT, instructed PICT to retain a copy of the data removed from your laptop. This
C will be kept securely by PICT until the Police investigation is complete and will not be either accessed or
released. In accordance with the recently agreed Protocol, the Police would need to obtain a warrant if they
wished to search your office or access your electronic files.
I thought it right to let you know about this.
26 June 2009
D
[The Sub-Committee asked PICT to supply it with these data but PICT had deleted them.]
Letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments to Baroness Uddin dated 2 November 2009
I am writing to let you know that the Metropolitan Police have requested from the Finance Department here
E at the House details of the payments from the House of Lords’ bank account related to your claims for
expenses in to your bank account, together with the details of the bank account in to which the payments were
made. They have asked for this information for the payments made in the financial years 2006–07, 2007–08
and 2008–09. I understand that these details can be provided without difficulty in the form of a detailed print-
out and a statement.
F I should confirm that we propose to let the Police have this data sometime in the near future. I thought it right
to let you know of this development.
2 November 2009
Letter from Ms Maureen Buck, House of Lords Finance Department, to Baroness Uddin
G dated 11 February 2010
I am in receipt of your January and February 2010 expense claims on which you have stated as your main
residence an address in London. Our current records show your main residence as an address in Maidstone,
Kent. Further checking has established that your last expenses claim bearing the Kent address was for
November 2009. I have checked our correspondence files but I am unable to find an instruction as to a change
H of address.
May I ask that you confirm to this office in writing that you have changed your Main Residence, the full details
of the new address, and the date that this was effective from? I will then be in a position to amend our records
accordingly.
11 February 2010
J
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 12 March 2010
K Complaint relating to Baroness Uddin

I am writing to request that the Sub-Committee should investigate another complaint which I have received
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 4 May 2009, following media allegations on 3 May about Baroness Uddin’s expenses claims, I
L received a formal complaint relating to Baroness Uddin from a Member of the House of Commons.
I suspended my investigation into the complaint because the Metropolitan Police Service informed me on 7
July that they had begun an investigation into the allegations relating to Baroness Uddin. On 12 March 2010,
the Crown Prosecution Service announced that they had decided not to bring charges against Baroness Uddin
at this time.
A
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”.
As you know, I have in recent months investigated a significant number of these complaints and allegations; B
and in two cases so far, I have referred the complaint to the Sub-Committee. As in those cases, the allegations
relating to Baroness Uddin 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 role and capability as
Accounting Officer.
C
I would be grateful, therefore, if the Sub-Committee could investigate and determine the facts of the complaint
relating to Baroness Uddin 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
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 D
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
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. E
As before, I will, of course, make available to the Sub-Committee all the relevant material in the possession
of the Administration.
12 March 2010
Letter from Ms Maureen Buck, House of Lords Finance Department, to Baroness Uddin F
dated 22 March 2010
I refer to my letter to you of 11 February 2010,2 copy attached.
As of the time of writing I cannot trace having received a reply. I have therefore updated your records to show
your Main Residence as Wapping, London E1W with effect from 5 January 2010, being G
the first date shown on your claim form.
Please inform me should the above information be incorrect.
22 March 2010
Finance Department filing note on Baroness Uddin’s change of address by Ms Maureen Buck H
dated 22 March 2010
In the absence of full details of change of address, Agresso has been amended in relation to Baroness Uddin.
Category changed to “BB”, within five miles of Palace effective from 1 January 2010.
Address has not been changed from Kent. Will wait until full confirmation from Lady Uddin is received. J
Address on claim seem to read “ ” Street. No such street exists in Wapping. I have assumed “ ”
street is the one to be used.
Will change to correct details when info given.
22 March 2010
K
Letter from Mr Brendan Keith, Registrar of Lords’ Interests, to Baroness Uddin
dated 22 March 2010
Members’ Reimbursement Scheme

The Clerk of the Parliaments has asked the Sub-Committee on Lords’ interests to investigate your use of the L
members’ reimbursement scheme in the light of the allegations made about you in the Sunday Times
newspaper of 3 May 2009. 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 that report [not printed]. The report is
2 See letter from Ms Maureen Buck to Baroness Uddin dated 11 February 2010.
A
specifically about breaches of the Code of Conduct: this case is not about the Code of Conduct but I expect
that the Sub-Committee will follow a similar procedure.
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 3 May 2009 the Sunday Times newspaper reported you as
B having designated “a flat in Kent that neighbours say has been unoccupied for years” as your main residence
since 2005, which enabled you to claim night subsistence. The report quotes local residents who allege that
the flat was unfurnished. Although the Sub-Committee will take the reported allegations as the basis of their
investigation, they must consider your use of the scheme in general.
C The House holds records about your claims from April 2006 and the Sub-Committee may not investigatge
conduct more than four years previous to the complaint. A preliminary look at your claim forms shows that
your main residence from July 20053 until January 2010 was 3 The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone,
Kent ME15 6EE; before July 2005 it was Frinton-on-Sea, Essex CO13 ; from January
2010 it has been Wapping, which I assume to be London E1W . The forms also show
that you claimed reimbursement for travel by car from and to your main residence every weekend in term time
D almost without exception.4
May I please invite you to answer the following questions. It would be of great assistance to the Sub-
Committee if you could deal with each question in turn, and give a specific answer in relation to it rather than
general answers covering more than one question. This should help the Sub-Committee resolve the matter
E swiftly.
In relation to your Kent main residence:
1. What factors led you, on 28 August 2005, to designate 3 The Chenies as your main residence? I enclose
the Minutes of the House Committee meeting on 26 January 2010, which sets out their interpretation
F of a “main residence” under the current scheme.
2. Did you own or lease 3 The Chenies 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 2006, 2007,
G 2008 and 2009?
4. Did you travel, as indicated by your claim forms, from and to 3 The Chenies every week in term-time
from 3 February 2006 to 15 November 2009? Did you stay overnight at 3 The Chenies on those
weekends? If so, how do you reconcile this with the statements in the Sunday Times newspaper of 3
H May 2009?
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?
J 6. What recollection do you have of your pattern of residence at, and travel from and to, 3 The Chenies
in the period from 28 August 2005 to 3 February 2006, i.e. the period during which 3 The Chenies
was your main residence but for which the House no longer holds your claim forms?
In relation to your accommodation in London away from your main residence:

K 7. 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
for the purpose of attending sittings of the House” or did you make other arrangements?
L
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].
3 The House has retained your claim form dated 28 August 2005 in which you change your designated main residence from 14 The
Crescent, Frinton-on-Sea, Essex CO13 9AP to 3 The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6EE.
4 You did not claim for the weekends of 3/4 March 2007; 3/4 November 2007 and 13/14 December 2008.
A
I should be grateful for your response by 6 April. 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.
22 March 2010 B
Letter from Baroness Uddin to Ms Maureen Buck, House of Lords Finance Department,
dated 30 March 2010
3 The Chenies - Maidstone
Thank you for the letter with regards to clarification of my addresses. C
As result of unwelcome press attention there have been several unpleasant incidents with neighbours at my
property above as well as damage to my car whilst I have been there overnight. I decided it was not safe for
me and my children to continue to remain there and have not stayed overnight since November 2009. Please
kindly note therefore that for your purposes my address is Wapping, London E1W .
D
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should require any further information.
30 March 2010
Email from Baroness Uddin to the Registrar of Lords’ Interests dated 6 April 2010
Please kindly see the attached letter for your attention. E
I look forward to hearing from you.
6 April 2010
Attached to the preceding email: letter from Baroness Uddin to the Registrar of Lords’ Interests F
dated 6 April 2010

With the announcement today of the General Election and the dissolution of Parliament, I understand that
the Sub-Committee on Lord’s Interests will be dissolved in one week’s time. It will not be re-constituted until
G
after the election.
Unless you are able to give me your assurance that an adjudication will be delivered in my case before the
Sub-Committee’s dissolution, I believe that it would be much more appropriate for me to give my response to
the matters raised in your letter of 22 March once the Sub-Committee has been re-constituted after the General
Election. That is what I propose to do.
H
Please would you confirm that you have no objection to this course of action.
6 April 2010
Email from Mr Andrew Mackersie, Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, to Baroness Uddin
dated 6 April 2010 J
The Registrar of Lords’ Interests has passed to me your emailed letter to him of today’s date in which you
propose not to respond to his letter of 22 March until the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct has been
appointed in the new Parliament unless he is able to assure you that your case will be determined before
dissolution. I cannot say whether or not your case can be disposed of before dissolution until the
Sub-Committee has received your substantive response to the Registrar’s letter. K
The last paragraph of the Registrar’s letter to you read:
“I should be grateful for your response by 6 April. 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 L
in the new Parliament”.
May I please invite you to offer the Sub-Committee your substantive reply by the end of today? Even if your
case cannot be disposed of before dissolution, it will enable the Committee’s secretariat to make progress
during dissolution and hopefully its swift resolution early in the new Parliament. If you delay your response
A
until the appointment of the Sub-Committee in the new Parliament, resolution will inevitably be delayed and
the new Sub-Committee will need to take your delay into account when considering your response.
6 April 2010
B
Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Registrar of Lord’s Interests dated 7 April 2010

Thank you for your letter of 22 March with enclosed documents, which I have now considered.
C
At the outset, I would like to point out that, from the first day that the article in relation to my allowances was
published, I have requested an internal enquiry by the House authorities. I made this request both to Baroness
Royall and to Mr Pownall. This was before there was any suggestion of a reference being made to the Police.
I have also cooperated in full with all enquiries at all times.
D The Clerk of the Parliaments Mr Michael Pownall has, at various stages since November of last year, set out
criteria to apply in consideration of Members’ claims for overnight allowances. These have comprised:
(i) that it was for Members to designate their main residence;
(ii) that the main residence has to be “visited with a degree of frequency: in the order of at least once per
E month, over the year, when the House is sitting”;
(iii) that time spent at the main residence when the House is in recess is also a relevant factor;
(iv) that ownership is not a requirement but is factor in each case; and
F (v) that “visits” would be expected to include overnight stays.
These are, of course, criteria which Mr Pownall has introduced and published only after he has begun the
course of his enquiries into my own and others’ cases. They, of course, sit alongside the comments of the
Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the lack of a definition of “main residence ”.
G
I understand that points (i) to (v) are the standards which I am required to certify that I have complied with.
I confirm that I have complied with those standards. I attach my signed witness statement to that effect.
I am told that the enquiry into my affairs has been occasioned by an article appearing in the Sunday Times.
This does not seem to me to be appropriate when others have had the opportunity simply to have their
H explanations accepted by Mr Pownall. My case appears to have been singled out for special treatment. I simply
do not understand why that is the case when I have satisfied the criteria set out above.
I am deeply concerned as to how the adjudication the committee is to undertake can respect the principle of
natural justice and the requirements of a fair trial when there has been such extensive media coverage, both
of my own affairs and of the criteria applied by Mr Pownall.
J
First, at the time of announcement of the cessation of the criminal investigation into my affairs, Mr Pownall
made unprecedented public comment on the criteria he had set for the purpose of the House’s internal
investigations. He went on to add to the standards he had previously published and remarked that his
standards were not intended to apply to the criminal investigation.
K I ask how it can be appropriate for criteria to be determined as investigations proceed and for the Officer
responsible then to comment on their application in the media.
Secondly, it seems to me that wide spread media coverage has involved a public debate of the merits of my
expenses and allowances claim. That cannot be fair.
L
Finally, my suggestion to you that, with Parliament due to be dissolved within a week, it would be more
appropriate for my response to your letter to await the re-constitution of the Sub-Committee in the next
Parliament was rejected. The response I received from Mr Mackersie said that, if I were to delay my response
until the Sub-Committee is re-constituted, then it would need to take into account my delay when considering
my response.
A
I would respectfully enquire on what authority Mr Mackersie is able to speak for the Sub-Committee.
Nonetheless, my statement—my response to the questions that have been put to me—is enclosed with this
letter.
7 April 2010
B
STATEMENT OF POLA MANZILA UDDIN
I POLA MANZILA UDDIN WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I have dedicated my entire adult working life to providing public service leadership and giving support to C
all sections of the community irrespective of their creed, colour, religion or race. I have particularly worked
for those in need and disadvantaged sections of the community, as well as, more broadly the general
public, by serving in elected representative positions. It was against this background that I was raised in
1998 to the peerage, and took my seat in the House of Lords. I was then one of the youngest women in
the House, and the only female Muslim, and Bangladeshi, representative.
D
2. In the last decade, I have served as a working peer, sitting on the back benches, and providing loyal support
to the present Labour government, in accordance with my long-held beliefs. I am not, and have never
been, a Minister.
3. As a working peer I have arduous and wide-ranging commitments in order to fulfil my responsibilities to
the House, my country, my party, and particularly the interest of those groups, many of them E
disadvantaged, to which I have devoted my professional and personal life. These commitments necessitate
many attendances at the House, with unsocial, unpredictable and frequently very long hours.
4. Whenever I have made a claim in respect of any Parliamentary expenses, I have done so honestly, in good
faith and in the belief that the whole of each claim was properly allowable.
F
5. If I have at any time made a mistake or an error in the claims I have made, I apologise unreservedly. I
have always intended and thought I had achieved complete and correct observance of the House Rules as
I understood them and as they were explained to me.
6. Over the years, I have spoken to and received advice and guidance and information relating to many G
aspects of my life as a working peer from colleagues in, and officials of, the House. This has been both
formal and informal. Seeking the advice of others was, I understood, how you “learned the ropes” about
what to do.
7. Entitlement to and claims for Parliamentary expenses have been amoung the topics I have sought
guidance and received advice on. H
8. Each of the claims that I have submitted was in accordance with my understanding as to the custom and
practice of Members of the House, many of whom are people of great distinction in public life, with much
longer service and experience in the House, and its practices, than I have myself.
9. I have played an active role in the House and have sought to balance that with my personal and family J
life. That balance has not always been easy. Indeed as my commitments to the Lords and other work
increased my personal and family life came under considerable strain. As this tension grew I had numerous
discussions with a number of senior members of the House seeking their counsel.
10. Initially I started by renting a one bedroom flat to give myself some personal space. After approximately
8 to 10 months the rent became a financial strain and from 2001 I began to use my brother’s home in Essex K
as a bolt hole in order to allow me some breathing space.
11. In about 2005 my family circumstances were such that I began looking for other accommodation
arrangements. I found a flat in Maidstone and purchased it as a new build. I have owned the flat in my
sole name ever since, and continue to do so now. L
12. The Maidstone flat has always been the only property that I own personally. Responsibility for the
running costs of the property have always been mine alone. I have been grateful for the flat allowing me
to have my own space and in its way enabling me to maintain my family life, difficult and fractious though
that life has at times been.
A
13. Since taking possession of the Maidstone flat I have stayed there overnight on average at least once a week
including during periods in which the House has been in recess. Those stays have been reflected in the
claims that I have submitted.
14. Due to the considerable demands of the Lords, the community I seek to assist and my family, the time
B
I have spent at the Maidstone flat has been unpredictable and often at unsocial hours. My contact with
neighbours both in Wapping where my family live and Maidstone has necessarily been limited but there
has been contact.
15. It was my understanding, at the times I submitted claims, that it was for me—as with any other Member
C of the House—to determine which property I should designate as a “main residence” for the purpose of
making a claim, as guided by others.
16. I believe my claims for day subsistence also complied with the House’s rules. They included my travel costs
to the Maidstone flat each week when I was attending sittings of the House.
D
17. I made each claim openly, It was never suggested to me by any official, or anyone else, that any aspect of
any claim was inappropriate.
18. At all times I have acted on advice from friends, mentors and other colleagues in the House.
E
19. So far as I am able to judge no official in considering any of these claims has acted under any
misunderstanding, still less any misrepresentation, as to the basis upon which the claim was made, or as
to my entitlement.
F 20. I emphatically reject, in the strongest possible terms, any suggestion that I have fallen short of the
standards expected of a Member of the House of Lords, or that I have knowingly done anything that was
wrong or in breach of the rules or procedures of the House.
21. To the best of my ability, I have always sought to uphold the integrity of the House, to act in the interests
of members of the public and to fulfil my responsibilites both to them and to the House itself. If I have
G erred I repeat my sincere apologies for I have done so unwittingly.
22. I have never previously been the focus of allegations, or investigations, of any nature and I have been
distressed by the torrent of unpleasant, unjustified and disproportionate media attention that I and my
family have received in recent months.
H
23. It would appear that there are those who, for unworthy motives, would wish to target me as a scapegoat
in respect of limitations and inadequacies which have been identified (including by the Director of Public
Prosecutions) in the Parliamentary expenses system generally.
J 24. I have at all times continued to fully cooperate with the police and House leadership. Indeed at the very
beginning of these enquiries I referred myself to the House Authorites and proposed in writing that there
should be an internal enquiry. I have wanted, from day one, to make clear that what I have done has been
what I understood and was led to believe was the correct approach by those in the House from whom I
sought guidance.
K
25. Whilst respecting the absolute authority of the House and its procedures I have failed to understand why
some explanations made by some members in respect of their allowances have been accepted by the Clerk
of the Parliaments, Mr Pownall in February 2010 whilst claims made by myself have been the subject of
such intense scrutiny.
L 26. I have been particularly concerned at the comments made following the conclusion of the DPP not to
prosecute me, a conclusion which followed an extensive police enquiry.
27. I make these remarks in the certain belief that to the best of my knowledge; the account of my claims
which I have given above demonstrates compliance with the standards as communicated by the [sic]
A
28. This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
7 April 2010
Letter from the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests to Baroness Uddin
B
dated 8 April 2010

I am replying to your letter and statement dated 6 April 2010 in reply to the Registrar of Lords’ Interests’ letter
to you of 22 March.
C
In your letter, you express a concern that the Sub-Committee’s investigation should respect natural justice.
May I assure you that the Sub-Committee fully shares this concern, and not only because it is obliged to do
so by the report on The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members, a copy of
which the Registrar enclosed with his letter to you. I will make sure that your concerns are drawn to the
attention of the Sub-Committee, who I know will taken them very seriously.
D
You ask on what authority I am able to speak for the Sub-Committee. I am its clerk. I have no authority to
act beyond the Sub-Committee’s instruction, but the Registrar and I do have the Sub-Committee’s instruction
to correspond with you and others to enable the Sub-Committee to consider your case as conveniently and
expeditiously as possible.
Having shown your correspondence with the Registrar to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, I am directed E
by her to invite you to address yourself explicitly to the seven questions put to you by the Registrar in his letter
to you of 22 March. As the Registrar set out in his letter, it would be of great assistance to the Sub-Committee
if you could deal with each question in turn, and give a specific answer in relation to each question rather than
general answers covering more than one question. Perhaps it might help to note that, in other recent cases, the
member’s cooperation with the investigation, and full and direct answers to the Sub-Committee’s questions, F
have proved mutually helpful in the swift and convenient disposal of the cases. If you feel unable to answer
the questions in writing, it may be that the Sub-Committee may wish to put those or similar questions to you
in interview.
It would help the Sub-Committee to receive your reply by 16 April though it is of course the case that, after
the dissolution of Parliament on Monday 12 April, the Sub-Committee can take no further action until G
appointed in the new Parliament.
8 April 2010
Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Registrar of Lords’ Interests dated 16 April 2010
H
Thank you for your letter of 8 April.
I very much regret that the answers I provided in my letter of 7 April, and my accompanying witness statement,
do not appear to have met with your approval. My intention was to provide you with a full account of all of J
the relevant circumstances surrounding my claims to assist the Sub-Committee in its deliberations.
As has been the case from the outset, I remain ready and willing to cooperate fully with yourself, the Sub-
Committee and any other authorities of the House.
Below, and hopefully in a way which will assist you and members of the Sub-Committee, I set out the relevant K
paragraph numbers from my statement which deal with the individual questions raised.
Question 1 is answered at paragraphs 10 to 12, 15, 16 and 18 of my witness statement.
Question 2 is answered at paragraph 12.
Question 3 is answered at paragraph 13. L
Question 4 is answered at paragraphs 14 and 16.

In relation to Question 5, I am not able to add anything to what I have said at paragraph 16. I am afraid that
I do not retain any readily available evidence.
A
Question 6 is answered at paragraph 13.
In relation to Question 7, you have what I have said at paragraphs 9 to 13 of my statement. When I did not
stay at 3 The Chenies, I stayed at a property that my husband and I had had for a number of years under a
tenancy with a Housing Association.
B
I do not really think that there is anything further that I can add at this stage.
I confirm once again that I remain very eager to cooperate in full with yourself and the Sub-Committee and
I hope that my explanation of how I have answered all of the questions asked of me is of assistance. Parliament
having now been dissolved I await further communications once Parliament and the Sub-Committee returns.
C 16 April 2010
Letter from the Clerk to Baroness Uddin dated 22 April 2010

D
Investigation by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct
I am replying to your letter dated 16 April 2010. Now that Parliament has been dissolved, I cannot speak for
the Sub-Committee until such a Committee is appointed in the new Parliament. I thought however that you
might find it helpful if I were to let you know that the Sub-Committee are likely to want to speak to you in
person about this case. I do not know by what date the new Sub-Committee will have been appointed, so may
E I please ask you to keep free the mornings of Thursday 24 June, 1 and 8 July? Paragraph 25 of the report on
The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against members (a copy of which you have) reads:
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
F
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.
I will write to you again as soon as I have instructions from the new Sub-Committee.
G 22 April 2010
Email from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk dated 14 May 2010

Please kindly see the attached letter for your attention
H 14 May 2010
Attached to preceding email: letter from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk dated 14 May 2010

J
Thank you for your letter of 22 April.
I understand that the Sub-Committee may want to speak to me in person about my case. As I have always
said, I am very keen to assist the Sub-Committee as it may see appropriate. No doubt you will let me know if
K that is what the Sub-Committee decides. In the meantime, I confirm that I will keep free the mornings of
Thursday 24 June, 1 and 8 July.
I know that you cannot speak for the Sub-Committee, which has not yet been appointed in the new
Parliament. However, there is one matter which I would be grateful if you could help me with.
L As I understand The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against Members’ the procedure
is for the Clerk of the Parliaments to request the Sub-Committee to assist him. It is then for the Sub-Committee
to decide whether the complaint merits investigation.
Mr Keith said in his letter to me of 22 March that the Clerk of the Parliaments has asked the Sub-Committee
to investigate my use of the members’ reimbursement scheme.
A
What I am not clear about is whether or not the Sub-Committee, before it was dissolved in the last Parliament,
actually took the formal decision that the complaint against me merited investigation.
Are you able to tell whether the Sub-Committee, before its dissolution, actually made that decision? If so,
please may I be provided with a copy of the minute recording that decision? This will enable me to understand
the stage that we have reached in the procedure. B
I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.

14 May 2010
C
Email from the Clerk to Baroness Uddin dated 19 May 2010
I am replying to your email below which attached a letter to me dated 14 May.
The Sub-Committee agreed to the Clerk of the Parliaments’ request for assistance in your case at its meeting
on 18 March 2010. The Committee’s minutes are private to the Committee and are covered by parliamentary D
privilege, so I may not provide you with a copy of the minute of that meeting.
19 May 2010
Email from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk dated 20 May 2010

E
Please kindly see the attached letter for your attention.
20 May 2010
Attached to the preceding email: letter from Baroness Uddin to the Clerk dated 20 May 2010 F

Thank you for your email of yesterday.
G
I understand that at its meeting on 18 March, the Sub-Committee agreed to the Clerk of the Parliaments
request for assistance in my case.
However, it is still important for me to know whether the Sub-Committee has actually decided that the
complaint merits investigation.
H
The reason for this is that paragraph 15 of The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against
Members says that from the point that the Sub-Committee decides to undertake an investigation all evidence
and correspondence relating directly to the inquiry is covered by parliamentary privilege. It must remain
confidential unless and until it is published by the Committee for Privileges.
It seems to be that there is every possibility that I may be asked further questions which relate directly to my J
private life and personal circumstances.
I have always said that I am very keen to assist the Sub-Committee as it may see appropriate. That remains
the case. But, to enable me to respond fully and candidly to such further questions as may be put to me, I do
need to have confirmation that the stage has been reached in the proceedings where paragraph 15 of the Code K
has been engaged.
I very much hope that you will understand why I feel that I need to seek confirmation on this issue, and very
much look forward to hearing from you in this regard.
In the meantime, if and when the Sub-Committee decides that it does want to speak to me in person, I will L
want to be accompanied by a fellow Member. He has informed me that he is not available on 24 June and 8
July and I would respectfully ask that this be taken into consideration when the Sub-Committee decides when
it would like to speak with me.
20 May 2010
A
Email from the Clerk to Baroness Uddin dated 21 May 2010
I am replying to your email below which attached a letter to me dated 20 May.
I am sorry that my reply to your letter dated 14 May was unclear. The Sub-Committee has decided to
undertake an investigation of your case. As you point out in your most recent letter, evidence relating directly
B to that inquiry is covered by parliamentary privilege and should remain confidential unless and until it is
published by the Committee for Privileges.
21 May 2010
Letter from Baroness Uddin to Baroness Manningham-Buller, Chairman of the Sub-Committee on

C Lords’ Conduct, dated 14 July 2010

I am very pleased that I now have a date to meet with the Sub-Committee on Thursday 15 July. I thought
members might find it useful if I wrote in advance to allow consideration of all the issues.
D
This whole matter began on 3 May 2009 when I was the subject of a Sunday Times article that alleged that I
had broken the rules of the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme. I subsequently met with the Leader of the
House, other Members and Officers and asked that an investigation was started. I have cooperated with that
investigation since then.
The investigations by the House were not completed as the matter was referred to the police for investigation
E and subsequently to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was decided on 12 March 2010 that there was no
basis to justify a prosecution against me.
There was then a further delay until after the General Election. Now that the election is over I am glad that
this matter is finally being addressed by the House.
F I have set out below a brief chronology of what actions I took in connection with my expenses claims. Taken
together with the papers the Committee has seen it will, I hope, help to provide a complete picture.
1998
I entered the House of Lords. This was a great honour and was awarded in recognition for my grass roots
G community activity—“services to the community and women”. A peerage was not something I had ever
expected to receive and I knew hardly anyone associated with the Lords. I was delighted of course but it was
a very significant personal and cultural shift for me and one that I struggled to cope with in some respects.
When I was introduced many Peers gave me advice including about claiming expenses. A number said I should
acquire a home outside London. This was something I did not consider as my family home was in London
H and that is how it remained until 2001.
I did not claim any overnight expenses nor had any need to do so for a period of three years.
2001
My personal circumstances changed and I needed to alter my living arrangements. During the week I was
J mostly in London but at the weekends I stayed initially in Windsor and then with my brother in Frinton. I
took advice from my Chief Whip and was told to re-designate my home and claim for travel and overnight
subsistence, which I did.
2005
K Four years later when my personal situation had not improved I bought a two bedroom flat in Maidstone. I
continued the arrangement of spending some time there during the week and/or at weekends, as and when I
needed to. When I had cause to ask, I was assured by fellow Peers that what I was doing was in line with the
rules of the House and there was no challenge from any Official to what I claimed.
In respect of my main residence and other expenses, I have only ever done what I have been advised to do by
L other Peers or Officers of the House, I have never knowingly taken any step that another Peer or House Official
has not suggested that I take.
Given that as far as I was concerned, and had been advised I was doing nothing wrong, you can fully appreciate
that I felt like I had been hit by a “truck” when the Sunday Times article was published. I have deliberately
never sought media attention for myself or the work that I do and you can just imagine the array of emotions
A
I felt, which included anger, shame and embarrassment for me and my family. This was mixed with feeling of
real fear as each day more and more hate mail and death threats were delivered.
The only thought in my mind was to work hard and try to clear my name. I felt even more isolated when so
few Peers and Officers came forward to confirm that my understanding was also their understanding of the
rules, as they had advised me privately before.
B
I am indebted to my mentor and House of Lords staff for coming forward and explaining in their statements
just how unclear the system was. It is unbelievable that we have been operating a system that is unclear to both
Peers who advise New Peers and to the Finance Officers who operate it.
The police investigation and the intervening election has allowed time to pass and given me time to reflect. We
have been operating a system that is unclear and ambiguous, it has called for no receipts or documentation C
and I completely understand why hard working men and women in this country are angry and disillusioned
with politicians.
Furthermore, I have come to realise, this is no longer simply a matter of expenses. It is an issue of trust in our
democracy and in the people who make the laws.
I know that on my own I cannot turn around this situation. Parliamentarians in both Houses and of all parties D
need to work to regain the public’s trust. At least the new flat rate system is clearer and simpler. None of us
would have been able to make these mistakes if it had been in place when I entered the House. However I do
feel that if I am going to be critical of the way we have been operating the rules in the past, I must also accept
some personal responsibility.
I believe I complied with the rules but I realise that is no longer enough. I know now I should have maintained E
a higher standard. I am truly sorry to all those who put their trust in me who I feel I have let down, including
my family.
In recompense, I therefore wish to make a voluntary, personal payment to the Accounts Office for a sum of
£5,500. This amount is a significant sum to me personally, and I have made it greater than the sum of travel
fees I claimed during the period 2005 to 2009.
F
I also wish to apologise to the House and through the House to the wider community.
I hope this letter together with all the background papers you have already received serve to assist you in your
deliberations.
Many thanks for your consideration.
14 July 2010 G
L
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 12 March 2010
B Sunday Times 3 May 2009—Baroness Uddin
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 Baroness Uddin’s
C use of the members’ reimbursement scheme in the light of your newspaper’s report about her of 3 May 2009.
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 pursuant to the report from the Committee for
Privileges on The Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against members (4th Report 2007–08,
a copy of which you already have [not printed]).5 As you may know, the matter was until recently under
investigation by the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service who have now announced that their
D work 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.
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 3 May 2009
was based and any other material relevant to the Sub-Committee’s investigation.
E
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
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.
12 May 2010
F
Letter from Mr Jonathan Calvert and Ms Claire Newell of the Sunday Times newspaper to the Clerk of
the Sub-Committee of Lord’s Interests dated 26 March 2010
We are happy to provide you with all the material from our research into Baroness Uddin’s expense claims
G for night subsistence. You will find enclosed copies of our articles, recordings (downloaded from digital voice
recorders) and transcripts. The recordings have not been changed. However, the transcripts are our working
transcripts and therefore may have parts missing or the odd word out of place. The recordings and transcripts
can be found on the computer discs we have supplied with this letter.
Our findings against Baroness Uddin are set out clearly in the various article we have written since May last
H year. The purpose of this letter is to point out some of the evidence which is contained in the computer disc.
Our first inquiries into Baroness Uddin are set out in our 3 May article entitled “The deserted Kent flat that
earned the Baroness £100,000.”
There are two main allegations against Uddin. Firstly, that she claimed around £100,000 (now nearer
£120,000) in night subsistence expenses by falsely claiming that her main residence was a flat in Maidstone
from September 2005. Secondly, that Uddin claimed £83,000 (and possibly more, as we can only see records
J
going back to 2001) in expenses before September 2005 by falsely claiming that her main residence was her
brother’s house in Frinton-on-Sea, Essex.
Her property (Flat 3, The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone ME15 6EE) is one of the six flats which share
the same front door and corridors. We interviewed all her neighbours in that block between 28 April and 30
April, including the residents of flat 1 who had recently moved out. The voices of The Sunday Times reporters
K
are Claire Newell and Jonathan Calvert and the conversations are with:
Flat , Stuart Brown (he and his partner Gemma Fox had moved out a couple of months earlier).
Flat , Angela Storey.
Flat , Yvonne Adams.
L
Flat , Matthew Hollis (Note, Chris Pollard, a news agency reporter, also interviewed Hollis’s girlfriend
Kelly Knight on our behalf).
Flat , Joel Dunn.
5 The Clerk provided a copy of the report in similar correspondence relating to the conduct of Lord Paul.
A
We have also included three conversations with Ian Allcock, a postman who lives with his wife Jane at Flat
(the next block along). Chris Pollard spoke to Moshahidur Rahman whose house on Chancery Lane is at
the entrance to the flats. Mr Rahman said he would have recognised Uddin as she is prominent in the
Bangladeshi community but he never saw her there. Chris Pollard also spoke to Mark Ryan, a plumber from
Folkestone went into the flat when Baroness Uddin’s family appeared to be moving in on the weekend of 25-
26 April. Please note that Chris Pollard went to get his tape half way through the conversation with Mr Ryan, B
the plumber, which is why the first half is missing. We understand Ryan, and the other neighbours, have
confirmed their accounts in statements to the police.
All the witnesses above support the allegation that Baroness Uddin was rarely at the flat, if at all. One talks
of someone popping in for a few minutes on rare occasions. This was clearly not a main residence. It is also
worth noting that night subsistence was not the only allowance she may have falsely claimed. Between 2006 C
and 2008 she claimed £2,016 in travel expenses for driving between Maidstone and the House of Lords. By
our calculations she made 89 round trips between February 2006 and March 2009. Could she have visited this
many times, and never be seen by any of her neighbours?
Her friend/associate Mahee Ferdous Mahill told us that she had no property outside London before she
bought the Maidstone flat. Ferdous, who owns the Prestige Auto Group and Channel S television, has, for D
reasons that are unclear, given Uddin her BMW 5 Series Car (Reg: ). The recording of his
conversation with Jonathan Calvert has been included on the disc marked “Baroness Uddin”. There is no
mention of the gift of a car in her entry to the Register of Members’ Interests.
Ferdous also says that the Maidstone flat was bought on Baroness Uddin’s behalf by her brother Rousseau
Muntakim Khan, a mortgage broker who lives at Bickley, Bromley BR1 . Ferdous says E
the flat was an investment property and Uddin did not see it before it was bought by Rousseau. Chris Pollard
spoke to Rousseau and he was very defensive.
We have also been in regular email correspondence with a relative of Uddin’s. He does not wish to be named.
The relative says that Uddin has only ever lived at London E1W since becoming a
Baroness. He wrote in one email: “I know of no other property that she has owned in this country or rented F
prior to the Kent flat.” Our reporter Kevin Dowling also spoke to neighbours around Baroness Uddin’s
London home, who appeared to confirm that she did use this as her main address. (She gives as
her address to electoral roll and Companies House, and her children were at school in London). We have
included Kevin’s two taped conversations with neighbours Fozlu Miah and Rafique Uddin. We can provide
his notes of his other conversations with neighbours which were not recorded. G
We put the questions about the main home outside London to Uddin through her solicitors, which were
initially Carter Ruck. Before we knew the address, Carter Ruck confirmed that Uddin owned a property in
Maidstone which was registered as her main address with the House of Lords. Uddin offered a deal through
her solicitors whereby she would reveal the address to us if we undertook to not reveal details of the address
or approach her family members at the address. However, when we found the address without her help, it was H
clear that there were no family members living there.
Before publication of the story, we emailed Carter Ruck four times making it clear that Uddin had failed to
address the question of whether she had a main home outside London before August 2005. We did not get a
response until a couple of hours before we went to press on the Saturday evening. Even then, Uddin only
claimed, via the solicitors, that she did regularly stay in the Maidstone flat (the accompanying statement was
J
carried in the article) but made no mention at all of her main residence before August 2005, which was odd as
our emails persistently pressed on this point. She changed her solicitors soon after. We have included our
emails to Carter Ruck but we would have to take legal advice on whether we are able to give Carter Ruck’s
emails on behalf of Baroness Uddin. It may be that Baroness Uddin would be happy for us to give them to you.
In January this year we discovered that the address she had been giving in the period before September 2005
K
was her brother’s home in Frinton-on-Sea. When we asked Baroness Uddin’s sister-in-law, ,
whether the baroness had ever lived at the property during the relevant period, replied: “Not that
I can recollect.” We have not included this tape-recording and a conversation with a neighbour who knew the
family well but could not recall Baroness Uddin ever living there.6
We understand that the police took statements from most of the people we interviewed in Maidstone and
collected further evidence such as utility bills which showed the flat had rarely been occupied, if at all. They L
produced a file of evidence for the Crown Prosecution Service. We sent our evidence to Detective
Superintendent Matthew Horne of the Metropolitan police. It may be worth approaching the police to see if
they would be willing to share their evidence with you. They did not interview anyone in Frinton-on-Sea.
6 The Sunday Times did provide the Sub-Committee with these recordings. The transcripts are printed at pp93–98.
A
However, when a new definition of “main home” was agreed between Michael Pownall, the Clerk of the
Parliaments, and the House Committee, the Crown Prosecution Service felt its case against Baroness Uddin
had been undermined and it was forced to drop it. 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. It is understood
that the police took this to mean that Baroness Uddin only had to be in the vicinity of the Maidstone flat for
B a few minutes once a month to claim that it was her main home. It would have been impossible to prove that
she never visited the flat.
Since then, Mr Pownall has published a statement saying that he had intended the definition to mean at least
one-night stay a month. From the evidence above, Baroness Uddin. Even under this very benign definition,
it is clear from the evidence above that she broke the rules.
C Please let us know if we can be of further help.
26 March 2010
Sunday Times Transcripts

D 1. Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Ms Claire Newell and Mr Jonathan Calvert of
the Sunday Times newspaper and Mr Matthew Hollis, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in
Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April 2009 at Mr Hollis’ flat
Ms Newell: Hi, I’m really sorry to bother you. I was just looking for the person that lives in number 3, I
think it’s. . .
E
Mr Hollis: I don’t think anyone does live there. I’ve never seen anyone in there.
Ms Newell: There’s an Asian woman called Manzila Uddin, who says that’s her main residence. But you
haven’t come across her? How long have you lived here for?
Mr Hollis: Three years.
F Ms Newell: Oh, really?
Mr Calvert: What and has it always been empty, all this time?
Mr Hollis: I’ve never ever ever seen anyone go in there.
Mr Calvert: Do you ever hear any noises from downstairs?
G Mr Hollis: No.
Ms Newell: Ahh.
Mr Hollis: Bascially, I tell a lie, we had a leak up here, once, and I think there was somebody, because the
resident. . . If you want to get hold of someone, they. . . It’s run by a company called Countryside, they’re based
in Croydon. They’re the maintenance guys for this block.
H
Ms Newell: Oh, they’re the contact people.
Mr Calvert: And they’re called Countryside in Croydon, well maybe we could get it through them.
Ms Newell: Yeah, that’s a good idea.
Mr Calvert: No, I mean, she says this is her main residence, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of
J
anyone. In fact, somebody was saying that before this weekend, there were no curtains up at all.
Mr Hollis: There have been curtains up but they’ve fallen down.
Ms Newell: Ahh.
Mr Hollis: So someone must have been in there at some point but I’ve never ever seen anyone. Apart from
K that time when we had a leak and I wasn’t here, my girlfriend was here.
Ms Newell: It might just have been a maintenance person, of course.
Mr Hollis: It might have been but I think it was somebody Indian, if you’re saying it’s an Indian. . . I thought
it was a guy that lived there actually, only because when I spoke to the maintenance guy. They’ve got all the
people’s details, you know, and stuff like that. . .
L
Ms Newell: Oh, have they?
Mr Calvert: Countrywide—is that who you call if you have a problem?
Mr Hollis: Yeah, they’re in Croydon and I think they’re like a residential, you know. They look after apartment
blocks and things like that. They do all the maintenance here.
A
Ms Newell: We’ll try that.
Mr Hollis: Yeah, apart from that, I’ve got actually no idea. There’s a lot of people that don’t necessarily live
here all the time, they work in London and are down here on the weekends and stuff. But I’ve never ever seen
anyone down there, so. . .
Ms Newell: Yeah, so they don’t come down. Well, thanks for your help. What’s your name, sorry? B
Mr Hollis: Matt.
Ms Newell: Well, thanks, Matt. Bye.
2. Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Ms Claire Newell and Mr Jonathan Calvert
and Ms Yvonne Adams, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April C
2009 outside Ms Adams’ flat
When Ms Newell and Mr Calvert first try to speak to Yvonne Adams an unidentified man answers:
Man Y: Hello.
Ms Newell: Hello, I’m looking for Manzila Uddin. D
Man Y: Pardon?
Ms Newell: I’m looking for someone called Manzila Uddin. I think she might live at number 3.
Man Y: This is number .
Ms Newell: I’m sorry, wrong number. Do you know the person who lives in number 3? E
Man Y: Bear with me . . . they’ve been there for a few days.
Ms Newell: Oh, they’ve been there for a couple of days, have they? Do you know if it’s an Asian lady?
Man Y: I know nothing more than that, my love.
Ms Newell: You live in number , do you? What’s your name? F
Man Y: Who are you, my love? I don’t know. . . All I can tell you is that it’s been occupied for a couple of days.
Ms Newell: What, just over the weekend or something?
Man Y: I don’t know darling, all right? Try number 3, you might be able to talk to them directly.
Ms Newell: OK, bye. G
[3 minutes of silence on the recording. Faint voices can be heard but the conversation is inaudible. The next clear
noise on the tape is the sound of a door bell. The sound is then muffled for a further 10 seconds before voices become
clear. The journalists speak to a second unidentified man before Ms Adams interrupts.]
Mr Calvert: We’re doing a story about a woman called Baroness Uddin.
Man Z: Do you need anyone from number ? H
Mr Calvert: She claims that she has been living here for the last four years, in that flat there.
Ms Adams: No one’s been living there.
Mr Calvert: I know, this is the point, and we want to just establish that that’s the case.
Ms Adams: Can I ask where you’re from? J
Mr Calvert: The Sunday Times. I can give you my card if that helps.
Ms Newell: We’re writing a story about the lady who says she lives there, because she’s been claiming a lot of
money from the taxpayer . . . [inaudible]
Ms Adams: I’ve lived here about three years . . . [inaudible] . . . last few days. I only know because there’s a mat
that’s been put there and I thought, “Oh, a mat. Someone must have moved in”, but saying that, I haven’t K
heard since. Someone said to me that an Indian lady owned it and she had something to do with Tony Blair,
and that’s all I can remember.
Ms Newell: Was that when you moved in?
Ms Adams: Yes. I said does anyone live there? You know, you talk to neighbours. So I bought the show flat,
which is number . And occasionally, every few months some Indian people would come and there’d be just L
a bit of noise for 10 minutes and then they’ll leave and that’s it. But it’s only been these past few days I’ve seen
that mat, and it’s only because of the mat I’m assuming they’ve moved in, but maybe they haven’t.
Ms Newell: Yeah, well one of the other neighbours told us that in the last couple of days someone’s put some
curtains up, because they said there never used to be curtains.
A
Ms Adams: No, there never used to be curtains and security lights used to come on and off at specific times
of day.
Mr Calvert: Was there any furniture?
Ms Adams: No, because one day I noticed the security light was on and I thought that’s a bit dodgy because
B the net curtain had fallen down and you could see the room was empty.
Mr Calvert: That would be the bedrooms, wouldn’t it?
Ms Adams: Yeah, the bedrooms were at the front and the lounge at the back. But even from my balcony, all
year round the lounge windows, sorry curtains, are pulled, all year round. Definitely no one lived there.
Mr Calvert: Definitely no one lived there?
C
Ms Adams: Yeah, I moved in April 2006 and you could see all the leaves on the balcony. No one’s lived there
since I’ve lived here, which is three years.
Mr Calvert: She actually lives in Tower Hamlets, in London, and has lived there, the same place, since 1993,
but claims that this is her main residence, because it means that she can live outside London and claim an
allowance.
D
Ms Adams: Yeah, there’s a lot of this going on, isn’t there? But no, absolutely not. It’s only this last few days
a mat’s been put there.
Ms Newell: That’s really funny.
Mr Calvert: Well, I’ll tell you why. Because we rang them last Friday to ask them about this. Did they come
E in after Friday, do you think?
Ms Adams: It was definitely some time over the weekend.
Ms Newell: Ah, makes sense then.
Mr Calvert: Someone down the road said that since then they’ve put the curtains back up again, because the
curtains had fallen down.
F
Ms Adams: That’s right, because for ages the curtains had dropped down, and I thought that’s a bit dodgy,
you know, but I’m not, to be honest, I’m not really a nosy neighbour, so I haven’t noticed that, but if it’s back
up, yes for a long time it was down.
Mr Calvert: In a small place like this.
G Ms Adams: You can’t help it.
Mr Calvert: You are bound to know whether you’ve got an empty flat next to you, aren’t you?
Ms Adams: Well, actually it’s been quite a godsend, because I play my music loud sometimes and the fact that
you haven’t got to bother with neighbours, and I’ll be honest with you when I saw the mat I thought, “Oh,
someone’s moved in”, but I don’t think maybe they have.
H Mr Calvert: Who would look after it? Does anyone look after it?
Ms Adams: We all pay a maintenance charge monthly. That comes out of her rent. There’s a property
management company, I forget what they’re called now, they come and cut the grass, they clean the windows,
but there’s a standard charge. I think it’s £1,000 a year. I just pay it monthly. I don’t know how others pay it.
So they just look after the communal areas, the carpets and the grounds, you know.
J
Mr Calvert: Do you know who they are? Are they Countryside?
Ms Adams: Countrywide Properties, I think it is.
Mr Calvert: In Croydon?
Ms Adams: Yes, put them into Google. They are definitely in Croydon, because I remember seeing the address
K to send payments. Countrywide Properties. But I can assure you that no one’s lived in there the whole time
I’ve been here, and I moved in April 2006.
Mr Calvert: Not even popping in for weekends?
Ms Adams: As I say, every few months some Indian people would just visit, but you’re talking 10 minutes max,
presumably just to check, but that’s all I can tell you. But definitely she’s on the fiddle one-hundred percent.
L
Mr Calvert: Do you have a telephone number in case we want to get back to you?
Ms Adams: Yes, I can give you my mobile number. That’s so bloody greedy isn’t it?
Mr Calvert: On the electoral roll it says you’re Yvonne Adams. Is that right?
Ms Adams: That’s right. There’s no hiding yourself is there?
A
Mr Calvert: And what’s your mobile?
Ms Adams: . And it’s funny, another thing as well. Just since the weekend the parking space
[inaudible].
Ms Newell: Is it here?
Ms Adams: No, the parking space for flat number 3. . . [inaudible]. . . just opposite, I think it’s bay number B
8—they have no relevance to the flat numbers—since the weekend there’s been this old, not old banger, but
an old red car just parked there. No one’s moved it. It’s just there. Whether that’s another, well, to imply people
are living there, I don’t know.
Mr Calvert: I wonder why she bought this flat here? Because she was born and bred in the East End.
C
Ms Newell: She’s got a brother who lives in Bromley, but that’s quite far away.
Ms Adams: Well, Bromley’s Kent, but it is pretty close to London, isn’t it?
Mr Calvert: And that’s where all her family are. It’s where her family home is. They all grew up there. I asked
her husband about it last week and he didn’t even seem to know this place existed.
Ms Adams: Maybe she bought it because it was some distance away and, I don’t know. Anyway, do you mind D
if I crack on, because I’ve got about three hours of ironing to do.
Ms Newell: You haven’t seen anyone here since you moved in?
Ms Adams: Oh, I don’t mind putting it on tape, one-hundred percent.
Mr Calvert: Do you know if any of your other neighbours are in? E
Ms Adams: Well, I don’t think they’d appreciate it if you knocked on the door. If they are, actually. . .
Mr Calvert: We’ve talked to Matt up there.
Ms Adams: Well, Matt and the only other couple have a blue car, and the blue car’s not there, so I’m assuming.
Ms Newell: Which one are they, the top one? F
Ms Adams: They would be above me.
Mr Calvert: There’ll be one there as well, won’t there?
Ms Adams: And there’s a girl down there, Angela, and that’s Angela’s car there. But to be honest I don’t think
they’ll tell you any different.
G
Ms Newell: It’s just useful for us, the more people who corroborate it the better.
Ms Adams: Angela’s downstairs in number , but I don’t know if . . . I don’t think she’d like you to. . . if you
don’t mind.
Ms Newell: Thanks, bye.
H
3. Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Ms Claire Newell and Ms Angela Storey, a
neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April 2009 at Ms Storey’s flat
Ms Storey: Hello?
Ms Newell: Hi, is that Angela?
J
Ms Storey: Yes.
Ms Newell: Hi Angela, my name is Claire. I’m just looking for the person that lives in number 3. It’s someone
called Manzila Uddin. Do you know anyone that lives there?
Ms Storey: No, I don’t, unfortunately.
Ms Newell: Oh, OK. I’ve talked to a couple of your neighbours and they thought it was actually empty. Do K
you know if anyone ever lives there?
Ms Storey: Well, I thought it was empty too. I actually posted a note through there about two months ago,
because my friend was interested in renting.
Ms Newell: Oh, right!
L
Ms Storey: So I put a note through there to say if there’s anybody that lives in this property, please can you
contact me. Because if, they’re not there, permanently, if they did. . .. . ..
Ms Newell: Yeah.
Ms Storey: But there’s a mat outside that’s just been put there, so I really couldn’t tell you.
A
Ms Newell: Oh yes, I’ve heard. Did you see anyone here at the weekend at all?
Ms Storey: No.
Ms Newell: OK. But how long have you lived here for?
Ms Storey: Three years.
B
Ms Newell: And have you ever seen anybody there?
Ms Storey: No.
Ms Newell: OK. Alright, well thanks very much. Sorry to have bothered you. Bye.
Ms Storey: That’s fine. Bye.
C
and Mr Ian Allcock, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April 2009
outside the block of flats
D Recording begins part way through the conversation. There is no record of the first part of the conversation.
Mr Calvert: And are you sure that was on Saturday that this happened? It would be either on Friday or
Saturday, that that happened, I’m pretty sure?
Mr Allcock: Well, I have seen some lights on it . . .. But I was like, over the weekend [inaudible]
Mr Calvert: Yeah, who can tell. But up to then, you could still sort of see in it, could you? And it was empty?
E
Mr Allcock: Yeah, yeah.
Ms Newell: Ah, how weird.
Mr Allcock: Why? Are you actually looking to rent one, or buy one?
Mr Calvert: We’re trying to find the person who supposedly lives there, but she doesn’t seem to be there at all.
F
Ms Newell: [inaudible]
Mr Allcock: Right, I mean the only two flats that actually go for parking, she lives at number 2, and that’s
number 1, and the only other one is number 21. The rest of them go the opposite way. So if the flats go up and
down, the actual parking goes that way. That’s why it says, if you look on them and turn this over, for
argument’s sake, my next door neighbour’s number 10, but his actual parking spot is, I don’t know, his is
G
probably about 11, but that’s how it goes. The flats all run in order as such. But they, those nets, have only
been up for a few days and there has been lights in there. Your best bet is probably to come back at the weekend
or come back. . . .
Ms Newell: OK.
H Mr Calvert: Is there somebody who manages it?
[Ten seconds of inaudible conversation]
Mr Allcock: The company’s called Countrywide. The guy who’s actually in charge is a guy called Mark
Loretto, I believe. Countrywide, that’s the guy you need to ask for.
Ms Newell: Where are they based, do you know? Is it country-wide?
J
Mr Allcock: I don’t know. I don’t tend to look at it. It’s just one of those things. It’s quiet round here. It’s just
really nice round here actually, because you’ve got the town over here and . . .
Mr Calvert: I love the, whatever it is, is it a nature reserve?
Mr Allcock: That’s actually . . . that’s protected by European . . ..
K Mr Calvert: Special scientific interest?
Mr Allcock: It is, because you can’t build on it. The guy comes down every weekend. If you ever move in you’ll
see a guy out here. He’s down here every weekend and that’s his project. He works for the council.
Mr Calvert: Yeah.
L Mr Allcock: He’s trying to, like, get animals in there . . . evidently water fowls have been seen in the area, so
he’s trying to make it like . . . It’s OK round here. It’s quiet and everything like that, but up until, if you’d asked
me this time last week, those curtains weren’t actually up.
Ms Newell: Not even the nets?.
Mr Allcock: Not even the nets.
A
Mr Calvert: And when you looked inside there was no furniture or anything like that?
Mr Allcock: No. But over the last few days. . .
Ms Newell: Maybe it’s being rented out or something.
Mr Calvert: I was wondering whether they might be trying to rent it out but can’t. Is it easy to rent out property
B
around here?
Mr Allcock: I suppose, it’s like everything at the present moment. Nobody’s renting or buying, are they?
Ms Newell: It can be a bit tricky.
Mr Calvert: Which one do you live in, then?
C
Mr Allcock: That one over there.
Mr Calvert: Is that number ?
Mr Allcock: Number . . . Yeah come back one evening and try again.
Ms Newell: Yeah, that’s a really good idea.
D
Mr Calvert: Thanks.
Mr Allcock: No, that’s alright.
Mr Calvert: Bye.
5. Transcript of a covert recording of a second interview between Ms Claire Newell and Mr Jonathan E
Calvert and Mr Ian Allcock, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April
2009 outside the block of flats
Recording begins part way through the conversation. There is no record of the first part of the conversation.
Mr Allcock: . . . and they just went. F
Mr Calvert: So you saw the BMW on the Saturday?
Mr Allcock: On the Saturday and the Sunday.
Ms Newell: Oh, right . . .
Mr Allcock: See, nobody’s ever lived there, because if I remember right, in fact, it used to be a show home. G
Ms Newell: What, number 3 was?
Mr Allcock: I’m sure that used to be the show home because my next-door neighbour, I remember him saying,
he thought number 3 was a show home so, you know, ‘cos he was the first one in it, we was the second ones
in here. If I remember right, he said number 3 was the show home. I saw the BMW on the Saturday and then
H
they came down again on the Sunday, they were here for about an hour. Two Asian guys, and then two women
turned up, older women, I suppose, in their 70s or 80s.
Mr Calvert: Two older women? Let me look at my wallet . . .
Mr Allcock: Haha, that wouldn’t be too handy, would it?.
Mr Calvert: Did they look like . . . Now I can’t find it . . . J
Mr Allcock: You see, if I’d known, I’m a photographer, you see, in my spare time. Yeah, that’s where I’m going
now. I’m on my way down to Folkestone now.
Mr Calvert shows Mr Allcock a picture.
Mr Allcock: Oh! Ah . . . Ah . . . I don’t . . . I wouldn’t . . . I couldn’t . . . They had . . . K
Ms Newell: They had saris on?
Mr Allcock: They had saris on. I mean, from the front . . .
Mr Calvert: So what you remember is on Saturday . . . What sort of time?
Mr Allcock: It was . . . ahh . . . now my wife finished work quite late . . ahh . . . so that was quite late. I L
wouldn’t have got home until about 10 and then I noticed the BMW was in here and that disappeared. I mean,
it was literally only here for about five minutes. Because there’s 21 in there, and 21 parking spots, you all kind
of know if somebody—
Mr Calvert & Ms Newell: Oh, yeah . . .
A
Mr Allcock: I didn’t take no notice of it. I mean, just thought somebody’s just popped in, you know, to have
a look. But on the Sunday, I went to bed at around 9, half 9, And because we’ve all got those . . . what do you
call it . . . lights . . .
Ms Newell: Oh, they all ping on if someone turns up.
B Mr Allcock: That’s it. So this BMW turned up, one Asian guy jumped out, went in. The other guy parked up,
he went in. They were there for about half hour, then they came out. One then went back in, one stayed in the
car. Then, from I don’t know where, these two women turned up with, like, their headscarves, you know, just
jumped in the car and they went in. And they were there for about an hour. And it was just strange because
about three other of our residents come in, and they had to keep going backwards and forwards and backwards
and forwards all the time to let people in and out. And I just thought, why don’t they just park up somewhere?
C
Ms Newell: Yeah.
Mr Allcock: And they were just sitting here, going backwards and forwards.
Mr Calvert: They didn’t have any furniture with them, did they?
Mr Allcock: The only thing I saw them actually go in with was like, I imagine, it was an old style computer
D screen. They did take in something; it was either a telly or a computer screen. But an old style computer screen,
it wasn’t like a new flat screen.
Ms Newell: A flat screen. Was it, it had a proper back to it?
Mr Allcock: That’s it, like an old telly. They were carrying that and then walked in. And I said to my wife,
because she said, what are you still doing there? And I said, I’m watching this bloke outside. I said, he’s letting
E so-and-so in, and so-and-so out. I said, he’s just sitting there. And she said, what’s going on? I said, I dunno.
They are either going into number 1 or number 3, because number 1’s just been vacated. The couple who lived
there, a young couple, they’ve literally gone within the last month, month and a half.
Ms Newell: Oh, right.
Mr Calvert: You don’t know where they went to, do you?
F
Mr Allcock: Sorry?
Mr Calvert: You don’t know where they went to, do you?
Mr Allcock: No, I don’t know where they went. I mean, to be honest, that one, the lady who lives, Yvonne
who lives at number is the only one I really know in that block.
G Mr Calvert: Yeah.
Mr Allcock: The young girl downstairs I know to say hello to, but I couldn’t tell you her name. I know
everyone in my block, but that’s about it. You kinda know people by name. It just seemed a little bit . . .
Mr Calvert: Yeah, no.
H Mr Allcock: I’ve got to be quite honest, because I was a little bit concerned, because I walked in . . .
Mr Calvert: Yeah, I know, I know.
Mr Allcock: And I parked the car and I thought, why are people going through my rubbish?
Ms Newell: Haha.
Mr Allcock: I was, like, that’s a little bit strange.
J
Mr Calvert: Well, we were just peering in there to see if . . .
Ms Newell: Well, we thought they might have had a big clear out, you see. So that’s why we . . . obviously, I
mean, if there was like a pile of stuff . . .
Mr Calvert: I don’t think they cleared anything out because I don’t think there was anything in there.
K Mr Allcock: When you said about it . . . because I went back and talked to my wife about it. And she said, up
until this weekend you could walk past there any time of the day and you could peer in and there was absolutely
nothing in either of the two bedrooms.
Ms Newell: Ah, right. So there was no bed or anything?
Mr Allcock: No. It wasn’t until this weekend that the curtains go up and all of a sudden, there’s lights on. I
L
mean if you stay here long enough, you’ll probably find that there’s lights on 24 hours of the day in there now.
Mr Calvert: They’ve got security lights on according to the woman next door.
Mr Allcock: Ah, right.
Mr Calvert: They turn on and off all the time.
A
Mr Allcock: Yeah, I mean, because obviously in my job. I come out this morning, it must be at about five,
quarter past five and every light in that house is on.
Mr Calvert & Ms Newell: Hmm.
Mr Allcock: But, you know, I mean . . . So, there you go, that’s the best I can come up with.
Ms Newell: It’s really useful to hear what you remember about Saturday. B
Mr Allcock: It’s just that it seemed so strange. Where the two women appeared from I don’t know. I don’t
know if they’ve come down in another car or whatever.
Ms Newell: Yeah, maybe. They might have parked up here or . . .
Mr Allcock: Yeah, Yvonne, gossip and everything, she used to come round and she said “Oh” and we were, C
like, chatting, and I said, “Well, nobody has ever lived in there”. If you’d come down a week ago you could
have peered in and said, “Oh, nobody lives there”. But now with the curtains drawn there’s . . .
Mr Calvert: I think she’s pretending that she lives in there. Because it helps her.
Mr Allcock: Well, we always thought it was quite strange because that’s never been rented, sold or anything
like that. I mean you often see For Sale boards go out. And I know John who lives next door to me, I mean D
he’s always looking, he likes doing that type of thing, but he’s never seen that one up for sale. He’s say, Oh,
did you know number 1’s up for sale or number 5’s up for sale, but number 3 . . . so I gathered somebody had
bought it as an investment.
Mr Calvert: But strange you don’t rent it out, isn’t it?
Mr Allcock: Perhaps they were just hoping it was going to be immaculately clean when they moved in. But it’s E
just one of those things.
Mr Calvert: In case we need to contact you, can I tell you who we are?
Ms Newell: We’re from the Sunday Times.
Mr Calvert: Can I give you my card? F
Mr Allcock: Certainly.
Mr Calvert: In case we need to contact you, is there a telephone number we can contact you on?
Mr Allcock: Yeah, I’ll give you my home one. It’s got a sarcastic answering machine . . . we’re renting this until,
well, it’s a long story, but we intend to emigrate ourselves in the future.
G
Ms Newell: Oh, great, where will you go?
Mr Allcock: Hopefully France.
Ms Newell: That’ll be nice. Whereabouts?
Mr Allcock: In the south.
Ms Newell: That’ll be good. H
Mr Allcock: Well, we sold our last house, paid off our mortgage and we intended to move there, but I lost my
dad and then my mum’s ill, and I’m not going to move.
Ms Newell: No, you want to stay around for a while.
Mr Allcock: No, my three sisters. J
Mr Calvert: Hold on, hold on. I’m trying to find who lives at number according to this.
Mr Allcock: I don’t know who’s owning it and who’s renting it. But if it’s electoral roll, it’ll be us.
Mr Calvert: It’s just electoral roll, I think. Ian and Susan Flockhart.
Mr Allcock: That’s it, they own it. K
Mr Calvert: It doesn’t say who’s on the electoral roll.
Mr Allcock: You can have us as just Ian and Jane.
Mr Calvert: What’s your surname, Ian?
Mr Allcock: Allcock.
L
Mr Calvert: And what number do I contact you on?
Mr Allcock: Maidstone, which is . If I’d known I’d have been out and got my photography
equipment.
Mr Calvert: I know, what we’d love to do is catch them putting all the furniture . . .
A
Mr Allcock: How rife is this? You do read it in the papers and everything. Perhaps I’m in the wrong job. I
should have been doing something else. Perhaps I’m missing out.
Mr Calvert: But basically, you saw them late on Saturday night for a very short time, and then you saw . . .
Mr Allcock: I never saw them, I saw the car. But it was then Sunday that I saw them.
B Ms Newell: That you saw the people, and the car again?
Mr Calvert: Do you remember the registration?
Mr Allcock: No, I didn’t. I would have taken a registration, I mean . . .
Mr Calvert: Did we tell you that it was a BMW 4x4, we didn’t did we?
C Mr Allcock: No. It was a BMW 4x4. All I noticed was, I think it was an 05 or an 06 plate, so it was fairly new.
Mr Calvert: What would that be?
Mr Allcock: Ahh . . . I’m just trying to think . . . I think it was an 05. Mine’s old, but I also own another car,
so I’m well into my cars. So it’s just that I recognize them. It goes two letters, then two numbers, then three
letters, doesn’t it. All I recognize is the two numbers, it was either 05 or 06.
D
Ms Newell: Well that’s useful to know.
Mr Allcock: As for colour, no. I struggle with colour.
Mr Calvert: The person we’re thinking of does drive a car just like that and it sounds like them. And the
amusing thing for us is that we phoned them on Friday and they admitted that they had a property in
E Maidstone. They didn’t tell us where it was.
Mr Allcock: Obviously, we can’t get into each other’s blocks, but Yvonne said it was a little bit strange that
on Saturday a big mat appeared outside the door as though somebody lived there. But she said nobody’s ever
lived there, she said. I said, I know. You walk past that place and nobody’s ever lived there. I just thought
somebody had either bought it for an investment or whatever. To be honest you don’t take a lot of notice. All
F the others bar one.. [inaudible] . . . because they’ve just moved out, but the rest are all . . .
Mr Calvert: Gemma and Stuart isn’t it? Matt’s upstairs . . .
Ms Newell: We’ve spoken to Yvonne and the lady downstairs. Do you know who’s in the top flat on the right
hand side? That’s who we’re missing.
Mr Allcock: The two in the top flat, I don’t know either of their names. But they’ve got two cars . . . no. If you
G see a Sierra—not a Sierra—a Mondeo out here that’ll be them. They work strange hours.
Ms Newell: Oh do they?
Mr Allcock: But the other two who live . . . in number 6. He’s got a beard and she’s quite a little lady.
Ms Newell: Oh, we haven’t seen them.
H Mr Calvert: We haven’t spoken to them.
Mr Allcock: No. They don’t come home until round about seven, half seven.
Ms Newell: OK.
Mr Allcock: Whatever they do, they’re a bit later. If you see a blue. . . oh, they’ve just changed their car . . .
J it’s either a blue Honda or a blue Toyota . . . [inaudible]. I think it’s a blue Honda. There you go.
Mr Calvert: Will you keep this all between us for now?
Mr Allcock: No problem. It don’t bother me.
Mr Calvert: It’s an intriguing story –
K Ms Newell: We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it.
Mr Calvert: And we’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, yeah.
Mr Allcock: No, that’s great. I mean, if I’d know I’d have taken . . . As I say, I take photographs.
Ms Newell: Well if you see them again . . .
L Mr Allcock: I will do.
Mr Calvert: What do you take photographs for?
Mr Allcock: I belong to the Jaguar owner’s club. The car that’s parked down there under cover is my other
car. So I’m away . . . [inaudible] . . . to take some photographs for a club. I’m on their committee and I also
take some photographs for the club as well.
A
Mr Calvert: If you do see the car coming back with lots of furniture going in, it would be very funny. It would
be really funny if you did that.
Mr Allcock: Yes. So. . . well hang around. I think you’ll find a few others.
[Ten seconds of inaudible conversation.]
Mr Calvert: Because we hadn’t spoken to them when we first saw you it would be a bit wrong if we told you B
who we were.
Mr Allcock: I just thought it was really strange, two people going through the rubbish. If you go through my
bag you’ll find loads of dead fish and things like that in there. I thought “I dunno” . . . and they you said you’d
lost something, or something like that, and I thought “no”.
C
Ms Newell: No, we wondered if they’d had a big clearout of furniture.
Mr Allcock: On the Sunday, when they turned up, all they took in was either a TV or a computer screen.
Unfortunately with the lights going on and off, it’s hard to see. But if I get a chance I’ll take some photos.
Ms Newell: Have a nice evening. Bye.
Mr Allcock: Bye. D
and a woman neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Tuesday 28 April 2009 outside
the block of flats
Ms Newell: Hi, sorry to bother you. We’re just wondering if you knew the person that lived in the middle flat, E
number 3, just there.
Neighbour X: Don’t know any of the, well only in passing to say hello to, don’t really know who they are. Sorry.
Ms Newell: It’s all right, not to worry, we’re just looking for an Asian woman who we thought . . . well, she
said that she lives there, that’s all. Some of the other neighbours say that they saw her and her family on
Saturday night in a big car. F
Neighbour X: What, over here?
Ms Newell: Yes.
Neighbour X: If I’m honest, I don’t remember seeing any Asian people there, but then a lot of my neighbours
are, so I might not have noticed. But. . . G
Mr Calvert: We’re told, actually, that it’s empty all the time, the middle one, that nobody’s ever. . .
Neighbour X: I always see the person downstairs because she does a lot of washing and perhaps upstairs, but
that sweater has been hanging over that middle flat balcony probably since the end of last summer. I don’t
think anyone’s lived there. We don’t really see anybody to be honest.
Mr Calvert: You’re sort of sideways on, aren’t you. H
Neighbour X: We are. In our conservatory we sometimes see people standing outside and having cigarettes and
that. There are a couple of them that I know a bit more that I see. Sorry.
Ms Newell: That’s all right. Thanks. Bye.
J
and Mr Ian Allcock, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday 29 April 2009
outside the block of flats
Ms Newell: Hello!
Mr Allcock: Hiya! K
Mr Allcock: There’s a few people been knocking about. A young girl, very tall, blonde hair, came down and
parked in number 1. And there was an older couple, both in their 60s but I kind of get the feeling they were
looking at number 1, because they went straight to number 1.
Ms Newell & Mr Calvert: Yeah.
L
Mr Allcock: But I saw a woman turn up, just before you went.
Mr Calvert: What did she look like?
Mr Allcock: Dark hair. Glasses.
Mr Calvert: Ah.
A
Ms Newell: I saw a woman with dark hair go in, kind of like dark hair to here or something. I didn’t notice
she was wearing specs.
Mr Allcock: Yeah, I must admit I didn’t recognize her.
Ms Newell: Don’t know who she is. Maybe she was seeing a friend though.
B Mr Allcock: Yeah, possibly. Haven’t said anything to anybody. If I’m ever woken by a car, I’ll let you know.
As I said, I do photography, I’ll even send you some snaps.
Ms Newell: Yeah!
Mr Allcock: Little bit of excitement in our sad lives, I suppose. Next time I see you I’ll bring out the flask. . ...
C Ms Newell: Ah, that’s very sweet. Thank you.
and Mr Joel Dunn, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday 29 April 2009
at Mr Dunn’s flat
D Ms Newell: Hi, sorry to bother you. Are you Joel?
Mr Dunn: I am.
Ms Newell: Hi, I’m Claire, this is Jonathan. We were just looking for the people that live in number 3. Do you
know if anyone is living there?
Mr Dunn: Haven’t got a clue, sorry.
E
Ms Newell: How long have you been here for?
Mr Calvert: We’re journalists from the Sunday Times and that flat there someone claims is their main
residence. So everyone else in the building tells us that they’ve never seen anybody in there.
Mr Dunn: Right.
F Mr Calvert: In fact, if you agree then we’ve got a full house of all the. . .
Mr Dunn: I’m afraid, we’ve been here a while but I can’t tell you whether I’ve ever seen anyone going in or
out of there, because it’s down there and we’re up here and I haven’t got a clue. Sorry. Been here about two
years. I couldn’t confirm or deny whether they might have been down there
Mr Calvert: But basically you’ve never seen anyone.
G
Mr Dunn: I’ve never seen anyone. I’ve never had contact with anyone who lived there, but. . .
Mr Calvert: Actually, if you imagine going in and out of here, I bet you see everybody else from all the
other flats.
Mr Dunn: I’ve seen lots of people, but generally speaking I couldn’t tell you for certain whether anyone’s ever
H been in number 3 or not. All right?
Ms Newell: All right, sorry to have bothered you.
Mr Dunn: That’s all right.
Mr Calvert: Oh, Joel, just one thing. The curtains used to be open at the front of there and everyone tells us
that there was no furniture in the front first two rooms.
J
Mr Dunn: They look in people’s houses a lot more than I do. I can’t tell you, sorry, don’t know.
9. Transcript of a covert recording of a second interview between Ms Claire Newell and Mr Jonathan
Calvert and Mr Matthew Hollis, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday
29 April outside the block of flats
K
Mr Hollis is in a vehicle that has its engine running during this conversation; a number of his replies are inaudible.
Ms Newell: Hello!.
Mr Hollis: Hi!
Ms Newell: Yes, yeah. Are you Matt?
L
Mr Hollis: Have you had any joy?
Ms Newell: No, we haven’t actually. I wonder if we could speak to you about it again, actually, if you have
got a tic. I know you’re on your way out.
Mr Hollis: Yeah, I’m on my way out.
A
Ms Newell: Are you coming back shortly, or not?
Mr Hollis: No, I’m gonna be back at around [inaudible].
Ms Newell: Have you got a number I can get you on?
Mr Hollis: Also, do you mind me asking what it’s all about?
B
Ms Newell: No, I just wanted to tell you, actually. I actually work for the Sunday Times and I couldn’t tell you
yesterday because I didn’t know if they were in. I was a bit wary about saying who I was . . . but there’s a
woman called Baroness Uddin who says that is her main residence and she is claiming £30,000 a year [inaudible]
. . . so I’m speaking to all the neighbours . . .
Mr Hollis: [inaudible]
C
Ms Newell: Oh, OK that would be why . . . The only thing I wanted to check with you was that somebody else
has told us that without the curtains, they could see inside and they said there was no furniture inside. Those
two bedrooms were empty, i.e. there were no beds.
Ms Newell: Yeah, that’s OK but if you’re pretty sure . . . Can I just take your number so I’ve got it . . . I’ll give D
you my number too.
Mr Hollis: I don’t know if I will be able to help you.
Ms Newell: Well, to be honest, what’s useful is just adding up everyone together . . . [inaudible]
Mr Hollis: Have you come down every day?
E
Ms Newell: No, just yesterday and today.
Mr Hollis: I’m sure there’s no one there.
Ms Newell: Yeah, well . . . Everyone else said that too.
F
Ms Newell: No, well, that’s perfect. Thanks, have a good evening!
10. Transcript of a covert recording of a second interview between Ms Claire Newell and Mr Jonathan
Calvert and Ms Angela Storey, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday
29 April 2009 at Ms Storey’s flat
G
Ms Storey: Hello?
Ms Newell: Hi, is that Angela?
Ms Storey: Yes, speaking.
Ms Newell: Hi Angela, it’s Claire here. I came around yesterday and I was asking you about flat number 3.
Ms Storey: Yeah. H
Ms Newell: Hi, sorry to bother you again. I was just wondering if I maybe could come down and have a quick
chat with you. I’m actually from the Sunday Times, a journalist.
Ms Storey: All right.
Ms Newell: And we’re writing a story about, well, about a woman that claims she lives in number 3. She’s J
actually a woman called Baroness Uddin. She says number 3 here is her main residence. And really, I just
wanted to have a quick chat with you about it. Have you got a sec?
Ms Storey: I don’t really want to be quoted in any newspaper.
Ms Newell: Well, that’s OK. All right, then, I won’t quote you. But it would just be good to have a quick chat
to you, actually, because some of your neighbours said a couple of things so it would just be useful to run them K
past you to see if you remember them too.
Ms Storey: Well, I tell you what, I’m coming up now any way.
Ms Newell: OK.
Ms Storey: I’ll meet you upstairs.
L
Ms Newell: See you in a sec!
[Noise of walking.]
Mr Calvert: What everyone tells us about this place is that they can’t remember anyone ever living in there.
Can you?
A
Ms Storey: No, never, never, never. I mean, I had a friend interested in renting the flat so I put a note through,
I told you yesterday, to say, you know, if you’ve bought this property and you’re renting it out, can you let me
know? But that’s pretty much as much as I know, because I’ve never seen anyone and . . .
Mr Calvert: The windows didn’t use to have curtains though, did they?
B Ms Storey: To be honest, I’ve never really paid much attention.
Mr Calvert: Right.
Ms Newell: Oh, OK.
Ms Storey: So, they could have had curtains in since the beginning of time. They may have gone up . . .
C Mr Calvert: It’s just that somebody down the road said that when they didn’t use to have curtains you could
see in then. You could see that neither bedroom. . .
Ms Newell: It was totally empty, that’s what the neighbours say, which is surprising if someone says they’re
living there as their main residence, but obviously, if there’s no bed . . .
Ms Storey: Yeah. . . No, I mean, I have no idea when the curtains went up. I’ve never seen anyone in there.
D Ever, ever, ever.
Mr Calvert: How long have you been here?
Ms Storey: Er, what are we in now? It’s about three and a half years now. I moved in in December 2000 and
something.
Mr Calvert: She claims it’s her main residence. In fact, she’s got a family home in London where she’s lived
E
all her life.
Ms Storey: Who is this?
Ms Newell: It’s Baroness Uddin. She’s quite a small Asian woman who Tony Blair made a Peer . . .
Mr Calvert: Very colourful. You’d recognize her. She wears bright saris and things. You’d remember if you’d
F seen her.
Ms Storey: Well, my friend who lives opposite her said that there’s an Indian couple . . .
Mr Calvert: Yes, we’ve talked to Yvonne.
Ms Storey: . . . an Indian couple that lived there. Because I actually asked her . . .
G Ms Newell: Who lives there?
Ms Storey: In this flat. She said, I don’t think, well, I don’t know if somebody owns it and they’re renting it
out or . . .
Mr Calvert: She said that once she’d been told that the person who owned it was an Asian lady with a
connection to Tony Blair. Which is sort of true, because she was made a Baroness by Tony Blair in 1998. But
H she said that very very occasionally someone would come in, spend 10 minutes in there, and go out again. It’s
funny, isn’t it, that you’d have a . . .. You know, you could rent it out for quite a lot of money.
Ms Storey: Yeah, no, absolutely.
Mr Calvert: As you were trying to do.
Ms Storey: Yeah, exactly and that’s why I asked Yvonne. But she just said that she had seen an Indian couple
J
there a couple of times but it’s not their permanent residence. I mean, I’ve never ever seen anyone there at all.
Ms Newell: Yeah, that’s interesting. Just so you know, if your friend’s still interested, that bottom one is up
for rent.
Ms Storey: Yeah. I saw people looking around . . .
K Ms Newell: Ah, OK.
Ms Storey: They found somewhere near us already, so . . .
Mr Calvert: It’s going for 600 a month, apparently.
Ms Storey: That’s reasonable.
L Mr Calvert: I think they’ve knocked it down recently.
Ms Storey: Which is surprising, actually because the market for renting is booming at the moment, especially
round here. People just aren’t selling property. They wanted to move themselves, and they are just renting them
out now and waiting for. . .
Ms Newell: Yeah, rather than sell it at a lower price, I suppose.
A
Mr Calvert: Did we ask you whether you heard anyone come in this weekend?
Ms Storey: I wouldn’t have heard; I was sort of in and out all weekend.
Ms Newell: Oh well, thank you for your time. Sorry to have bothered you. Let me give you my card, just so
you’ve got it.
Ms Storey: There are some people who keep themselves to themselves. I tend to know the people who sit out B
in the gardens . . . You know their faces even if you don’t know their name . . .
Mr Calvert: And you’d think, in order to get to your flat you’d go past that door every day a few times, don’t
you. And you never see anyone coming in and out.
Ms Storey: No, I never do. C
Ms Newell: All right, have a nice day. Bye.
11. Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone call between Ms Claire Newell and Mr Stuart Brown,
a former neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Wednesday 29 April 2009
Mr Brown: Hello. D
Ms Newell: Hello, is that Stuart?
Mr Brown: Yes it is.
Ms Newell: Hi Stuart, my name’s Claire, I’m just calling because I believe you used to live at number The
Chenies, is that right? E
Mr Brown: Yes, that’s right.
Ms Newell: I was just wondering if you might be able to help me with something, actually. I was just looking,
interested in Flat 3, which is the one I think used to be above you.
Mr Brown: Yes.
F
Ms Newell: Do you know if anyone lives there?
Mr Brown: I don’t. It’s a bit of a strange one because we never had anyone living above us.
Ms Newell: Presumably you would have heard them with footsteps and things if there had been?
Mr Brown: Yeah well I think someone came there occasionally and stayed perhaps for a weekend but most of
the time. . . we lived there for about three years and it was empty. It’s a little bit strange. G
Ms Newell: But sometimes you saw people come and go did you?
Mr Brown: Yeah but nothing over the long term, really.
Ms Newell: No, I see what you mean. I’ve spoken to a couple of your other neighbours and they said it used
to be the case that there weren’t curtains up, so curtains had fallen down, and you could see the flat was empty. H
Is that something that you remember as well?
Mr Brown: Yeah it was a bit like that but I think recently they put up some curtains and things and I’m a bit
unsure as to whether someone actually moved in or not.
Ms Newell: But when the curtains weren’t up do you remember if there was furniture inside?
J
Mr Brown: If there was furniture inside?
Ms Newell: Yeah because I wondered whether the two front rooms, which would have been bedrooms,
whether they had beds in them?
Mr Brown: I don’t remember. I don’t remember seeing any. To be honest I don’t pay that much attention to it.
Ms Newell: Oh OK. The reason I’m interested in it is there’s a woman called Manzila Uddin who says that K
that place is her main residence. She is actually Baroness Uddin and actually has a home in London as well.
I work for the Sunday Times newspaper and I’ve just been talking to a couple of your old neighbours really,
just to try to get to the bottom of what’s happening. So I was just interested if you knew, if you ever came
across anyone that lived there, really. Do you remember seeing an Asian woman?
Mr Brown: The only dealings that we had is that we’ve had water leaks. It’s a ground floor flat and there was L
a water leak on the top floor and there were all sorts of problems and we checked the flat and no one really
lived in the flat above, it was all sort of trying to get someone there to find out if there was any damage and
things like that. I don’t know if anyone really lived there.
Ms Newell: But as far as you know, you never really saw anybody more than for a couple of hours or so?
A
Mr Brown: Yeah, sometimes, I don’t know if the lights were on timers or something, so if someone was there
you didn’t know because the lights were coming on and off anyway.
Ms Newell: OK, but you thought it was empty, did you, the flat?
Mr Brown: Yeah, as far as I knew.
B Ms Newell: OK, well that’s really useful. You’ve got my telephone number presumably showing up on your
phone. My name’s Claire, as I said, so do give me a call if you want to talk about it further or you remember
anything else, I’d be very grateful for any thoughts you had, really.
Mr Brown: Sure.
Ms Newell: Is that all right? Where are you living now? Are you living in Maidstone or have you moved?
C
Mr Brown: No, I’ve moved to Tonbridge now.
Ms Newell: Very nice. All right, well good luck with that then. Thanks. Bye.
12. Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone call between Mr Jonathan Calvert and Ms Yvonne
D Adams, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Friday 1 May 2009
Ms Adams: Hello.
Mr Calvert: Hello, Yvonne?
Ms Adams: Hello, how are you?
E Mr Calvert: It’s Jonathan Calvert here from the Sunday Times.

Ms Adams: Oh, hi there. You sounded just like somebody else.
Mr Calvert: There you are. I could have pretended to be them. Are you OK? Can you talk for a moment?
Ms Adams: Let me just go downstairs, hang on. I’m at work, so I won’t be too long.
Mr Calvert: It’s just a quick question. I didn’t ask you, but other people have said that, it’s one of those things
F
that we’re trying to build pieces just to show that that flat has been empty since 2005 when it was bought, and
other people have said there have been times when you could see in through the windows at the front.
Ms Adams: Yes.
Mr Calvert: And I am told that there was no furniture at all in there.
G Ms Adams: None at all. None.
Mr Calvert: No bed?
Ms Adams: Nothing. Because there was a time, it was in the winter, they had the security lights, you know
about those obviously, they come on at certain times to make it look like someone’s in, and there was a time
that I think they had a sheet or something at their window which had fallen down, but the security light was
H still coming on, just shining into a completely empty flat. I didn’t need confirmation it was empty; I knew it
was empty, but I just remember thinking that’s a bit stupid. They’ve got the lights coming on but they haven’t
bothered to secure this. . . whatever it was at the window. But no, there’s never been a stick of furniture in there.
Mr Calvert: Do you think that’s true of the whole flat?
Ms Adams: I don’t know.
J
Mr Calvert: Why would you know?
Ms Adams: Because I go on to the balcony every day, and the balcony to my left, which is obviously Flat
number 3, the curtains are always drawn, every week of the year. As you say, there’s a build up of leaves on
the balcony where no one’s ever sat out there. It’s just totally an empty flat without a doubt. That’s all I can say.
K Mr Calvert: You know you told us that someone had told you that it was somebody, you say it was an Asian
woman . . .
Ms Adams: Yes, I think it was the project manager. I bought the show flat, and I think it was the project
manager and he was a very chatty guy, and I’m sure it was him, and I can’t remember how it came about and
I can’t remember anything other than he said the woman was Indian and she was something to do with Tony
Blair. Because I was going through a divorce at the time, so I’ve only got a bit of a fractured memory about
L
that, but that’s exactly, I do remember those two points.
Mr Calvert: So you were there from the beginning, were you?
Ms Adams: Yes, I’ve been there since April 2006.
Mr Calvert: Oh, right. And you’ve never seen anyone move any furniture in or anything, have you?
A
Ms Adams: No, not at all. As I say, there was activity last weekend.
Mr Calvert: Did you see any activity last weekend?
Ms Adams: No, I just heard it. Like you do in a flat, you just hear stuff.
Mr Calvert: Do you know what time that was?
B
Ms Adams: No, I haven’t got a clue. And that’s the truth. I haven’t got a clue. Because you don’t, do you? You
don’t pay that much attention to something that doesn’t concern you, at least I don’t, but it was certainly
activity. I don’t know if it was Sunday morning, but some time over the weekend I noticed a mat outside, a
car in the space and I just assumed that people had moved in and I thought “Oh, people have moved in”. And
that was it.
Mr Calvert: What Ian said is that he saw the car, a BMW, is this the one you saw? A blue BMW 4-wheel drive. C
Ms Adams: I don’t know about a blue BMW. All I know is that the space allocated to Flat number 3 had this
small red car and it hasn’t been moved since.
Mr Calvert: Yes, there is a small red car still there, actually.
Ms Adams: Hasn’t been moved at all. Because it’s encroaching slightly on a space to the right of it. It has not D
been moved at all. It’s just been put there and it’s been there ever since.
Mr Calvert: Ian says that what happened was that they came for a very short time on Saturday night and then
they came for about half an hour on Sunday night and he says they were taking things in, going in and out.
Ms Adams: They may have done. I don’t know. I don’t know.
Mr Calvert: If you don’t know, you don’t know. Just a small question. What would it have as a cooker? Would E
it have a gas cooker or an electric cooker?
Ms Adams: They’re all the same and it would be gas.
Mr Calvert: It would have a gas cooker.
Ms Adams: They were gas hobs. F
Mr Calvert: Were they all fitted with a gas hob when they first . . .
Ms Adams: Yeah, you know what they are like when they do these new developments. They just go to a plan
and everyone’s exactly the same. The only thing that slightly varies might be the front of the kitchen
cupboards, but apart from that it’s all done to a plan and it’s all done the same. It’s just the standard electric,
but gas is the heating, hot water, oven and, no hang on a second, electric oven, gas hob. G
Mr Calvert: Electric oven, gas hob. In that case, you’d have thought they wouldn’t have any gas bill or
electricity bill hardly at all, wouldn’t you?
Ms Adams: Yeah, apart from the lights. But listen . . .
Mr Calvert: You’ve got to go, haven’t you?
H
Ms Adams: Yeah, I’m at work. But as I say, I can’t emphasise enough how no one has lived there. They just
haven’t. I just know that for a fact. Apart from that, I’ve told you all I know, really.
Mr Calvert: Yeah, you have and I much appreciate it and thank you very much for your help. It’s very kind
of you.
J
13. Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Mr Jonathan Calvert and Mr Moshahidur
Rahman, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s at her flat in Maidstone, on Friday 1 May 2009 outside the block
of flats
Mr Calvert: Hi, sorry to bother you. I’m from the Sunday Times newspaper. I was just wondering if you
happened to know Baroness Uddin, by any chance, who lives in the flat just over here, the ground floor flat. K
Do you know her?
Mr Rahman: Which flat?
Mr Calvert: It’s this ground floor flat on the left-hand side.
Mr Rahman: No, what happened to him?
L
Mr Calvert: It’s Baroness Uddin. It’s a her.
Mr Rahman: Uddin? Is she still here? I didn’t know. I thought she lived in London always.
Mr Calvert: Well, she owns this flat here and she should be living there.
Mr Rahman: Is she?
A
Mr Calvert: Well, she should be. She is spending her second home allowance on this flat, and if she’s not living
there then we want to know why not. But you don’t know her at all?
Mr Rahman: I’ve never seen her. Where is she from, Bangladesh?
Mr Calvert: Yes.
B Mr Rahman: I know Baron Uddin, I know she lived . . . I see her sometime on TV.
Mr Calvert: You don’t know her personally though? You’ve never met her?
Mr Rahman: No, no, no. I haven’t met her. [inaudible]
Mr Calvert: Well, funnily enough, she should be living next door to you, almost. She should be. But we don’t
C think she’s actually living there.
Mr Rahman: I haven’t seen her, my friend.
Mr Calvert: On Saturday, apparently some friends of hers were moving some stuff in. Did you see anything
happening on Saturday at all?
Mr Rahman: What, last Saturday? Lots of people come and go. At least now I can keep an eye on it for you
D if you want me to. I can do that for you. Which newspaper are you from?
Mr Calvert: The Sunday Times.
Mr Rahman: Have you got a number I can . . . I’ll ring you. I know my brother knows her very well.
Mr Calvert: Does he know her personally?
E Mr Rahman: My brother is political. Not here. He lives in [inaudible] . . . The bottom flat? Not the top one?
[inaudible] I know Baron Uddin. She’s quite famous. She’s in Parliament, isn’t she?
Mr Calvert: On Saturday, apparently she had a 4x4 BMW bring some stuff here. You didn’t see that at all?
Mr Rahman: I can’t remember.
F Mr Calvert: Do you mind if I take your name? What’s your name, sir?
Mr Rahman: Rahman. That’s the first surname. Other name Moshahidur. That’s the first name.
Mr Calvert: And do you have a telephone number?
Mr Rahman: I’ll give you my mobile, . Is she claiming this one?
G Mr Calvert: Where are you from?
Mr Rahman: Bangladesh. My brother is a politician.
Mr Calvert: Really? What’s your brother, then? He’s not an MP, is he?
Mr Rahman: No, no, no [inaudible]. We are not in power now. I’ve got your number, anyway.
H Mr Calvert: If you see her come back, you’ve got my mobile number, can you give me a call.
Mr Rahman: I’ll give you straight away.
Mr Calvert: Thank you.
Mr Rahman: I know her face very well . . . [inaudible]
J 14. Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Mr Chris Pollard of the Sunday Times
newspaper and Mr Mark Ryan, a plumber in Maidstone, on Saturday 2 May 2009 outside the block of flats
Mr Ryan: So what do I get out of this, then, come on?
Mr Pollard: You get out of it the satisfaction of knowing that you have helped to right one of the wrongs in
society.
K
Mr Ryan: Yeah, and you get a nice wad out of it, don’t you?
Mr Pollard: No, I don’t.
Mr Ryan: But that’s presuming we’re talking about the right person. I could be totally wrong and so could you.
Mr Pollard: Let’s confirm that we’re talking about the same place, shall we?
L
Mr Ryan: When I went in the door, I walked straight down and it was the flat, you come to a wall and there
was a door on the left.
Mr Pollard: Number 3, it is.
Mr Ryan: I just walked in. I was shown in. I did what I had to do and. . . [inaudible]
A
Mr Pollard: What was the actual state of the place like inside?
Mr Ryan: Right, I don’t know how many flats you’ve been into, but I’ve been into more than I care. Right?
So basically, it looked like someone had left it ages ago. Just basically left all their junk behind.
Mr Pollard: What sort of junk was there, then?
Mr Ryan: Oh, I don’t know. I had a job to do. I just went in there to do the job. B
Mr Pollard: What do you mean by junk, though? Are we talking about couches, or . . .?
Mr Ryan: It was odds and sods. There was a mattress on the floor in one room. There was an airer in the
bedroom. You know, them zigzag things that fold up and down. Was there a TV? I didn’t pay much attention.
There was a chest of drawers, no, what’s a tall unit?
C
Mr Pollard: Wardrobe?
Mr Ryan: No, you have in front rooms, or something.
Mr Pollard: Like a cabinet?
Mr Ryan: Yeah, there was a cabinet in there. [Noise of phone ringing] Is that your phone? Have you just got
the sack? Or are you getting divorced? D
Mr Pollard: There was some sort of unit in the living room, some sort of dryer in the bedroom with a mattress
on the floor.
Mr Ryan: In another bedroom, yeah. There were a couple of bedrooms. Yeah, go on.
Mr Pollard: So there was only one bed and that was really only a mattress on the floor, as it were? E
Mr Ryan: Yeah, because I only quickly went round. I was just in there, bang, I just checked everything was
working. He kept me waiting and I wanted to get home.
Mr Pollard: So you bled the radiators and topped up the boiler?
Mr Ryan: That’s all I done, yeah.
F
Mr Pollard: And they sort of came past and asked you while you were here, did they? If you could do that?
Mr Ryan: I came over to Maidstone to pick up a drawing for a job and as we came out the lad called me. He
says, “Can you do it?” I said “I can come and stick my head in. I’ll do what I can”. I saw the pressure was low
and I topped it up and found the problem. It was as simple as that.
Mr Pollard: Now, they said to you that they were just moving back in, did they? G
Mr Ryan: I’m sure they did, yeah, but again . . .
Mr Pollard: That’s all right. Don’t worry about it. So these boilers, right, because my boiler loses pressure
sometimes and I have to top it up with water by undoing the two little things.
Mr Ryan: That’s it, yeah.
H
Mr Pollard: That happens when I haven’t used it for a while. Do you reckon that is what had probably
happened here? The central heating system hadn’t been used for a while and it had lost pressure that way?
What’s your professional view of that?
Mr Ryan: Why does your tyre go flat one day and it don’t the next? It’s one of them. You could lose pressure
because some idiot’s bled the radiator and took all the water out. I’m not being funny. If you’ve got a gallon
J
can and you pour some out, you’ve got air at the top, exactly the same as you do with a radiator. You must
top it up. So. . .
Mr Pollard: There’s no way of saying for sure.
Mr Ryan: I wouldn’t. It’s as simple as that.
Mr Pollard: So what other furniture do you remember? Was there a couch? Did it look lived in or did it look K
not lived in?
Mr Ryan: No, there might have been a couch, but I didn’t pay no attention.
Mr Pollard: It didn’t look like a family home?
Mr Ryan: No, definitely not. Seriously not. I wouldn’t live in there. Christ, I wouldn’t even doss in there if I
L
was working away.
Mr Pollard: Why not?
Mr Ryan: Because it was a shithole. OK, a good house cleaner . . .
Man X (new voice not identified): Do you think they had been living there and not cleaning?
A
Mr Ryan: No, mate, that don’t happen.
Mr Pollard: So, what it was sort of dusty, was it?
Mr Ryan: It looked like the tenants had just, seriously, last lot had just gone out and “I ain’t going to pay the
rent this month”. Do a runner. We’ve all seen that. Jesus Christ.
B Mr Pollard: Yeah. All right. We are talking about the same place, definitely. The people we are talking about
are from Bangladesh. Now, there aren’t any other Bangladeshis living in that block, as far as I know, are there?
You’d know them if they were. So that’s who we’re talking about, definitely.
Mr Ryan: Well, as long as we’re talking about the right people, yeah.
Man X: I don’t know, I haven’t been there, so . . .
C
Mr Ryan: No, it’s my first time in there as well.
Mr Pollard: Well, that fits with everything we’ve found out so far. Now do you mind if I take your name? Is
it Ryan?
Mr Ryan: No, it’s not. It’s Mark Ryan as a matter of fact. It’s no good sticking Mark on the sign. Ryan sounds
D better, doesn’t it?
Mr Pollard: It does, yeah. I looked at your website actually. It’s very good.
Mr Ryan: No it bloody ain’t. That ain’t finished neither. There’s bits missing off it.
The final five minutes of the conversation is about Mr Ryan’s website and his business. Number 3 The Chenies is not
E mentioned again.
15. Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone call between Mr Jonathan Calvert and Baroness
Uddin’s husband, Mr Komar Uddin, on Friday 24 April 2009
F The Sunday Times has been unable to provide a recording of this conversation and so the transcript has not been verified
by officers of the House.
Mr Calvert: Is Baroness Uddin there please?
Mr Uddin: Er, she’s not home, who’s speaking?
Mr Calvert: It’s Jonathan Calvert here from the Sunday Times newspaper. Is this her home number?
G
Mr Uddin: Yes, this is home number. Do you have her mobile number?
Mr Calvert: I think I may. Are you her husband?
Mr Uddin: Yes.
Mr Calvert: I see, OK.
H
Mr Uddin: Do you want her mobile number?
Mr Calvert: Yes if you’ve got it.
Mr Uddin:
Mr Calvert: She’s around and about today is she?
J
Mr Uddin: Er, I think [inaudible]. Not in home but her mobile. Try her mobile.
Mr Calvert: Am I right in thinking you are based in E1?
Mr Uddin: Yes E1.
Mr Calvert: And is that ?
K
Mr Uddin: Yes, .
Mr Calvert: Have you always lived there?
Mr Uddin: Sorry?
Mr Calvert: Have you lived there for a long time?
L
Mr Uddin: Yeah, we came here in 1993.
Mr Calvert: 1993 I see. Am I also right in thinking you have a place down in Kent?
Mr Uddin: Sorry?
Mr Calvert: Do you have a place in Kent?
A
Mr Uddin: Kent?
Mr Calvert: Kent, as in the county Kent? No?
Mr Uddin: No, OK, try her mobile.
Mr Calvert: I will ask her. OK, thank you very much for your help. You must be Komar, is that right? Yes,
why are you asking me? You said you wanted to talk to her. B
Mr Uddin: Don’t worry, I will. Thank you very much, bye.
16. Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Mr Kevin Dowling of the Sunday Times
newspaper and Mr Fozlu Miah, a neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s in London, on Wednesday 29 April 2009
C
at Mr Miah’s home
Mr Dowling had already spoken to Mr Miah on Friday 24 April 2009 but this conversation was not recorded.
Mr Dowling: Oh, hello again, it’s you again. I just wanted to check some details with you because I wasn’t sure
if I took the notes down properly on Friday. Do you remember, we had a brief chat. About the Baroness. You
were saying that she lives here full time. Is that right? As far as you know. You were saying I think that you D
saw her coming in in her car and beeping. Is that right?
Mr Miah: Yes.
Mr Dowling: Is it OK to talk?
Mr Miah: Yes. It’s OK. E
Mr Dowling: So, you see her coming in, driving in and beeping the horn?
Mr Miah: Yes.
Mr Dowling: That’s right. OK. I think you said also that her son lives upstairs. Is that right?
Mr Miah: Yes. F
Mr Dowling: Do you remember which one? Which son? Which son lives upstairs?
Mr Miah: The oldest one.
Mr Dowling: The oldest one? . Is that right?
Mr Miah: Yes, but the thing is . . . do you want to come in? . . . I spoke to my mum, you see, and [inaudible] G
Mr Dowling: Who and his wife?
Mr Miah: The son and his wife come down . . .
Mr Dowling: Which son?
Mr Miah: The oldest one. H
Mr Dowling: Baroness Uddin’s son?
Mr Miah: Of course, originally . . .
Mr Dowling: This house? The one upstairs. OK.
Mr Miah: Was for the oldest son and then he got married, I think he got J
married, but the youngest one used to live up there.
Mr Dowling: So the youngest son now lives up there?
Mr Miah: No, he used to live up there.
Mr Dowling: But the youngest one’s quite . . . he’s only about 10, is that right? K
Mr Miah: No, no, no. Not the youngest one.
Mr Dowling: Second oldest?
Mr Miah: Yes, second oldest.
Mr Dowling: So the second oldest now lives up there. L
Mr Miah: No, now he’s gone back to the house and the oldest one lives with his wife up there.
Mr Dowling: OK, so the oldest son, is married now and he lives in that flat upstairs. OK. And
the second oldest son is living back with his mother and father and the youngest boy. And there’s a daughter as
well, isn’t there? And then there’s another young guy who lives in the other, I think.
A
Mr Miah: Yeah, he’s their second oldest. Because the was the oldest and then the one who lives
in there would be the second, and then the third one was . . .
Mr Dowling: And now lives back with his mum and dad. OK. And then the youngest boy and then the
grandson. Right. And you said, I think, that they’ve been living there as long as you have. 1993.
B Mr Miah: Yeah, we all moved in . . .
Mr Dowling: And as far as you know they live all the time there.
Mr Miah: Cos it’s like, um . . . you see, um, the gates used to be locked and she used to come in and her husband
used to go out and open the gate and then afterwards, like, you know, somehow the locks got broken and it
used to stay open, but it’s like, ninety percent of the time she’d come and she’d beep.
C
Mr Dowling: Beep the horn? Oh, when the gates were closed so that her husband would . . .
Mr Miah: No, afterwards, she’d come in and she’d beep the horn and then someone would go out or open the
back door.
Mr Dowling: OK.
D Mr Miah: Unless . . . because as far as I know the other son’s got a silver car, and then she bought that black
BMW, and unless she leaves her car and goes with another car or something.
Mr Dowling: And this silver car, do you know which kind of car it is?
Mr Miah: Ford Focus.
E Mr Dowling: Ford Focus. OK. And that’s her son’s car.

Mr Miah: Yes.
Mr Dowling: I see. And the BMW. I thought it was blue. Is it black or blue? Dark blue.
Mr Miah: Blue with black. Well you see, as far as I know she lives here. The only worry is that I presume that
if I was living somewhere I’d come in my car and then if I’m going I’d drive my car and go.
F
Mr Dowling: Is her car always here at the weekend?
Mr Miah: Yeah.
Mr Dowling: The BMW, and the silver car.
Mr Miah: Yeah, it’s like . . .
G
Mr Dowling: Both cars are here all the time?
Mr Miah: Not the silver one.
Mr Dowling: That’s her son’s car [inaudible]. Right, but her car is here during the weekends and in the evenings
during the week?
H Mr Miah: Yeah.
Mr Dowling: OK. So as far as you know this is where she lives all the time.
Mr Miah: Yeah.
Mr Dowling: Because you know that some people think she may have a house in Kent. Does that surprise you?
J Mr Miah: No, it wouldn’t surprise me, but I’d say then why does she get from here to there?
Mr Dowling: To Kent? You never see her packing up her car and going off for the weekend? In the car. Every
weekend.
Mr Miah: No, not every weekend. But this weekend the car was [inaudible] Saturday . . . Sunday it was there.
Mr Dowling: And most weekends it’s the same?
K
Mr Miah: Most nights it’s here [inaudible].
Mr Dowling: I don’t think she does anything strange. It’s just a matter of . . . I think it would be pretty obvious
if she had a second home.
Mr Miah: Yes.
L
Mr Dowling: You would know, I think. You’d see her going probably every week.
Mr Miah: The car wouldn’t be there.
Mr Dowling: But as far as you know, the family, she and her husband and her children, live there full time?
Mr Miah: Yes. The husband isn’t allowed to smoke in the house.
A
Mr Dowling: Yes, I noticed. I met him the other day.
Mr Miah: You see him here or in the morning he’s on that side having a smoke.
Mr Dowling: He’ll be out in the courtyard having a smoke. And you’ll see him every day? Or almost every day?
Mr Miah: Yeah. So that’s what I’ve said to you, as far as I know.
B
Mr Dowling: That’s great, I wasn’t one-hundred percent sure on all the detail. I just wanted to double check.
And your name is Fozlu, isn’t it? Miah. And you’re 28. OK. Great.
Mr Miah: I don’t want my name to appear.
Mr Dowling: Oh don’t worry. We just need to check. We’re just trying to figure out where she lives. As far as
we know she lives here. We just wanted to verify it. C
Mr Miah: That’s what I said, because I thought she lives there. I see her most days. Well, I don’t see her most
days, but I see through the window, going in and going out.
Mr Dowling: Do you know her to talk to?
Mr Miah: I sometimes talk to her, just when we are outside. A couple of weeks ago we were washing my
D
brother’s car and then I went and pumped her tyres for her and then I said one of your brake lights has gone,
I’ll change it for you and like. Like, you know, I say hi to her other son, and then the oldest one is looking out
the window and waves and like that and I say how are you and like that, so . . .
Mr Dowling: Are you Bangladeshi originally? Your family?
Mr Miah: Yes. E
Mr Dowling: OK, so you know each other from that as well, I suppose.
Mr Miah: Yes, sort of. I don’t know. She was more reactive, sort of thing.
Mr Dowling: How do you mean?
Mr Miah: I don’t know, how can I put it, she seems more settled now.
F
Mr Dowling: When she was younger she was more energetic?
Mr Miah: Yeah, she was like, you know, a lot of people coming to her house and this and that.
Mr Dowling: A bit quieter now? OK. But when things were busier, when was that?
Mr Miah: When was it she was applied to be councillor? Not councillor, something like that, councillor, and
G
this and that. She was out there at one of the polling stations, but I’m talking about 1997, 1996 to 1997.
Mr Dowling: OK. Quite a while ago. And you know the flat upstairs that her eldest son now lives in with his
wife?
Mr Miah: I think so.
Mr Dowling: It’s from the council because . . . H
Mr Miah: Because this is all housing, you see. I thought the way you would get it, you have to be on the list
to get the thing, but I think one of the things that helped was her being a councillor
Mr Dowling: So you think they were able to jump the queue.
Mr Miah: I would say it wouldn’t be fair to be so far, J
Mr Dowling:
Mr Miah:
Mr Dowling:
Mr Miah: I’ve never met her. So I don’t know.
K
Mr Dowling: Right. And how long, you know when he moved out and the younger brother moved in, how
long did the younger brother live there?
Mr Miah: They got that flat quite a while, you know. Must have been seven years or something.
Mr Dowling: And how long did the younger guy live there?
L
Mr Miah: First I think other kids used to live up there.
Mr Dowling: Which two?
Mr Miah: The second and third oldest.
Mr Dowling: They used to first live there?
A
Mr Miah: I think so.
Mr Dowling: And then when the oldest boy got married, he lived there?
Mr Miah: Umm, I’m not one-hundred percent sure, but they got the flat, not the oldest one but the other two,
they sort of stayed up there, and then he . . . and then during that process I think the second oldest one moved
B out, so that only youngest one—not the properly youngest one, the third youngest one—and then he got
married . . . and then it’s been empty, but this house is only three bedrooms.
Mr Dowling: What this one here is three bedrooms? Where the Uddins live now?
Mr Miah: Yeah, I’m sure it’s three bedrooms.
Mr Dowling: How many floors is it? Because yours is the same.
C
Mr Miah: Our one is the biggest house in the whole lot. Our one’s got four bedrooms. Has the other one got
four bedrooms?
Mr Dowling: It seems to be the same, doesn’t it?
Mr Miah: No but you see, the only reason we’ve got an extra bedroom is that. . .
D
Mr Dowling: Oh, over the archway. I see. Right. OK.
Mr Miah: Downstairs it’s kitchen and dining room and then you go up the stairs on this level, yeah, that’s the
living room.
Mr Dowling: So there’s a bedroom here. OK.
E Mr Miah: And then a toilet next to that. And then you go up to the top floor, and then you’ve got that toilet
bathroom and then the one . . . [inaudible] . . . the oldest used to live up there in one room and then the parents
used to live in the master bedroom and used to live in that room there, you see, and then they
started having more children. So it’s a three bedroom house.
Mr Dowling: And is it three floors?
F Mr Miah: Yes.
Mr Dowling: It kind of looks almost like four floors from the outside.
Mr Miah: Like us. Cos when you go through the door it’s sort of like split level. You need to go down.
Mr Dowling: I see, so there’s a split level floor.
G Mr Miah: Yeah, you go through the door and you come in and there’s like a living room there, but there’s a
little staircase going down.
Mr Dowling: So it’s three floors. Would it be ok to take your telephone number in case I think of anything
else? Sometimes you forget these things.
Mr Miah: I’ll give you my mobile number. . [inaudible]
H
Mr Dowling: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the flats that would know them well?
Mr Miah: The people there have come recently. And this house here, they don’t speak English.
Mr Dowling: There was a family at the front who I spoke to. A young girl, same age as . . . Mazuma Sidique.
They are number are they? They were very helpful, but apart from that, is there anybody else here who I
J should speak to?
Mr Miah: Number 4, but I don’t think they’d know much. You could try number 2.
Mr Dowling: OK, lovely. Thank you very much.
K 17. Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Mr Kevin Dowling and Rafique Uddin, a
neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s in London, on Wednesday 29 April 2009 at Mr Uddin’s home
Mr Dowling: Hello. Is your daughter Mazuma, is she here? I spoke to her on Friday evening. I just wanted to
check . . . She spoke to me on Friday evening about her friend Baroness Uddin’s daughter. I just wanted to
check one detail with her. She’ll be back at 9? OK. It’s just one little detail about her friend and how she knows
her and how long she’s known her and stuff like that.
L
[inaudible]
Mr Dowling: And you say that your daughter has known . . .
Mr Uddin: They were at primary school and then they were at secondary school for about a year or two, and
then she was educated in a [inaudible] school.
A
Mr Dowling: I was asking Mazuma the other day if she knew anything about the Uddins having a home in
Kent. You haven’t ever heard of that?
Mr Uddin: [inaudible]
Mr Dowling: Well, apparently, I’m not sure. They say they have a home in Kent and I was wondering.
Mr Uddin: [inaudible] B
Mr Dowling: Because Mazuma said that she’s been friends for years and Jasmine never went to Kent, as far
as she knew.
Mr Uddin: [inaudible] I don’t know.
Mr Dowling: You’ve never heard of that? C
Mr Uddin: They’ve been living here. Almost every day I can see their car. The mum is going in on and off.
Mr Dowling: The Baroness? You see her every day? I understand that she beeps her horn when she comes
home.
Mr Uddin: Sometimes. Maybe later in the evening, when they come home from shopping, she calls them to
D
come out and help her.
Mr Dowling: OK, but you are here all the time, and you see her most days?
Mr Uddin: [inaudible]
Mr Dowling: At the weekends? Do you see her at the weekends?
Mr Uddin: Yeah, weekends sometimes as well, Certainly. E
Mr Dowling: But you’ve never noticed them gone for a long time?
Mr Uddin: No. They are constantly living here, as far as I know.
Mr Dowling: Continuously living here since you have? Since 1993? Could I just check, if possible, your phone
number so that if I think of something. F
Mr Uddin: .
Mr Dowling: Fantastic. You’ve been very helpful. Thank you very much. Bye.
G
and Ms Toni Hayhow Khan, Baroness Uddin’s sister-in-law: who currently occupies the flat in Frinton
which Baroness Uddin designated as her main residence until August 2005, on Thursday 14 January 2010
Mr Calvert: Hello.
Ms Newell: Hi, sorry to bother you. We were just wondering if you could help us solve a bit of a mystery,
actually. We are just doing some research on a woman called Manzila Uddin and she seems to trace to this H
property, so I was just wondering if she lived here before you?
Ms Khan: I’m not sure she did, no.
Ms Newell: OK. She’s also called Pola Uddin, or I think she may even be Baroness Uddin. I’m not sure. It
seems that . . . Has she ever lived here? Do you, does she . . .?
Ms Khan: Not that I can recollect. J
Ms Newell: Oh, she didn’t live here . . . you didn’t buy the property from her?
Ms Khan: No, not from . . . no.
Ms Newell: How long have you lived here for? Maybe the information I’ve got is wrong.
Ms Khan: Can I ask who you are? K
Ms Newell: Yes, I work for the Sunday Times newspaper. My name’s Claire, this is my colleague Jonathan.
We are just doing some research, just to see where she has lived over the years, because I thought she was based
in London. And it seems that she has given this address in the past, but I’m confused, because when I looked
at Land Registry it didn’t look like she’d ever owned this property.
L
Ms Khan: Oh, I see.
Ms Newell: So that’s why I thought I’d find out, really.
Ms Khan: Well, it’s a mystery to me.
Ms Newell: So she’s never lived with you?
A
Mr Calvert: She gave her main home as being here from 2001 to 2005. We can see the electoral roll and we can
see Land Registry and I assume you’re Toni and therefore you’ve lived here since 1999, or whatever.
Ms Khan: 10 years, yes.
Ms Newell: It’s a nice house.
B Mr Calvert: So we couldn’t understand how she could be giving this as her main address when it was your
house. It’s a mystery to you.
Ms Khan: Ask her.
Ms Newell: OK, but as far as you know, she’s never lived here with you over the last 10 years.
C Ms Khan: Well, we’ve lived here.
Ms Newell: Not with her.
Mr Calvert: Do you know her?
Ms Khan: I think I should take advice before I answer that, because I don’t know what this is about and I’ve
never had people knocking on my door asking . . .
D
Ms Newell: Sorry to startle you.
Mr Calvert: It’s one of those things we do as journalists. I can give you my card if that helps.
Ms Khan: You know, they say never give information . . .
Mr Calvert: That’s who I am.
E
Ms Newell: There you go.
Ms Khan: OK.
Mr Calvert: But, to be clear, she’s never lived here?
Ms Khan: Well, we’ve owned the house since 1999.
F
Mr Calvert: And she’s never lived here? She’s never stayed here, or anything?
Ms Khan: Well, as I say, I’m not going to say anything, because I don’t feel I should answer questions on my
doorstep.
Mr Calvert: You don’t have to. We’re trying to unravel this mystery. We’ve been doing a lot of stories about
G people and how they claim their expenses in the House of Lords and as far as we can see Baroness Uddin lives
permanently in London and always has. She has had a place in Kent, but before then she says she lived here.
Ms Khan: Well, ask her. You know, that’s the best thing I can say.
Ms Newell: Okay, we’ll speak to her. The only thing I’d just like to check with you is that we’re right in thinking,
so she hasn’t lived here with you. You’ve owned the property.
H
Ms Khan: We’ve owned the property, yes. You’ve seen the electoral roll.
Ms Newell: And she didn’t rent a room from you or anything?
Ms Khan: As I say, we’ve owned the property. Ask her.
Ms Newell: We will. The only thing I wondered is whether you ever had lodgers or anything. Whether you ever
J rent rooms out?
Ms Khan: As I say, I don’t feel that I should answer questions on somebody else’s behalf without taking advice.
Mr Calvert: This is not on her behalf. This is on your behalf. This is your home.
Ms Khan: Would you like me to come and knock on your door and say “Hello sir, how long have you lived
K here? What was your past? What is your history? Can you give me some information? . . .”.
Mr Calvert: I understand all that. It’s just that if somebody came to my house and said that a Member of the
House of Lords has been claiming that this is their main address for four years, I’d find that very odd and I’d
want to know why.
Ms Khan: Well, people do the strangest of things. This world never ceases to surprise me.
L Ms Newell: No, that is true. I think the problem is, just to be really straightforward with you, sometimes people
in the House of Lords say their home is in X place, but it’s not, and the reason they do that is as a way to claim
extra allowances, and what I wonder is whether this woman has, for whatever reason, given your address as
a way to claim her allowances.
Ms Khan: You’re asking the wrong person.
A
Ms Newell: Yes, well as far as I know she has done that, and that would be quite a serious thing for her to have
done, and to have got you guys involved in, potentially, and I don’t know why she would have done that, but
I think maybe we just need to look at it a bit further. I understand that you feel tricky talking to us and worried
that we have just turned up on your doorstep, but it is more that we are just trying to solve a mystery about
why she would have given your address . . .
B
Ms Khan: I’ve seen the stories of expenses and claims. I’ve seen all of that. I don’t mix in the realms of
journalism or investigative journalism. We have our own things to get on with, so we just get on with life.
Mr Calvert: I understand all that. What we were wondering was whether there was some sort of loophole
whereby, for example, she just rented a flat in your garden, or something like that. I don’t know.
Ms Khan: All I can say is ask her. C
Mr Calvert: But you would know that.
Ms Khan: Well, I don’t know what other people have claimed.
Mr Calvert: But you’d know whether she’d ever lived here or not, wouldn’t you. And what you’re saying is
she definitely didn’t live here, because you’ve always lived here. D
Ms Khan: We’re on the electoral register and if you see the Land Registry, we’re the owners of the house.
Ms Newell: Which is why I was confused if she would put this place as her home.
Ms Khan: Well, I’m afraid you’ll have to either live with the confusion or unravel it somehow, some other way.
If you’ll excuse me, I’ve got three children and it’s tea time.
E
Ms Newell: That’s OK. I’m sorry to have bothered you.
Mr Calvert: Please ring us if there’s anything else you want to . . . We are on those numbers and it is the Sunday
Times, don’t worry. And I’m sorry to have come up to your doorstep like this. We do it quite often, but I don’t
think you’re in the phone book. We would have rung you, but . . .
Ms Khan: I don’t really take phone calls. Not from unknown people ringing up saying all sorts of things. I just F
say I’m sorry but . . .
Ms Newell: When I looked at it, I wondered if she was some distant relative of yours, but obviously you’ve
got different surnames, so I didn’t know whether she was or not. She’s not related in any way, that was what
I wondered.
G
Ms Khan: Well, possibly she is, yes.
Ms Newell: Oh, right, I see. Well maybe that’s the answer to it.
Ms Khan: I’m not going to be the provider of your answers.
Ms Newell: OK, I’m sorry to have bothered you. I hope the tea’s all right.
H
19. Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Ms Claire Newell and Mr Anthony Cooper,
a possible neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s in Frinton and an unidentified man, also a possible neighbour
of Baroness Uddin’s in Frinton, on Friday 15 January 2010 in Frinton
Ms Newell: I’m sorry to bother you. I’m from the Sunday Times newspaper. I’m looking . . . there’s a woman J
called Baroness Uddin who said that she lived next door between 2001 and 2005 and I just wondered if you
remembered her being there. I don’t know how long you’ve lived here for. How long have you lived here for?
Mr Cooper: 12 years.
Ms Newell: OK. She’s about my height and an Asian woman who normally wears a head sari.
Mr Cooper: There was a group of . . . [inaudible] K
Ms Newell: Oh, really? When was that, do you remember?

Mr Cooper: [inaudible]
Ms Newell: Oh, so before, that’s OK. They moved in in 1999. What’s happened is, if you’re in the House of
Lords and you say that your home is outside of London, it enables you to claim about £30,000 a year. I’ll show L
you the picture of her just so you can be sure. I’ve got it on my phone. By saying that was her home it allowed
her to claim about £100,000. The problem is, it seems that she never lived there. No, you’ve never seen her.
You’ve lived here for 12 years. Okay, that’s good to know. Can I ask what your name is?
Mr Cooper: Anthony Cooper.
A
Ms Newell: Right, I’m Claire Newell from the Sunday Times. I’m just trying to get to the bottom of it, so I do
appreciate your help. Do you know the family that live there at the moment? You do. I don’t know whether
this woman might be a relative and she visits there or anything, but you’ve never seen her at the property?
Okay, all right. That’s kind. Thank you very much for your help and sorry to have bothered you. Bye.
B [Noises of walking.]
Ms Newell: I’m really sorry to bother you. I’m from the Sunday Times newspaper. You might be able to help
me with a mystery. A woman called Baroness Uddin, a small Asian woman, has said that next door
but one to you, was her house between 2001 and 2005, which allowed her to claim about £100,000 in expenses.
I have spoken to your next door neighbour that way and the people that live in the house and confirmed that
they lived there from 1999 and I just wondered if you had ever seen her there.
C
Man X: 99? I’m not the best person . . .
Ms Newell: She said from 2001 to 2005. I have a picture of her on my phone. I’ll show it to you. How long
have you lived here for?
Man X: About 10 years and my partner’s lived here for about 25.
D
Ms Newell: Oh, right, so it is the right kind of time. That’s the lady. She’s quite distinctive. She’s got a big black
car and she always wears a sari.
Man X: Doesn’t ring too many bells.
Ms Newell: OK. Do you know the people that live in number 14?
E Man X: Reasonably well.
Ms Newell: Do you remember seeing anyone like this there? What was interesting, when you look at her travel
expenses, she’s saying that she was there every weekend between 2001 and 2005, so . . . You don’t recall
seeing her?
Man X: I don’t recall seeing her.
F
Ms Newell: That’s okay. Not to worry.
Man X: We go sailing and doing many different things, so we don’t take much notice. There’s a big hedge there
so we don’t pay much attention to what goes on.
Ms Newell: No, OK, that’s fair enough. I just wanted to check, that’s all. I’m really sorry to have bothered you.
G
Man X: That’s all right. What was the name of her again?
Ms Newell: Baroness Uddin. Also known as Pola Uddin. To be honest, she has a home in London and she’s
Baroness Uddin of Bethnal Green and that’s where she lives and for whatever reason she decided to tell the
House of Lords this was her home when it doesn’t seem to be.
H Man X: Well, who knows? It was a care home before, or a rest home before, and that closed down, Reg Prentice
was one of the trustees, and that closed down I suppose in the mid or late 1990s.
Ms Newell: Well, the people that live there now bought the place in 1999, so it may have been before that.
Man X: Yes, it was. They were the next people in, I think.
J Ms Newell: Oh, right. The house seems quite big.

Man X: Oh, it’s huge.
Ms Newell: Do you have any idea how many bedrooms you think it might have?
Man X: You’d best ask them.
K Ms Newell: I thought of it just because all the houses down here are quite large and if it used to be some kind
of care home . . .
Man X: Yeah, it was, it was a care home and they moved to new premises by the railway line, I think. And
these guys moved in, kept themselves to themselves.
Ms Newell: Yeah, they seem to be a family as far as I can see, a husband and wife and kids.
L Man X: Yes, they are good chaps. Sorry I can’t help you any more.
Ms Newell: No problem. I’m sorry to have bothered you. Thanks for your help.
Man X: Have you come all the way from London just to do this.
Ms Newell: Yes, unfortunately.
A
Man X: Where are you going for lunch?
Ms Newell: I’m not sure. I imagine there are some kind of restaurants in the high street. Are there any nice
ones?
The final five minutes of the conversation are about Frinton. Baroness Uddin is not mentioned again. Ms Newell then B
receives a phone call from Mr Calvert but the conversation is inaudible.
20. Transcript of a covert recording of a second interview between Claire Newell and Mr Anthony Cooper,
a possible neighbour of Baroness Uddin’s in Frinton, on Friday 15 January 2010 at Mr Cooper’s home
The beginning of this conversation was not recorded. C
Mr Cooper: When we moved there was a religious group there, then it was empty for a while, and then we
nearly bought it and they bought it, the people who are in there now. Their name is Khan.
Ms Newell: Yes, I saw that the husband’s name is Khan and the lady’s name, Toni, is Heyhow-Khan.
Presumably she has kept her . . .
D
Mr Cooper: I presume he was born here, but obviously he’s . . .
Ms Newell: He’s Indian or Pakistani or . . . I think what might have happened is that Baroness Uddin is
actually the sister of Mr Khan. I don’t know if they are close or not. And I think for whatever reason—well,
I know the reason actually—she said that’s her home, because if you say that your home is outside London
it enables you to claim £30,000 a year in expenses that you wouldn’t otherwise be entitled to. So that looks E
like why she’s done it. Interestingly, if you look at her travel expenses, she has said that between 2001 and 2005,
she was there every weekend and over all the holidays—you know, summer break, Christmas break.
Mr Cooper: I don’t remember seeing her.
Ms Newell: Yesterday I spoke to Toni and she said look, we live here, I don’t recall her ever having lived here.
So it looks like, though I’m not certain, that Baroness Uddin didn’t tell them that she was using their address. F
Mr Cooper: Unless she told . . . He is quite straight.
Ms Newell: What does he do? He’s like a computer something, isn’t he?
Mr Cooper: He works for Shell. I think it’s Shell. One of the oil companies. But he looks after their, I mean
he travels a lot, but he looks after their internet support. So he works from home sometimes, but he travels a
G
lot. Toni’s at home all the time.
Ms Newell: Maybe it’s the same kind
of families.
Mr Cooper:
Ms Newell: H
Mr Cooper:
Ms Newell:
Mr Cooper: And they’ve got two sons. One has just started to drive, so he
must be about 17, the other one’s about 10-ish, I suppose. J
Ms Newell: Is it a big house? I was wondering if Baroness Uddin . . .
Mr Cooper: It used to be a home. It used to be . . . [inaudible] . . . and it was a home and then they moved out
and they built the new one and then these religious people and they were only renting it and it came up for
sale, the people who owned the home were selling it and we put in a bid because we lived next door.
Ms Newell: You thought it would be a nice house. K
Mr Cooper: [inaudible] But that, I mean they wanted too much for it because it would need a lot of work doing
to it. It’s about six or seven bedrooms.
Ms Newell: Oh really, so it’s got a lot of bedrooms. I wondered if that is why she had chosen it as somewhere,
because she would be able to argue that it was a big place, I stayed in the spare room.
L
Mr Cooper: There’s at least three, maybe four floors.
Ms Newell: Right, OK. But if she said that she was here every weekend over those four or five years, I would
have guessed that you would have seen her.
Mr Cooper: [inaudible]
A
Ms Newell: Yes, she did, but it’s always useful to get as many people say the same thing as possible, really,
because incidentally, Baroness Uddin already has a police inquiry going on into her because she said that
between 2005 and to date that her home was in Kent. The thing is, it was an empty flat that didn’t even have
any beds. She had obviously bought it as an investment, but by saying it was her home, even though all the
neighbours said we’ve never seen her, what do you mean she lives there?
B
Mr Cooper: The only, Lady Thorpe used to live on the seafront here.
Ms Newell: Really. That’s interesting. Maybe that’s what gave her the idea. Did she die, Lady Thorpe?
Mr Cooper: No, she moved to London, I think.
Ms Newell: Right. Maybe they are friends or something and that’s how . . . It did make you wonder why. She’s
C got another brother who lives in Bromley and I thought why didn’t she use his home?
Mr Cooper: Well, Bromley’s closer to London.
Ms Newell: Exactly. It doesn’t look so good.
D 21. Transcript of a covert recording of a telephone call between Mr Jonathan Calvert and Mr Mahee
Ferdoues Mahill (Mr Ferdoues)
Mr Calvert: Who am I speaking to.
Mr Ferdoues: Mr Ferdoues.
Mr Calvert: Are we talking at cross purposes here? I left a message with Mr Francisco to talk to Mahee
E Ferdoues Mahill.
Mr Ferdoues: That’s me.
Mr Calvert: Forgive me. That’s my fault then. Ferdoues is your surname. Is that how it works? Thanks for
calling me back. It’s very kind of you. We’ve done a couple of stories about Baroness Uddin. I don’t know if
you’ve seen them or not.
F
Mr Ferdoues: I have . . .
Mr Calvert: You very generously gave her the gift of a car, a BMW X5. I was just wondering why you gave
her a gift.
Mr Ferdoues: I am in the car trade, obviously. We always feel very proud of her and pleased about her. I feel
G something comes up and she’s the only Baroness within our community. And it is true I gave her that car, yes.
It was registered to one of our staff. It didn’t cost me tons of money.
Mr Calvert: When was this?
Mr Ferdoues: It’s over a year now, isn’t it.
H Mr Calvert: It’s a year old, is it?

Mr Ferdoues: The car is four or five years old. It’s not worth tens of thousands.
Mr Calvert: No. It’s a nice car, though, by the look of things.
Mr Ferdoues: It’s an X5 BMW, isn’t it?
J Mr Calvert: Yes, it’s sort of dark blue-ish, but it’s that shiny metallic dark blue. So how long ago did you give
it to her?
Mr Ferdoues: Over a year. Let me go through the system. Do you have a registration number?
Mr Calvert: I will be able to get it. It is on my system somewhere. I’ve got it. So you gave it to
her about a year ago. Was it a present, or something like that?
K Mr Ferdoues: We did not discuss anything. Her old banger was messing around, so I said take this one. We
have just over 1,200 cars in stock. It was just a gift to her, to be honest with you. Never even talked about it.
Mr Calvert: It wasn’t for her birthday, or . . .?
Mr Ferdoues: No. She had an old, she was driving a Honda before.
L Mr Calvert: Right. And you thought she ought to have something a bit more, sort of . . .
Mr Ferdoues: She does a lot of work within the community, apart from what you have discovered recently, and
she does a lot of good work. Nobody is paying me for this. This is the truth. She does a lot of helping in the
Bangladeshi community here, whatever we need, obviously. I thought a car would cost nothing.
Mr Calvert: How much does it cost?
A
Mr Ferdoues: I don’t know the book price. Seven or eight grand.
Mr Calvert: That’s not an awful lot, I suppose. For a BMW 4-wheel drive, anyway. Because presumably new
they must be around about thirty to forty, aren’t they?
Mr Ferdoues: That depends how you buy it, Jonathan. Because when we buy 100, the deals I have with
Vauxhall, GM products, fifty-one percent off list price, plus VAT, so sixty percent off. Depends how you’re B
buying it. It all goes under the volume purchased. To be honest with you, I cannot be that helpful. I don’t know
if it covers to do with any of your stories or anything.
Mr Calvert: It’s just useful to know when you gave it to her, that’s all.
Mr Ferdoues: Right. I haven’t got the specific date, but it’s July 2007.
C
Mr Calvert: Right. OK. Does she do any parliamentary work for you or anything of that nature?
Mr Ferdoues: No.
Mr Calvert: She’s never helped you out with your TV channels, or . . .?
Mr Ferdoues: No. Nothing. Might be a guest, or something, but that’s nothing to do with parliamentary issues,
is it? D
Mr Calvert: What, guest to House of Lords events?

Mr Ferdoues: No, guest to community, anything happening in the community.
Mr Calvert: Ah, yes, she spoke at your awards, didn’t she?
Mr Ferdoues: Yes. We don’t pay her anything for this, anyway. E
Mr Calvert: Have you known her long?

Mr Ferdoues: A good 20 years, easily.
Mr Calvert:
F
Mr Ferdoues: What you discover is . . . if it goes through
and she’s found guilty obviously it’s a different story, but the fact is, I’ve met the Baroness before, and she’d
not that bad. Do you know what I meant? I think she needs to think slightly better and bigger. Do you
understand what I meant?
Mr Calvert: What, in terms of where she lived?
G
Mr Ferdoues: Correct. That’s not a problem you can write in the paper. What I meant is she needs to think
slightly outside the box. She is thinking within the box. There is a better way of making hundreds of pounds
in that position. She could be sitting in half a dozen companies and she could have made a quarter of a million
pounds. She is not thinking that way, is she?
Mr Calvert: What I haven’t quite got to the bottom of is what she did before she bought the flat in Maidstone. H
She bought it in August 2005, but she had been claiming that she lived outside London since 2001. Nobody,
including her, whenever I asked anyone, has been able to tell us where her property was outside London.
Mr Ferdoues: To be honest with you, this is the first property she ever bought, but I haven’t told you that.
Mr Calvert: Oh really. How do you know that, though?
Mr Ferdoues: How do I know? Mmm . . . I even know the person who bought that flat for her. J
Mr Calvert: Was that not her brother?
Mr Ferdoues: Well, everybody’s a brother within this community.
Mr Calvert: The chap who lives in Bromley. Is that right? So has he told you that that is the first property she
ever bought? K
Mr Ferdoues: Yes, she didn’t have any other properties before. To become a Baroness was a bit of a long story.
It’s like an internet doctorate nowadays. These things don’t mean much nowadays. It just keeps somebody’s
mouth shut if you’ve got a position now. That’s it. OBE and Baroness and Sir don’t mean much nowadays in
this society. Do you have any specific questions?
Mr Calvert: So if you go back to 2005, she had never bought a house before in her life. What made her buy L
the place in Kent?
Mr Ferdoues:
but I haven’t seen
that property, how it looks like. I don’t know. That could be another reason.
A
Mr Calvert: What I understand about the house in Tower Hamlets, down near Wapping, is that it’s a
3-bedroom house, but the housing association have also given her a flat right next to it,
Mr Ferdoues: Does the marriage still exist?

B Mr Calvert: I don’t know, is the answer.
Is that your understanding too? But just to go back, when we were

chatting about, you said that you knew the person who bought the house for her. Is your understanding also
that it is a brother who lives in Bromley?
C Mr Ferdoues: Correct.
Mr Calvert: And do you know why she bought that property at that point?
Mr Ferdoues: I don’t know, but I can make one or two phone calls and come back. I don’t know what sort of
truth there will be, but I can always come back on that one.
Mr Calvert: It would be useful to know. And how do you know that she didn’t have a property before that?
D Is that because the brother told you this, or did somebody else tell you this?
Mr Ferdoues: It is a rumour in the community that she’s a Baroness and she lives in a council flat, you see. You
and I can understand, if you buy a property, how do you get a right to another council property? I don’t know.
Mr Calvert: Yeah, exactly.
E Mr Ferdoues: Because I would have thought that if you have your own property, you should not have anything
from the council.
Mr Calvert: That’s true.
Mr Ferdoues: This is common sense. At the same time, does the law apply to everyone? I don’t know. It’s not
what you know, it’s who you know. This is the industry standard nowadays.
F Mr Calvert: Has she ever said to you that she didn’t have a property before?
Mr Ferdoues: No. To be honest with you, I’m not very close with her.
Mr Calvert: But I assumed you must be if you gave her a car.
Mr Ferdoues: My mate and I must have gifted tons of cars to a lot of people. I have given cars to . . . if you
G buy 1,000 cars a year, you mostly get 50 cars that are not costing you anything. Sometimes, rather than paying
tax, you just gift aid to somebody. You can do it off the book. I know it’s not serving your purpose. I can make
one or two phone calls later on and I’ll come back to you tomorrow.
Mr Calvert: If you could, that would be great.
Mr Ferdoues: And see if I can put some light on it. Have you had from the Land Registry when did she buy
H the property?
Mr Calvert: She bought the property in Maidstone in August 2005 and she sort of had it and didn’t really do
anything with it. It was just covered in dust and there was hardly any furniture in there.
Mr Ferdoues: Is that property mortgaged?
Mr Calvert: That property is mortgaged, yes, but all I can see is that it has a mortgage on it. I can’t see anything
J
else about the mortgage. Before that period, I can’t find a place for her at all.
Mr Ferdoues: From the records, can you not obtain which address she was claiming from?
Mr Calvert: No, and my understanding is that the House of Lords destroys its records anything longer back
than three years ago.
K Mr Ferdoues: My understanding is 6 years.
Mr Calvert: You have heard this? Well, I hope that’s true, but that’s not what the Lords told us last week. They
said it is three years, which seems like a very short period.
Mr Ferdoues: It is 6 years for everybody. I don’t know where that law came in for 3 years, because it’s. . .
Mr Calvert: Your tax records would have to be kept for that long, wouldn’t they?
L
Mr Ferdoues: For anything, it’s 6 years, so I think you need to go back and make another phone call to them.
It might be they are just trying to cover it up, because at the moment so many things are coming out.
Mr Calvert: Yeah, I suppose that’s true.
Mr Ferdoues: All of us in this job, you come to a brick wall. Either you do a left turn or a right turn.
A
Mr Calvert: You had that unfortunate incident that happened to you a while ago, didn’t you?
Mr Ferdoues: Correct.
Mr Calvert: How long ago was that?
Mr Ferdoues: Two years now.
B
Mr Calvert: But that’s all behind you now, presumably.
Mr Ferdoues: It’s all behind me. Is that BMW registered to her home address now or in that Kent?
Mr Calvert: I don’t know, is the answer.
Mr Ferdoues: She used to live somewhere in Redbridge before. Let me do some homework. It’s not going to
be very difficult to find. Let me come back to you tomorrow. C
Mr Calvert: Brilliant. Thank you for your help. Sorry about the confusion over your name in the beginning.
For some reason I had you down as Mahee Jalil. I didn’t have the other name in it.
Mr Ferdoues: It’s not a problem. At all. I will come back to you and is there anything else?
Mr Calvert: No, that was it. That was all I wanted to check. I’d heard this and I just wanted to check it
D
with you.
Mr Ferdoues: Are they going to do an inquiry or is it just going to be just that?
Mr Calvert: Well, the trouble is I don’t have an awful lot of faith in them. They have put it in the charge of
some Clerk who just looks at the financial aspects of it and doesn’t really . . . If she were to say, “No, I have
a house in Bradford”, they wouldn’t check whether she had or she hadn’t; they would just take her word for E
it. Because they don’t proactively investigate anything. So I suppose we feel like we’ve just got to keep bashing
away at it, really, I suppose. But you thought she may have a house in Redbridge.
Mr Ferdoues: I thought she used to live near Redbridge before.
Mr Calvert: Are you talking about before 1990? Years and years ago? Oh, I see.
Mr Ferdoues: But again, I’m pretty confident that she did not have any other property before, but it won’t be F
tough work to find out, because I would be able to find out mortgage brokers. When you do the report you
can’t say it’s from me, otherwise I’m going to have arguments.
Mr Calvert: Don’t worry.
Mr Ferdoues: We had to pay Ofcom’s fine on our television recently for something we got slightly excited for.
Whatever you do, cover my back, but I know the mortgage broker. I might be able to speed things up. But G
don’t put me in a mess.
Jonathan Calvert: No, I won’t. Don’t worry. I will appreciate your help.
Mr Ferdoues: People need to know what’s the reality. We’re not doing anything bad. We haven’t got a personal
grudge with anybody. We’re just doing our job basically. And it’s tough luck if the law want to take them
forward, and if they don’t, they don’t. You just asked me a question to see if I could help you on that one and H
go from there. Do you have a name of that mortgage company, who it is?
Mr Calvert: The mortgage company? I’m not sure I do.
Mr Ferdoues: It would say who’s the first charge.
Mr Calvert: You’re right, it would. Look, I will have it, but I don’t have it in front of me. Shall I ring you back J
with it?
Mr Ferdoues: Sure.
Mr Calvert: That’s probably the easiest way.
Mr Ferdoues: If not, I will get into it, no problem.
K
Mr Calvert: Thank you for your help. I’ll talk to you tomorrow morning.
L
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
B Baroness Uddin: House of Lords members’ reimbursement scheme: evidence
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
Baroness Uddin’s use of the members’ reimbursement scheme in the light of the Sunday Times newspaper’s
report about her of 3 May 2009 and subsequent complaints. 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 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.
D Your officers recently announced that the police will be taking no further action in this case.
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 Baroness Uddin made legitimate use of the members’
E
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, dated 27 May 2010
G I write further to my letter dated 26 March 2010 [not printed] and in response to your formal request for
investigation material relating to Baroness Uddin 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.
H
I know that you are aware that I wrote to Baroness Uddin inviting her to make any representation in relation
to 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
J 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
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
K 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.
There are two witnesses that my officers have been unable to contact. In each case I will ensure that an accurate
summary of the statement is provided to you. In the meantime efforts will continue to trace the witnesses.
L In addition, a statement has been provided by a journalist and I would invite you to consider whether you
would wish my officers to seek any representation from them, or whether the committee would wish to do
so directly.
A statement made by Baroness Pitkeathley will not be supplied. I would invite the House Sub Committee to
consider how to proceed on this issue.
A
Baroness Uddin has been informed that we have decided to provide you with the material gathered throughout
the course of the police inquiry and was allowed a short time in which to make any representations to us. As
a result of further correspondence received from Baroness Uddin yesterday it is my intention to supply the
material to you on Wednesday 2 June 2010.
If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. B
27 May 2010
Witness Statements taken by the Metropolitan Police Service

Each of the statements taken by the Metropolitan Police Service was signed and dated by the witness under the
following rubric— C
This statement (consisting of . . . pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
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 Mr Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance, House of Lords Finance Department, dated D
20 August 2009
Further to my statement dated 23 July 2009. [This statement was not supplied to the Sub-Committee because it
related to the police investigation into another member of the House.]
In that Statement I produced to the Metropolitan Police documentation regarding Baroness Uddin as exhibit
JPS/1. E
[Exhibit JPS/1 not printed.]
Witness statement of Mr Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance, House of Lords Finance Department,
dated 20 August 2009
F
This is a statement made in addition to my statement dated 23 July 2009.
The House of Lords (“the House”) is the second Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament. It makes laws,
holds the government to account, investigates policy issues and, until the creation of the UK Supreme Court,
is the highest Court in the UK.
The Chamber of the House is the main focus for its work, particularly legislation and debates, but much work G
is done outside the Chamber in select committees.
The House sits at 2.30 pm until about 10 pm on Mondays and Tuesdays, at 3 pm until about 10 pm on
Wednesdays and at 11 am until about 7 pm on Thursdays. If it sits on a Friday it usually starts at 10 am.
With a few exceptions Lords are unelected and unpaid. There is no upper limit on the total number of
Members. Lords are normally referred to as Peers or Members. Currently there are about 740 Members. They H
include 26 Archbishops and Bishops and 92 hereditary peers. Apart from the fixed number of Bishops and
hereditary peers, numbers in each of the party and crossbench groups fluctuate.
Once a Member takes the Oath they are a member for life. The exception to this is Bishops and Archbishops
as they cease to be a Member once they retire or resign from a bishopric.
J
I am the Head of Finance in the Finance Department at the House of Lords. My line manager is the Finance
Director and I supervise two Deputy Heads of the Finance Department. The Finance Department employs
25 people, and includes the following sections:
— Members’ Expenses Section
— Payments Section K
— Payroll Section
— Management Accounts Section
— Financial Accounts Section
– Procurement Section L
— Systems’ Accounting Section
Most of these sections are small, comprising two people. The sections relevent to this enquiry are the Members’
Expenses Section and the Payments Section. The Members’ Expenses Section comprises four people: two
Members’ Expenses clerks, a Members’ Expenses supervisor and a Members’ Expenses Manager. From time
A
to time the Members’ Expenses Section would receive help from other staff from the Finance Department,
such as the two Deputy Heads of Finance, me, and the Finance Director.
Once a Member takes the Oath they are provided with a large pack of documents relating to the House of
Lords. Within this pack is the House of Lords Members’ Reimbursement Scheme General Guide (“the
B guide”)—published in pocket size—which is regularly updated I exhibit the last few editions of the guide as
follows:
5th Edition, October 2005 as JPS/4
6th Edition, January 2007 as JPS/5
7th Edition, October 2008 as JPS/6
8th Edition, April 2009 as JPS/7
C
The guide is regularly updated.
There has been no standard way of updating Members with the latest version of the guide. In the past, methods
to update Members about a new guide have included a mass mail out of the guide, including it with remittance
advices, or alerting Members to a new version of the guide by anotating their remittance advice. The latest
D version is always available on the Parliamentary intranet, or in hard copy from the Printed Paper Office or the
Finance Department.
The Members’ Reimbursement Scheme is governed by Resolutions of the House of Lords. Resolutions
governing this scheme are debated in the chamber.
The scheme rules are applied by the Clerk of the Parliaments, who is ex-officio the Accounting Officer for the
E House of Lords administration and who 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; its terms of reference include “to supervise the arrangements relating to
Members’ expenses”. The Senior Salaries Review carries out regular reviews of parliamentary allowances. Its
two most recent reports were issued in October 2004 and January 2008.
F These reports are available on line.
Having taken the Oath, Members are allowed to claim expenses. They claim these expenses by completing a
one-page claim form. On the reverse of the claim form is a Quick Guide to the Members’ Reimbursement
Scheme. Members can obtain these forms from the Finance Department, via the House of Lords Intranet or
from the Printed Paper Office (PPO). Members can also contact the Members’ Expenses Section by telephone,
G fax, email or in person if they have any queries. Members can request a meeting with staff from the Members’
Expenses Section to have the mechanism of expense claims explained to them.
The claiming of expenses is based upon a Member’s attendance at the House. The principles relating to
attendance are detailed in section 4.1.1 of the guide, but in summary include attendance at sittings in the
chamber of the House or attendance at meetings of committees and sub-committess of the House. These
H attendances are recorded on the attendance database which is maintained by another department in the House
of Lords called the Journal Office who produce key House of Lords documents, and information on the
business, membership and procedures of the House. Attendance at the State Opening of Parliament and
sittings for judicial business, such as judgments given by the Law Lords, do not constitute attendance for
expenses purposes.
J The 8th edition of the guide contains a change to previous guides in that it details that attendance at
committees and sub-committees must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
Attendance in the chamber also includes voting in a division. Voting must be done in person and is recorded
as part of the proceedings of the House. Attendance in the chamber is recorded by clerks or door keepers who
mark a box alongside the Members’ names on attendance sheets. These are fed into an optical marker reader
which captures the data for the attendance database. The optical marker would be similar to those used for
K
multiple choice answer papers.
The result is that an automated list of attendances for any particular Member can be printed. On such print
outs “OMR” stands for optical marker reader, “Voted” means that a Member’s attendance was recorded at
a vote, and references to, for example, “Moses” would indicate attendance in the Moses Room for a grand
committee meeting.
L
When completing the form, the Member certifies the date of attendance at the House of Lords and can claim
for reimbursement of:
(a) Night Subsistence
(b) Day Subsistence
A
(c) Office Costs
(d) Travelling Expenses.
The member completes the address of their main place of residence and signs and dates the form.
Members can only claim night subsistence if their main residence is outside Greater London. The term “main B
residence” is not defined in the guide and we have no interpretation of the term. The guide states that 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 night subsistence towards the cost of maintaining such a
residence. These claims are only permissible in respect of nights actually spent in London either immediately
preceding or following attendance at the House. No receipts are required for these claims as the Member has
signed to certify the expense. Members, like anyone else, move house or downsize and usually notify (as C
someone might notify their employer) the Members’ Expenses Section accordingly.
Members who choose to travel home each night or whose main residence is in Greater London are not entitled
to claim reimbursement for night subsistence as per point 4.4.4 of the guide.
Day subsistence may be claimed for each day of attendance and is intended to cover such items as meals,
D
incidental travel costs within five miles of Westminster and refreshments for Member’s visitors. No receipts
are required for these claims as the Member has signed to certify the expense.
Office costs a Member may reclaim are neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and may include the cost of
secretarial help, research assistance and a variety of other office costs arising out of parliamentary duties. No
receipts are required for these claims as the Member has signed to certify the expense. The House maintains
E
a contract with T-mobile which results in the provision of a PDA (personal digital assistant—capable of email,
text and telephone usage) to some Members. The contract allows a certain level of usage. If this level of usage is
exceeded the Members’ Expenses Section is informed of the excess which is then deducted from the Member’s
subsequent office costs claim.
Travel expenses (including mileage) between a Member’s main residence and Westminster for journeys over
five miles may also be claimed. When travel expenses are claimed, a Member must also record their main place F
of residence on the claim form. Almost all members who claim night subsistence also claim travelling expenses
for journeys between their main place of residence and Westminster. Receipts or vouchers are required for
ticketed travel expenses incurred over £50 for a return journey. This £50 benchmark is proportionate and it
results in a good balance of receipts versus bureaucracy. Section 4.2.2 of the guide refers to a scenario whereby
a Member has more than one main place of residence. This scenario is extremely rare and all are authorised G
by the Clerk of the Parliaments. An example would be an instance where a Member stays at a care home
occupied by a close relative.
The claim form is designed to be completed for a particular calendar month, although some Members claim
on a weekly basis and other claim every two/three months. Claims must be made within three months of
expenditure being incurred. On some occasions a Member attends the Members’ Expenses Section in person H
to obtain their dates of attendance from the attendance database. In any case, a Member forwards their
completed claim form to the Finance Department, usually by the internal mail system. Any employee in the
Finance Department is able to take receipt of completed claim forms and forward them to the Members’
Expenses Section.
Once received by the Members’ Expenses Section, a completed claim form is subjected to several checks. The J
first is to check that the Member was in attendance by cross referencing the claim form with the attendance
database. In the event of a discrepancy, such as where a Member claims to have been in attendance on a day
not recorded on the attendance database, the Members’ Expenses Section writes to the Member concerned.
The Member may then either amend their claim or state (by telephone, email, letter or in person) that they
were in attendance. If a Member states they were in attendance in such a scenario the Members’ Expenses
Section ratifies the claim and requests the Journal Office to make the necessary amendment to the attendance K
database.
The second step is to check the chronology of the dates for the various claims. For example, a Member
claiming for Night Subsistence in relation to a sitting on the 4th of the month and recording a date of travel
from London to their main place of residence on the 5th is fine. However, a date of travel from London to a
main place of residence on 4th and a date of attendance incurring a claim for Night Subsistence on the 5th L
would be queried as the chronological order is inconsistent.
The third check by the Members’ Expenses Section for a completed claim form is to check the figures involved.
This includes checking that the amounts claimed do not exceed the maximum allowance and to check the total
figure claimed.
A
On the bottom of each claim form is a section entitled “For Finance Department Use”. The totals for the
amounts claimed are carried forward to this section. The identity of the staff within the Members’ Expenses
Section checking and counter-checking a particular claim form can be identified from the initials entered in
this section of the form. The totals claimed are entered onto a computer system in preparation for payment
to the Member in question. The Payments Section of the Finance Department conducts all the resulting
B payments to Members. Most Members receive payments of expenses straight into their nominated bank
account, although a small minority request payment by cheque.
The Finance Department, through its computer system, maintains a record of what every Member claims.
Each year the total payments to each Member in the various categories are published. The figures have been
published on the House of Lords website for every financial year since 2001–02. The most recent financial year
C that has been published is 2007–08. Every Member is informed of these figures and all are given a chance to
query the totals. I exhibit these published totals as JPS/8.
Approximately 10% of Members who attend the House of Lords never claim expenses. Of the claims received
and paid, approximately 85% are paid at the maximum amount allowable.
Members whose main residence is outside Greater London may claim for expenses of overnight
D accommodation in London while away from their only or main residence. Overnight accommodation costs
could include, for example, hotel, club or “apart-hotel” style of accommodation.
[Exhibits JPS/4, JPS/5, JPS/6, JPS/7 and JPS/8 not printed.]
Witness statement of Ms Maureen Buck, Member Services Manager,

E House of Lords Finance Department, dated 20 October 2009
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
F the House of Lords Members’ Reimbursment Scheme.
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’
G Expenses Section, although staff members have changed over the years. I refer to a flowchart showing the
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
H is greatest towards the beginning of the month and towards the end of a parliamentary session. We aim to
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
J or internal post from the Central Post Depot at the Palace. Sometimes Peers choose to deliver claim forms
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
K matters which I believe might have future relevance, I do this from personal choice rather than as a result of
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
L within the last three months. If it is outside the time frame, Clare will write to the peer asking them to give a
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.
A
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
of days attended. If a claim has been made for a date when the peer does not appear on the Attendance B
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 C
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 D
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. E
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. Of (B) if the
mode of transport changed from that shown on the travel database ie costs for air travel being claimed when F
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 G
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,
H
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
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. J
The clerk will consider claims for Night Subsistence in relation to the attendance database ensuring that it is
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 K
in London while away from their only or main residence within a specified daily limit. 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 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
L
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
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
A
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.
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
B 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,
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
C
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
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,
D 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
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.
E
The clerk will check that the night subsistence does not exceed the maximumm daily rate before adding up the
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.
F 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.
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
G 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.
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
H 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
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
J 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.
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
K 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
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
L authorising them to effect payments to the Members.
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
A
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
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 B
pass it to Jonathan SMITH who would discuss the matter with Michael POWNALL the Clerk of the
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 C
been made. I can only say that neither I nor my staff would entertain authorising a claim which was suspected
to be false.
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
D
AGRESSO system.
All correspondence between the Members Expenses Section and a peer is stored in a file and retained for an
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 E
Guide as their main source of written guidance. This is supported by additional guidance and procedural notes
which are updated as and when necessary.
Witness statement of Ms Maureen Buck, Member Services Manager,

House of Lords Finance Department, dated 20 October 2009 F
Further to my earlier statement where I describe the procedure adopted by the Members’ Expenses Section in
processing the claims made by peers under the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme; I have been asked to reveiw
claim forms in relation to Baroness UDDIN which have previously been supplied to police.
The claim forms relating to Baroness UDDIN are referred to as JPS/1.
The claim form dated July 2005 notes a change of address to 3, The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone, Kent G
ME15 6EE with my initials noting the change. The SUN computer would have been updated with this change
to main home.
An annual statement for the year 1st April 2007 to 31st March 2008 dated 10th June 2008 and signed by
Baroness UDDIN on 11th June 2008 shows the location of the main residence as “Kent” which had been
handwritten. Clare HOOK has initialled the form to reflect the fact AGRESSO has been updated. H
The claims for February and March 2006 have been spread across a number of claim forms. Christine DALE,
a retired clerk, has initialled the form as having checked it. The main place of residence is again 3, The Chenies,
Chancery Lane, Maidstone, Kent and this would be accepted to be the case in the absence of information to
the contrary.
The claim form for April 2006 has the initials of Shanaaz ALI as the clerk checking. She no longer works in J
the Members Expenses Section. I have initialled it having done the spot check and have done the payment run.
The May 2006 claim forms are initialled by Shanaaz ALI as the checking clerk.
The June 2006 claim form has the initials of Christine DALE as the checking clerk. She has since retired.
The July 2006 claim form bears Christine DALE’s initials as the checking clerk and Shanaaz ALI has counter K
checked the form and ensured the correct peer has received payment.
A letter dated 17th November 2006, was written by Christine DALE to Baroness UDDIN asking for
confirmation that she was present in the chamber on 9th October 2006.
The November 2006 claim form has Christine DALE’s initials as the checking clerk and Shanaaz ALI’s initials
as checking the correct peer was paid. L
The December 2006 claim form shows Christine DALE as the checking clerk and Shanaaz ALI checking the
correct peer was paid.
The January 2007 claim form has my initials as performing the role of checking clerk. I confirm that I would
not have agreed to these claims being paid had the facts not been as described on the claim form.
A
The February 2007 claim form has Christine DALE’s initials as the checking clerk.
The March 2007 claim form has a note attached reducing the claim by £308 for incorrectly claiming for a non
sitting day on 25th March 2007. Christine DALE’s initials are the checking officer.
The April 2007 claim form shows Christine DALE’s initials as the checking clerk, the initials are unclear of
B the person cheking that the correct peer was paid.
The May 2007 claim form has the initials of Christine DALE as checking clerk. Sally NICHOLAS’s initials
as checking the correct peer was paid.
The June 2007 claim form has the initials of Sally NICHOLAS as the clerk checking and there is a line drawn
through 22nd June 2007 for claims made on a non sitting day.
C
The claim form for July 2007 has the initials of Sally NICHOLAS as the checking clerk and Christine DALE
checking the correct peer is paid. There is a note reducing the claim for £308 for a claim for a non sitting day
on 6th July 2007.
The claim form for October 2007 shows Christine DALE’s initials as the checking clerk but it is unclear who
checked the correct peer was paid.
D
The November claim form has Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as the checking clerk and Christine DALE’s as
checking the correct peer is paid.
The December 2007 claim form has Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as the checking clerk and those of Christine
DALE as checking the correct peer was paid.
E The January 2008 claim form has Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as the checking clerk, although I have checked
the dates are correct. Christine DALE’s initials show she has checked that the correct peer has been paid.
The February 2008 claim form has Christine DALE’s initials as having checked the form.
The March 2008 claim form has Christine DALE’s initials as having checked the form but it is unclear who
has confirmed the correct peer has received payment.
F
The April 2008 form shows initials for Sally NICHOLAS as the checking clerk and Christine DALE as
confirming the correct peer is paid.
The May 2008 claim form has initials for Sally NICHOLAS being the checking clerk and Christine DALE
confirming the correct peer is paid.
G The June 2008 claim form has initials for Sally being the clerk who checked the form.
The October 2008 claim form has the initials of Sally as the checking clerk and possibly Margo HOPKINS
checking the correct peer was paid. Margo is no longer employed in the Members’ Expenses Section.
The November 2008 claim form has Margo HOPKINS initials as the checking clerk.
H The December 2008 claim form has Sally’s initials as the checking clerk.
The January, February and March 2009 claim forms show Sally’s initials as the checking clerk.
In relation to all the above claims made by Baroness UDDIN, had the clerks and supporting staff been aware
at the time they were validating her claims that her declared main residence was not correct, then under the
instructions given to them in training they would not have authorised payment for night subsistence. They
J would have referred the matter through their supervisor to me. I in turn would have sought advice from
Richard GEE. The rules are quite clear within the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme and there is no room
for discretion in applying those rules by my staff in the Members Expenses Section.
Likewise, the training and instructions given to the Supervisor and clerks would preclude them from
authorising any travel claims had they known or had reason to suspect the journeys claimed by Baroness
K UDDIN were fabricated or not between her true main residence and the House of Lords.
If I or my staff had been aware that any of the claims submitted by Baroness UDDIN were for expenditure
which had not been incurred by her, then those claims would not have been validated and payment would not
have been authorised. The matter would have been referred to Richard GEE for consideration as to what
further action would have been taken.
L I frequently meet Baroness UDDIN on a professional basis and she regularly comes into the office to drop off
her claims.
In relation to Baroness UDDIN, I have no personal recollection of enquiries made by her to the Members’
Expenses Section seeking clarification of rules under the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme. All documentary
correspondence with this individual relating to claims under the scheme has been supplied to police.
A
Witness statement of Mr Mark Sealey, Payments Clerk, House of Lords Finance Department,
dated 12 November 2009
The Members’ Expenses Section and the Payments Section are both part of the House of Lords Finance
Department. As a temporary fill-in, I worked as a Members’ Expenses Clerk in the Members’ Expenses
Section between January and April 2007. I now work as a Payments Clerk in the Payments Section. B
Part of my job as a Members’ Expenses Clerk involved checking Members’ expense claims. The forms would
all turn up in the post.
When I received the forms I checked the Attendance database against the ‘day of Attendance’ filled in by the
Member on each of their forms. If these dates corresponded I ticked the dates on the form. I then checked the
three columns headed ‘Night Subsistence’, ‘Day Subsistence and Incidental travel’ and ‘Office Costs’. I would C
check the total of each column was entered correctly in the ‘Totals’ box at the bottom of each column.
I also remember checking the Travelling expenses and comparing the sums claimed against another database
called the Travel Database. I can’t remember whether the Members’ addresses were recorded on the Travel
Database/Agresso system or not. In any event I cannot remember if we checked the details entered by each
member regarding their Main Place of Residence or not. D
From memory, we accepted the details entered on each form as being correct. If I had ever seen something that
I suspected to be wrong, E.G The Main Place of Residence, I would have asked the Members’ Services
Manager or the Members’ Expenses Supervisor. I do not remember this ever happening.
We then entered the sums claimed onto the Agresso system. It was very easy to make mistakes. I remember
once getting confused between two peers with similar names. But this mistake would have been picked up by E
the other Members’ Expenses Clerk later on as we always checked the other Members’ Expenses Clerk’s work.
This check involved looking at the name of each Member and the figures involved.
Detective Sergeant Ward showed me the claim forms completed by Baroness Uddin. I have been informed that
the reference number for this exhibit is JPS/1. The claim forms have a series of boxes at the bottom of the form.
One of these boxes is marked ‘Checked’ and another is marked ‘Counter-Checked’. These boxes are where we F
put our initials when we checked and counter-checked the claim forms. I was shown the claim forms for
December 2006, January 2007, February 2007, March 2007 and April 2007. I do not recognise any of the
initials shown alongside the ‘Checked’ and ‘Counter-Checked’ boxes.
Detective Sergeant Ward then showed me the claim forms completed by . I have been informed that
the reference number for this exhibit is JPS/2. I was shown the claim form for December 2006. I do not G
recognise the initials alongside the ‘Checked’ and ‘Counter-Checked’ boxes. I see that I checked the January
2007, February 2007 and March 2007 claim forms. I do not recognise who counter-checked them. I do not
recognise the initials on the April 2007 claim form.
Detective Sergeant Ward then showed me the claim forms completed by . I have been informed that
the reference number for this exhibit is JPS/3. I was shown the claim forms for January 2007, February 2007,
H
March 2007 and April 2007. I see that I checked the February and March 2007 claim forms. I recognise none
of the other initials on these four claim forms.
[Exhibits JPS/2 and JPS/3 not printed.]
Witness statement of Mr Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance, House of Lords Finance Department,
J
Further to my earlier statement, I have been asked to provide details of payments made by the House of Lords
Finance Department to Baroness UDDIN, for expenses claimed under the Members’
Reimbursement Scheme covering the period from February 2006 to May 2009.
Payments made prior to 1st April 2006 were processed via the SUN accounting system; those after this date K
were processed using the Agresso system. The vast majority of payments were made via the Agresso system.
The information I will supply is taken from records held 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.
L
The process for making the payments to Members has been the same for both systems for the period February
2006 to May 2009. 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
A
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
authorised the payment and it is therefore not within the remit of the Payments Section to validate or
approve claims.
B 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.
The majority of the listings are from the Agresso system and show:
C 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
“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
D
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
figures are what is owed by the Finance Department in relation to a claim form(s). The black figure represents
E 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 smaller number of payments were paid via the SUN system. The listings relating to these are provided and
contain similar information but in a different format. The “Account Code” column is a unique account
F
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 input 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 input screen. The “Jrnal Srce” column shows the person who put the entry on the system and
G 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.
H
The bank account operated by the House of Lords Finance Department from which payments were made to
Baroness UDDIN, and in relation to their expense claims under the Members Expenses
Scheme is as follows: Lloyds TSB Bank plc, Bank Sort Code , bank account number .
In relation to Baroness UDDIN, I can confirm that during the relevant period all payments were made by
J bank transfer to: Barclays Bank plc, Sort Code . Bank account . I produce computer
printouts detailing the payments made to Baroness UDDIN as JPS/9 which cover the period February 2006
to June 2009.
In relation to , I can confirm that during the relevant period all payments were made by bank transfer
K to: . Bank account . I produce computer printouts detailing the payments made to
as JPS/10 which cover the period February 2006 to May 2009.
In relation to , I can confirm that during the relevant period all payments were made by bank transfer
to: . Bank account . I produce computer printouts detailing the payments made to
as JPS/11 which cover the period February 2006 to May 2009.
L
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.
[Exhibits JPS/10 and JPS/11 not printed.]

A
Witness statement of Ms Christine Dale, sometime clerk in the House of Lords Finance Department,
In May 2005 I started employment as a clerk within the House of Lords Finance Department Members’
Expenses Section. I retired on 11th June 2008 but do occasionally come back to assist when they are short
staffed and have worked thirty four days since retiring. B
When I first started, the Members Expenses Section comprised Maureen BUCK who was the supervisor and
one other clerk named Jason POWELL.
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 C
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.
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. D
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
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
E
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
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
F
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
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 G
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
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 H
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
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. J
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
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.
K
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.
In relation to travel costs, these would be checked with reference to the Travel database, which shows the L
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
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
A
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.
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
B 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
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.
C 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
spouses’ travel.
Some peers were authorised to claim a predetermined annual limit to assist with extra costs incurred through
D 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.
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 forty days per year at the office cost rate. Such a
claim would be checked against the AGRESSO report to make sure the limit had not been exceeded. Once I
E 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.
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. The would include the figure for night
F 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
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
G 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
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 clerks claim forms I would initial each form in the box provided to show it had been
H 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
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
J 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
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 what action I would have taken had I suspected that a claim form submitted by a peer
K 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.
I have been shown claim forms in relation to contained within JPS/2 and asked to comment on my
involvement with them. I can say first off that I have no recollection of ever having answered any enquiries
from or of having given him any advice.
L There is a letter dated 13th July 2006 from me to asking for confirmation that he attended the House
of Lords on 15th June 2006. There is a note on the letter showing he responded by phone confirming his
presence.
The June 2006 claim form was checked by me and has Shanaaz ALI initials as counter checking.
The July 2006 claim form has Maureen’s initials as checking and I counter checked it.
A
The October 2006 form has Shanaaz ALI’s initials as checking, I counter checked it and Maureen BUCK spot
checked it.
The November and December 2006 forms have Shanaaz ALI’s initials as checking them, and I counter
checked them.
The February and March 2007 forms have Mark SEALEY’s initials as checking and I counter checked them. B
The May and June 2007 claim forms were checked by me and have the initials of Sally NICHOLAS counter
checking and Maureen BUCK spot checking.
The July 2007 claim form was checked by me and has Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as counter checking.
The October 2007 form shows Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as checking and I counter checked it.
C
The November and December 2007 forms were checked by me and have Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as
counter checking.
The February 2008 form has Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as checking, I counter checked and Clare HOOK did
an EO Spot check.
The March 2008 form was counter checked by me and it is unclear who checked it. D
The April and May 2008 claim forms show Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as checking and I counter checked
them.
The February and March 2009 forms show Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as checking and I counter checked.
I have been shown claim forms in relation to Lord Hanningfield contained within JPS/3 and asked to comment E
on my involvement with them. Again I can say that I have no recollection of ever having answered any
enquiries from Lord Hanningfield or of having given him any advice.
The May 2006 claim form was checked by me and shows Shanaaz ALI’s initials as counter checking.
The June and July 2006 claim forms show Shanaaz ALI’s initials as checking, I counter checked them and they
show Maureen BUCK’s initials as doing spot checks. F
The October 2006 form shows Shanaaz ALI’s initials as checking and I counter checked it.
The November 2006 claim form was checked by me and I think Shanaaz ALI counter checked it.
The December 2006 form was checked by me and shows Shanaaz ALI’s initials as counter checking.
The January 2007 claim form was counter checked by me but I am unsure who checked it. G
The February 2007 form shows Mark SEALEY’s initials as checking, I counter checked it and there is a third
signature in the counter checked box.
Mark SEALEY’s initials show he checked the March 2007 claim form, I supervised him and I am unsure who
counter checked it.
H
The May and June 2007 forms were checked by me and shows Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as counter checking.
The July, October, November, December, 2007, February, March, April, May 2008, and March 2009 claim
forms show Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as cheking and I counter checked them. The March 2008 form also
has someone’s initials as having spot checked.
I have been shown claim forms in relation to Baroness UDDIN contained within JPS/1 and asked to comment J
on my involvement with them. I have no recollection of ever having answered any enquiries from Baroness
UDDIN or of having given her any advice.
The February and March 2006 claim forms were checked by me.
The June 2006 claim form was checked by me and I think Shanaaz ALI’s initials are those of the person
counter checking. K
The July 2006 claim form was checked by me and I think Shanaaz ALI’s initials are those of the person counter
checking.
The October 2006 was checked by me and I think it was Shanaaz ALI who counter checked.
I checked the November and December 2006 forms but I am unsure who counter checked them.
L
The January 2007 form was checked by Maureen and I counter checked it.
The February and March 2007 forms were checked by me, but there are no initials to show who counter
checked them.
The April and May 2007 forms were checked by me and show Sally NICHOLAS’s initials as counter checking.
A
The July 2007 form was checked by Sally NICHOLAS and counter checked by me.
The October 2007 claim form was checked by me and I am not sure who counter checked it.
The November, December 2007, and January 2008 claim forms show Sally’s initials as checking and I counter
checked.
B The February and March 2008 forms show me checking and Sally NICHOLAS counter checking.
The April 2008 form and two claim forms for May 2008 which have the stamp numbers—81194 and 81594 all
show Sally NICHOLAS’ initials as having checked them and that I counter checked them.
Witness statement of Ms Patricia Young, Members Expenses Section Clerk, House of Lords Finance
C Department, dated 19 November 2009
I have been employed by the House of Lords Finance Department as a clerk within the Members Expenses
Section (MES) since 20 April 2009. The MES consists of Maureen BUCK who is the Member Services
Manager, Claire HOOK the Supervisor and Sally NICHOLAS and myself who are the Clerks. In Claire’s
absence Sally will perform the role of Supervisor.
D
My role is to process the peers claim forms under the Members Reimbursement Scheme and I have been asked
to describe the procedure that is adopted.
When I first started, I was given on the job training by Claire HOOK who sat with me for a few weeks. The
reference material available to me was a copy of the ‘Members’ Expenses Guide’.
E The claim forms are received by post at our offices at 14 Tothill Street, London SW1 and initially Claire HOOK
will deal with any accompanying letters from the claimants. She will then divide the claim forms between me
and Sally.
Initially I will check that the claim form bears the peer’s original signature and that the signature is dated. The
peer also has to write their main place of residence on the form. Although this address is normally recorded
on the AGRESSO system, I do not have to check to see if it matches the address on the claim form. If the peer
F
has omitted to write their main place of residence then I will refer the claim to Claire HOOK the supervisor.
I have been asked what my understanding is of the term “Main Place of Residence”. I have not been given any
guidance on this and I take it to mean the place where the peer lives.
Next I will check that the dates of claim align to the dates of attendance of the peer at a sitting of the House
G of Lords or a select committee meeting as recorded on the Attendance database. I will place a tick against the
dates on the form as they have been checked. If there is a discrepancy, I will write to the peer asking them to
confirm that they did actually attend on the day in question. The whole claim form will not be processed
further until a response has been received. If the peer maintains their attendance on that day then this will be
accepted and I will contact the Journal Office asking for the Attendance database to be updated. However, if
a similar situation occurs with a future claim form within the same parliamentary session, then the peer will
H be asked to email the finance director to explain the situation.
In relation to Night Subsistence, I will check that the dates of any travel claimed correlate with dates that night
subsistence is claimed. If there is a contradiction and it appears that night subsistence has been claimed for the
evening prior to a day on which travel has been claimed for a journey to the House of Lords, or night
subsistence has been claimed on the evening of a day in which travel has been claimed for a journey from the
J House of Lords then those night subsistence claims will be deducted. I will cause a text to be added to the peers
payslip when it is generated by the Payment Section showing this deduction. In cases where a peer has omitted
to put in the date of a journey claimed as a travel cost, I would then write to the peer asking for this information
to be supplied before validating the number of days night subsistence. In cases where night subsistence claims
are not accompanied by travel claims, then the only check done is to ensure they correlate with days of
attending sittings at the House of Lords or Committee Meetings.
K
Having completed this I will write the number of days night subsistence claimed at the foot of the column if the
maximum amount has been claimed on each occasion. If the maximum amount has not always been claimed I
will write the word ‘various’ instead.
The Travel Database shows particulars of the journeys made by peers in travelling between their home and
L the House of Lords. Under the heading ‘Home’ it will show the nearest town to their home address rather than
the full address itself. If applicable it will show which airport or train stations they use in travelling between
their home and the House of Lords together with the mileage of the journey by car. This database is used to
confirm the mileage claimed for travel costs is correct. It also contains the aggregate car mileage claimed for
the financial year, to enable the correct reimbursement figure to be calculated. Up to 10,000 miles the peer
receives 40 pence per mile and then the figure is reduced to 25 pence.
A
The claim form does show the departure and destination of each journey for which travel costs are claimed;
however I do not check this corresponds with the details recorded on the Travel Database.
I total the costs of any claims for rail, coach and air travel and insert the figure at the foot of the columns.
Likewise I will add the total miles claimed and apply the appropriate mileage rate to calculate the total to be
reimbursed. B
Some peers are allowed to claim extra costs incurred through disability. Often this is in relation to additional
travel expenses they incur and will have been agreed in advance without my involvement. If such a claim is
made I will confirm that it has been approved by reference to the Travel database and add the figure claimed
in the ‘Disabled Extra’ box.
Although a specific form exists to claim Additional Office Costs, peers can claim using this form if they wish C
to. With this type of claim I will check the AGRESSO database to ensure they have not exceeded the maximum
that can be claimed in the year beginning 1st August. If the claim is allowable I will enter the figure in the box
marked ‘Addt Office’.
With claims for day subsistence and Office costs, having satisfied myself that the days on which these are
claimed correspond to days the peer has attended a sitting or committee meeting at the House of Lords; I will D
add up the number of days claimed and write it at the foot of each column. Again if the maximum amount
has not been claimed on every occasion I will write ‘various’ instead. I will then add the total claimed for each
category ie night subsistence, day subsistence and offices costs and put the figures in the totals boxes under
each heading. I will then put the total figure for travelling expenses in the ‘Travelling Expenses’ box and the
total claimed for all other categories in the ‘Other Expenses’ box. Adding these two figures together I will then
E
complete the ‘Total Amount’ box. Before initialling the ‘Checked’ box, I will compelte the ‘End date of this
Claim’ box.
At this stage, I will pass the form to Sally NICHOLAS or Claire HOOK for counter checking. Once this has
been done the forms will each get a unique reference number using what I call a ‘Kerplunker’ stamping
machine.
F
At this point I will key certain information from the forms onto the AGRESSO database. This will include
the last date of claim, the date the claim was received, the peers shortened title, the Kerplunker number, the
totals claim for night subsistence, day subsistence, office costs, claims for air, rail and boat travel and mileage.
A print out will be produced. I will then check that the print out information matches what is on the form and
at this point I will swap claim forms with the other clerk and check hers against her print out.
G
The supervisor will then perform a check by referring to a different screen on the AGRESSO database.
The claim forms do not pass to the Payment Section but as a result of what has been entered on the AGRESSO
database they produce a payslip for each peer which is forwarded to the clerks. I cannot remember what is on
the payslip but Sally NICHOLAS and I will send them by post to the peers.
The claim forms have stapled to them copies of any correspondence sent to the peers or original H
correspondences received from them and are then filed under their Kerplunker number. No record is kept of
telephone conversations with peers who amongst other things might ring to enquire what their recorded dates
of attendance are on the Attendance database.
I have been asked to comment on claim forms submitted by Baroness UDDIN which are contained within
JPS/1. The March 2009, claim forms appears to have Sally NICHOLAS initials as the person who checked J
the form and I have written a note on it explaining that an email was sent to the Journal Office advising of an
additional date of attendance on 30 March. This is the only claim form that I have had any involvement with.
I have been asked to comment on claim forms submitted by which are contained within JPS/2.
The only claim form I have previously seen is for April 2009, which has my initials as checking, and those of K
Claire HOOK supervising. There appears to be another set of initials of the person who swapped piles. Claire
HOOK’s initials appear as the person who did the E.O. Spot check.
I have been asked to comment on claim forms submitted by which are contained within JPS/3.
The only claim form I have previously dealt with is that for April 2009. I have initialled it as having checked
it. Claire HOOK has initialled it as having supervised, and Sally NICHOLAS has initialled as having L
swapped forms.
I have been asked if I have ever had reason to think that a peer has deliberately made a misleading or false
claim on any claim form I have dealt with and I can say that I have not. Should such a situation arise, I would
not process the claim and would refer the matter either to Claire HOOK or Maureen BUCK.
A
Witness statement of Ms Shanaaz Ali, sometime clerk in the House of Lords Finance Department,
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
B 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 myself.
My role was to check claim forms submitted by peers under the House of Lords Members Reimbursement
Scheme to ensure they were accurate. Initially I was given on the job training for about a week, by Maureen
C 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.
First of all I would check the claim dates on the form to ensure the peer had attended the House of Lords on
D 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
non-sitting day or recess when the House didn’t sit which would indicate an error by the peer. If it was a week
E 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.
I would then add up the total claims for night subsistence putting a total at the foot of the column, having first
F 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.
I cannot remember if I ever dealt with claims for night subsistence where travel costs were not also claimed.
G
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
costs related to when the peer attended the House of Lords and do the same for day subsistence and office
H 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
Office Costs claimed in the current year, which ran from 1 August to 31 July to ensure the maximum allowance
J 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
check that the main place of residence recorded on the form matched the one shown on the AGRESSO system.
K 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
different forms of travel.
L 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
were already uploaded on Agresso and would automatically work out the total.
A
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”.
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. B
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.
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 C
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
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.
D
I have been shown claim forms made by Baroness UDDIN and contained within JPS/1.
The form dated February 2006 possibly bears Christine DALE’s signature as the person who checked it.
Claims for March 2006 are spread across two forms. I cannot determine from the handwriting who checked
the first one, but the second form which has dates for 29 and 30 March has my initials as the person checking it.
The claim form for April 2006 was checked by me and possibly counter checked by Maureen BUCK. E
The claim form for May 2006 is again spread over two pages. I checked it and no one countersigned it.
The June, July, October, November and December 2006 claim forms were checked by Christine DALE and I
counter checked them.
The January 2007 claim form has the initials of Maureen as having checked it and Christine counter checked it. F
I have been shown claim forms made by contained within JPS/2.
The March 2006 claim appears to have Christine DALE’s initials as having checked it.
April 2006 has my initials on the form as having checked it and shows Maureen’s as counter checking.
May 2006, shows I checked it but no one counter checked it. G
June 2006 form shows Christine DALE checked it and I countersigned it.
The July 2006 claim form shows Maureen BUCK checked the form and Christine DALE counter checked it.
The October 2006 claim form shows I checked it, Christine DALE counter checked it and Maureen BUCK
spot checked it.
H
The November and December 2006 claim forms both show I checked them and Christine DALE counter
checked them.
The January 2007 claim form has Mark SEALEY’s initials as having checked it and possibly those of Christine
DALE as having counter checked.
I have been shown claim forms made by contained within JPS/3. J
The March 2006 claim form has Maureen’s initials as having checked it—she totalled the columns but I
totalled up the attendance and ticked each day of attendance.
The May 2006 form was checked by Christine and I counter checked it.
The June and July 2006 claim forms were checked by me, counter checked by Christine DALE and spot
checked by Maureen BUCK. K
An Additional Office Costs form dated 6 September 2006 was checked by me.
The October 2006 claim form was checked by me and counter checked by Christine DALE.
The November and December 2007 claim form was checked by Christine and counter checked by me.
The January 2007 claim form shows Christine DALE’s initials as having counter checked. L
I have never had any reason to suspect that the claims made by , and Baroness
UDDIN were deliberately misrepresented and misleading or related to expenditure that had not been incurred
by them. 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.
A
Witness statement of Mr Daniel Revell dated 2 July 2009
I live at number The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone. I have lived at the address since December
2005 with my wife Penny. I rent the property from my father and we were the first people to live at the flat.
When we moved in, there was confusion over the car parking spaces and we parked our car in bay .
B Originally I believed that we should have parked in bay 3 but the lady that was living in Flat 3 said that was
hers so to prevent any dispute I parked in bay . After a while I noticed that someone else was using
bay , so I moved to bay as no one else was using it.
The problems with parking continued amongst the other residents until the 28th July 2008 when Countrywide
Property Management, the management company, sent out a letter trying to sort the problem out. I can exhibit
C the letter as my exhibit BR/1. After receiving the letter I started parking in our proper bay, 3. The company
sent out permits which we were supposed to display in the car windscreen, but unfortunately they sent the
permit for bay 3 to Flat 3 and likewise for the rest. I gave the permit that I received for bay to the resident
at Flat 19 but I never received our one back from Flat 3. After I stopped parking in bay it remained
empty for a long time, or at least no one permanently used it. For the last six months or so the flatmate to
Nikki at Flat has been using bay .
D
As I previously said, that I believe someone was living at Flat 3, based on the note on my car and the fact that
there used to be net curtains up at the windows.
About two years ago the nets came down and the windows were bare. I was under the impression that the flat
was empty because I saw a light on in the hallway which remained on for months. This confirmed for me that
no one was living there.
E
Since a story appeared in the newspaper I have started seeing an Asian male around the development. This is
unusual in the fact that in the time I have lived in The Chenies this is the first time I have noticed this.
Should it be necessary I am prepared to attend court to give evidence.
[Exhibit BR/1 not printed.]
F
Witness statement of Ms Sarah Dunn dated 2 July 2009
I live at The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent and live here with my husband Joel. We have lived here since
March 2007 and my work as a Welfare Benefits Advisor is flexitime and I have worked in this capacity for four
years. As I can work flexitime, I can often be at home during the day and certainly Friday afternoons I would
G be home by two or three in the afternoon. For the last month I have been working full time from home. My
husband and I rent this property via a letting agents Seekers Residential Lettings and if there are any
management meetings for the block, then we don’t attend those. I should explain that the flat we rent is in a
block of six flats and we are on the floor along with number . The middle floor has flats and
the bottom floor is flats .
H I don’t know the names of the people at number but it is a man and woman about 30 years old.
I know Yvonne at number and we stop and chat often, I got to know her as some pipes from our flat
leaked down into her flat. Flat is directly below us and flat is below that. Accordingly flat 3 is
below flat and flat is below flat .
J Flat is another young couple with a small toddler and they have some kittens that I see in the communal
grass area.
Flat is another young couple who I see now and then on their patio or coming into the block, I don’t
know the names of the people in flat or flat (I have taken down parcels that I accepted from the
delivery men on their behalf to flat number 2).
K The bins at The Chenies are communal bins and we don’t have specific bins for each flat but there are
combination locks that are as flat occupiers were informed of the number by the management company. The
management company are called Countrywide Property Management and periodically they send through
correspondence. About a year ago they sent through parking permits and visitors permits to each flat
explaining that we should only use our designated parking spaces or we could be clamped. Strangely the
L numbered parking bays do not relate to the flat number, for example our parking bay number is no 16 for our
number flat. I believe it relates to the plot number. Because the management company had sent the
permit number to the corresponding flat number, ie permit for parking space 1 to flat 1, we had to visit each
others flats to give them their permits and then visit another flat to get our permit. It wasn’t just a straight
exchange. I would presume the occupier of number 3 would have had to talk to whoever had their permit and
also give over the permit they had received.
A
I have been asked by Police whether I have had any interaction with the occupier of number 3 The Chenies.
I can say that I have never seen anyone going in or out of the flat. I did assume at one point that they might
even work nights or might be ill and didn’t go out much. I remember an incident probably last summer where
the people at flat hung some washing on their balcony and at some point some of the washing blew off.
I remember seeing some of the washing had gone into the ground floor grass area and a couple of long sleeve
tops or shirts had fallen onto the balcony of number 3. These shirts remained there for months and in fact long B
enough for the shirts to have gone green and mouldy. I don’t know exactly when this happened but it was in
the early part of this year, maybe February or March, I noticed the shirts had been picked up and hung on the
railings of the balcony of flat 3. I thought it strange that they remained on the floor of the balcony for so long
and secondly when they were hung up, why they hadn’t made efforts to return them as they remained there
for another couple of months. C
I cannot remember any other incident or circumstance involving flat 3 prior to The Sunday Times article
breaking in about early May 2009.
During that time my husband Joel had spoke to reporters from The Sunday Times but I did not speak to them.
I did speak to other reporters via our intercom system but I didn’t make any comment.
D
Since this appeared in the papers I can recall that on a Sunday night my husband and I were returning home
and saw a tall Asian man standing in the car park smoking a cigarette. We had driven past him to park further
along the car park and as we came back to the communal entrance door, I saw that he let himself in with a
key. We followed him in and as he appeared out of place and I had not seen him before, I actually watched
where he went. I saw him go into number 3. I remember he was wearing tracksuit type clothing and baseball
cap, they might have been grey in colour. I remember seeing a large black car in the car park ansd it had tinted E
windows. I have never seen this car before this night. I don’t know the make but the closest comparison I can
give is that it is the size and shape of a Range Rover. I thought it was a strange car to be connected to these
flats as most people here are usually two or three people per flat as they all have two bedroom flats and this
car was a large family car.
I have subsequently seen a lady who I now know as Baroness Uddin two or three times since the story broke F
in the papers. Always at the weekend on a Friday or Saturday night but always gone by Sunday. I would
describe her as an easily recognisable figure and strikingly dressed. By this I mean she wears colourful saris,
she is quite a short woman and I recognised her from her photo in the paper. I have seen her getting out of the
large car and I have seen her and her family carrying large boxes into the flat. I can reiterate that before the
story broke I had never seen the car, her family or Baroness Uddin at or around Chenies.
G
I should clarify that the Asian man who let himself into the block did so using a key pad and not the key he
used the key to get into the actual front door of number 3.
I am willing to attend court and give evidence if necessary.
Witness statement of Mr Matthew Hollis dated 2 July 2009 H

I live at The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone, Kent. I have lived here since 2005, it was a new build.
In about July 2007 my then girlfriend Kelly KNIGHT moved in. She moved out about a month ago.
1 to 6 The Chenies is all accessed by a communal entrance with an entryphone system. are on the
top floor, are on the middle floor and are on the bottom floor. I know the neighbours to
say hello to. I know the couple in number 6, I think they have lived there for two years. I know the lady in J
number 4. I know the woman in number 2. I know the guy in number 1, he has just moved in. I know them
all to say hello. It is a close knit community, we all know each other by sight.
I am at home all Saturday morning and am always here in the weekday evenings. I often work at home and
so am occasionally at my flat on weekday afternoons or mornings. There is no particular pattern to me being
at home. My office is at the front of the flat. I am often sat at my desk and can hear the barrier to the car park K
going up and down and can hear engines running.
Flat 3 is directly below my flat. There is without question no one who has lived in number 3 until the last two
or three months. I know this because I have heard someone in Flat 3 late on Friday night for the last two or
three months. The floors here are so thin I can hear them banging around. In fact the first couple of times I
heard them in there recently I thought about phoning the police. Over the last couple of months I have heard L
them leave on Saturday morning at about 9 or 10 am.
Before the last two or three months I heard absolutely nothing in the flat below—guaranteed. I never heard
or saw anybody connected to Flat 3. In fact about a year a go I had some washing drying over the balcony.
It fell off and landed on Baroness UDDIN’s balcony. It totally forgot about it. I thought about hooking it up
A
but in the end forgot about it. I also had a leak, because nobody lived below I had to contact the property
maintenance company who maintain the block.
All the flats in The Chenies have an allocated car parking space. In the past two or three months I have seen
a BMW X5 park in the public car park opposite and then seen an Asian guy walk into the communal front
B door. I have then heard the door slam in the flat below. I think the BMW X5 has been parked in the car park
because their allocated space is occupied by another car, although I don’t know what their allocated space
number is, that information would be held by Countryside Property Maintenance in Croydon. (It might be
Countrywide Property Maintenance).
We have a communal bin area. I have seen all the neighbours there from time to time but never anyone from
C Flat 3.
I have been asked by DS Richard WARD if I have ever seen Baroness UDDIN. I think I recognised her from
the papers recently talking to a neighbour from Chancery Lane, not from The Chenies. I have never seen her
in the block.
I have seen the BMW X5 on most Fridays in the last two or three months and once I saw a Transit van on a
D Saturday unloading a load of furniture. I heard the furniture being taken into Flat 3. I heard all the furniture
banging very clearly. The Transit van was a catering van. I don’t know who the occupants of the Transit van
were, but I think one of them may have been the Asian guy who was with the BMW X5.
In summary, I can categorically say that prior to the last two or three months no one has occupied Flat 3.
I am outraged about Baroness UDDIN’s claims. One can only look at this with reference to oneself. If I had
E claimed for something that wasn’t true I would be sacked and potentially investigated criminally.
Witness statement of Ms Shelley Constable dated 2 July 2009

I live at The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6EE and have done so since 18 May 2007 with my
partner Michael HUMPHREYS. I have spent much of my time at house since moving in as it is only since 30
F
June that I started working. Michael started a job three weeks ago and he works Monday to Friday between
9 am and 6 pm. Both of us are at home about three out of every four weekends.
The two bedroom flat is one in a block of six which is separated from the rest of the flats in the building, my
flat is on the ground floor, opposite . Stairs lead up from the ground floor to the communal entrance
which is on the first floor. Flats no 3 and no 4 are located here and no 3 is directly above my flat. From the
G first floor there is a further flight of stairs leading to no 5 and no 6.
Because we haven’t been here very long, we don’t know the neighbours that well, I tend to see people outside
in the road at various times during the day and evening. Although I know they live in one of the twenty one
flats in the building, I cannot identify them with any particular address. Specifically, the lady who lives at no
4, opposite no 3. I have spoken to on a few occasions, she tends to see my partner, Michael, when he leaves
H for work and returns in the evening. Apart from her approximate age of mid forties, I know little about her,
I think she lives alone but I cannot be certain. The only other person I have spoken to briefly is Angela who
lives at , I think she lives with her partner but I cannot be sure. The first real conversation I had with
Angela was about 5 pm yesterday, I got the impression she probably knows quote a few people in the flats and
she introduced me to a lady called Penny who doesn’t live in any of the flats in my block. My impression is
J the residents are quite close and most people know their immediate neighbours as well as others living in the
building.
I have been asked about my knowledge of no 3 and who lives there. After a couple of weeks of moving in, the
local paper, ‘The Kent Messenger’ came to our flat in the early evening, Michael spoke to them and I gather
they were trying to find out if a Baroness was living there, I cannot remember her full name. We had never
K paid any attention to no 3 because the lady at number 4 had told Michael it was empty when we first moved
in. We had never heard any noise from the flat or heard anyone arriving or leaving. A couple of days later, I
think it was a Friday night, we were in bed when I heard noises from the flat about 10.30 pm or 11.00 pm, I
heard a bang immediately above our bedroom ceiling which sounded as if something was being dropped on
the floor and then some rustling, which lasted in total for less than a minute, because I had never heard any
noise coming from the flat before, it was even more noticeable.
L
The same newspaper came back and spoke to me on this occasion, about a week ago, they were again asking
if there had been any visitors to no 3, I can say that I have heard no movement at all, and I have still not seen
anyone arriving or leaving the flat. I have never seen any lights on in the flat which would be visible from the
road when we arrive at or leave home. Definitely since the newspaper came round, I would have taken note
of any movement. Ever since we moved in, I have seen a doormat outside no 3 which looks new.
A
The balcony to no 3 looks out to the grass area which runs behind the ground floor flats. This grass area is
only directly accessible to people on the ground floor via the patio doors from their living rooms, in this hot
weather, I have had the patio door open a lot and the balcony of no 3 is directly above the floor perhaps one
foot above. I have never heard any movement on the balcony.
Each of the twenty one flats has it’s own parking space in the front of the building, and the parking space has B
the flat number written on it, the space for no 3 is almost opposite the communal front door. The only vehicle
I have ever witnesses using the space is an ‘Evening Standard’ van, which is there at various time of the day,
on a regular basis almost daily.
As far as refuse collection is concerned, we all place our rubbish in large orange bins at the entrance to the
road, I am not even sure how often these bins are emptied. As a result I have no idea if any rubbish is ever
C
generated by no 3.
The postman comes into the block and each flat has it’s own letterbox on the front door. The mail usually falls
through onto the floor. I have never seen any mail protruding from the letterbox of no3 and no I cannot say
if the postman ever delivers there.
Because we rent our flat I am unfamiliar with the arrangements made to service the communal areas. A cleaner D
comes to do the communal areas about once a week and a man comes to cut the grass at the back.
On Monday 29th June, I had a conversation briefly with another resident while I was putting the rubbish out,
I have bumped into him a couple of times but I do not know his name or his address. Because the Baroness
had been mentioned in the media, we joked about whether she had been seen, he said he had seen her turn up
in a brand new BMW, last weekend but he didn’t say anymore. I would describe him as white, aged late forties, E
large build, medium height, I cannot be more specific, with white hair and a beard.
The previous tenant for my address was a person called Stuart BROWN, although I have no contact details
for him.
Witness statement of Mr Ian Allcock dated 2 July 2009 F

I live at number The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone, I’ve lived at the address with my wife Jane
since March 2006. We rent the property from Mr and Mrs FLOCKHART who I believe purchased it from
new. When we moved in I believe that we were either the second or third residents in the development.
The Chenies is made up from 21 flats, divided into 3 blocks of 6 and 1 of 3 flats, I would say that I know
everyone at least by sight and most by name, certainly the first two blocks, no 1–6 and 7–12. G
I have worked as a postman for the last 31 years and whilst I’ve been at The Chenies, I’ve worked Monday to
Saturday, leaving the flat around 5.00 am, I have every sixth week off and I normally stay at the flat.
The car park at the front of the blocks are divided up into 21 bays with bays allocated to a flat by flat number.
I have handed to DC CUMMINGS a sheet from Countrywide Property Management showing the plot
H
numbers against the flats. Should it be necessary I can exhibit this as my exhibit IA-1. As far as I am aware
all the residents use the correct bays apart from Peter who lives no who doesn’t own a car and a young
girl who lives in or associates with the woman in flat 8, she parks her car in the bay that is allocated to flat 3.
Since I have lived at The Chenies, I have seen all the flats occupied apart from flat 3 which up to fairly recently
has always been empty. The reason why I can be certain about the property being unoccupied was the fact that
there were no curtains at the window and you could see in. J
About a year ago, I was going to work at my usual time when I was surprised to see a light on in the flat, before
that it had always been dark, this allowed me to see into the right hand bedroom which was apparently devoid
of furniture. This light stayed on for months and I can remember saying to my wife I wouldn’t want to pay
their electric bill. I assumed that someone had been shown around the flat and the agent had failed to turn off
the light. K
Another reason why I believe the flat was unoccupied was I have never seen any of the windows or patio doors
open, even in the hottest weather, lastly, I’ve never seen anyone come or go from the property.
That was up to two or three months ago, I had gone to bed on a Sunday night around 9pm, after an hour or
so the security lighting came on outside my flat, I looked out of my bedroom window and saw a dark silvery L
grey colour BMW X5 (this may be a different colour but I am unable to tell as I am colour blind) but since
that time I have seen the same vehicle and noticed the registration mark as or something
similar. The reason why I recall this event is because the driver had to move the car as he had blocked the car
park and every time he did, the security light came on. There were two Asian males in the vehicle, I would
describe them as average looking in their 30’s. The following Tuesday, two reporters from the Sunday Times
A
came around and started asking questions about no 3. I told them that I’ve never seen anyone there and I didn’t
think anyone lived there. One of them mentioned a BMW X5 and that was when I connected the two events.
The next weekend on the Saturday, I was again going to bed around 10.30 pm when I noticed the same BMW
in the car park with the boot open. The same two males that I had seen the weekend before took either a TV
B or a computer monitor from the car into the flat. I can say that they were only there for at most 10 or 15
minutes, as I saw the car drive off with the two males in it.
Over the next few weekends the same vehicle would turn up on a Friday night or Saturday, unload some items,
then leave. I can’t recall the date but it was soon after, but on a Sunday around 8.00 pm, when my wife called
out to me saying “the car’s back and it’s her”, I asked how she knew it was (Baroness Uddin) her, she said “it’s
the glasses, the same as in the picture”. I looked out of the window but by that time the woman had turned
C her back. I could see the same BMW and two women in sari’s wearing head scarfs, getting into the back of
the car shortly after, they drove off.
For the last month or so, the BMW has turned up on a Friday night, the vehicle would still be there in the
morning and the windows of the flat would be open, so I assume someone was staying. The only person that
I have seen on these occasions has been the Asian male that drives the BMW as he walks around the car park
D on his mobile telephone.
There has been one occasion that the car hasn’t arrived on a Friday night but a large white van came on
Saturday, the van was sign written and it said something like Purveyors delivering fine cuisine Indian food. I
saw the driver and it was the same man that drives the BMW. I’m not sure whether the other man in the vehicle
was the same as before but he was also Asian. They went into no 3 but didn’t stay very long before they left,
E apart from the occasion I’ve mentioned. I have only ever seen the driver stay overnight.
Should it be necessary, I am prepared to go to court and to give evidence.
[Exhibit IA-1 not printed.]
Witness statement of Ms Ann Manning dated 2 July 2009

F
I live with my husband Keith MANNING and daughter Lucy MANNING at Chancery Lane,
Maidstone, ME15 6EG. We live adjacent to a block of flats called The Chenies. We have lived here since
June 2000.
I am here at the weekends and on Monday and Wednesday. I am home by four o’clock on the other weekdays.
G I know some of the people in The Chenies by sight and to say hello to.
Our house is set back from the road, and from our conservatory, rear garden and by the front door we can see
along the balconies which form the rear of The Chenies.
There are three floors to the flats in The Chenies, all of the top two floors have balconies.
The three flats closest to us are very close, within a matter of yards.
H
The lowest flat of these three is occupied, especially in the summer we hear a lot of washing going on and there
are plants outside. We also know the top flat of the three is occupied because we can see the television on from
our bathroom window. We have also seen people on the balcony on the top flat.
But up to the last few weeks (about May 2009), we saw no activity on the middle balcony—that is in strict
contrast to the balcony above and patio below and may of the other balconies to the rear of The Chenies. The
J
balcony of the middle flat nearest to us for many months had what looked like an old sweater hanging over
the balcony. It sort of irritated me because I kept thinking why doesn’t someone take it in. Since about May
2009 it has disappeared.
Since May 2009 I haven’t seen anyone on the balcony in the middle flat but my husband has seen a lady there
one Saturday morning. However since May 2009 I have noticed some open windows and the balcony door
K left ajar at the weekend.
But we have all seen an Asian guy to the front of our house who we believe is the same person as was
interviewed by Sky News in about May. However, again, we have only seen this guy since about May 2009.
Witness statement of Mr Mark Ryan dated 2 July 2009

L
I am a self-employed plumber. On Saturday 25th April I went to Maidstone with my grandson to see a man
called Mr RAMHAN. I have done lots of work for him in the past, including building a restaurant for him.
I was there to look at Mr RAMHAN’s kitchen and to pick up some plans for another job for which Mr
RAMHAN had recommended me. Mr RAHMAN lives in Chancery Lane, Maidstone. I arrived and parked
on the concrete right in front of his house. My van has a sign saying “Bathroom Design and Installations”. I
A
looked at the kitchen and then left Mr RAMHAN’s house to pick up the plans from his friend who lived round
the corner.
As I came out of Mr RAMHAN’s house an Indian guy approached me. He said, “my boiler’s not working,
can you have a look”. I said I could only give him five minutes, I grabbed a couple of screwdrivers and spanners
and went into a flat through a communal entrance. I followed him in there with my grandson. In the flat I
B
saw an Indian lady who I have since recognised in the press to be Baroness UDDIN. It was just the two of
them there.
We went into the kitchen/diner/sitting room (all one room). There was a breakfast bar and the boiler was to
the left. I had a look at the boiler and filled it up with water to increase the pressuire.
The room was not lived in. I remember seeing a cupboard under the boiler and there being nothing in it. It is C
unusual because I could get access straight to the pipes, no pots or pans or cleaning stuff. I ran the taps. I can’t
remember the details of what was in the kitchen, but it definitely wasn’t a place where you would stay at the
weekend. The whole place looked like the rent hadn’t been paid for six months and the tenant had done a
runner.
I then bled the radiators. I went into the bathroom, there were no towels and no shower gel or shampoo or
D
anything like that. It definitely wasn’t clean, but it wasn’t dirty, it just wasn’t lived in.
There was a bedroom at the back of the flat. It had a mattress on the floor but with no sheets or pillows, again
it was not a lived in room. There was also a clothes rack for drying clothes, I think I had to move it to get access
to the radiator, there were no clothes on it.
I then went to the second bedroom. The room was empty apart from some clothes that were slung on the floor. E
There may have been some built in cupboard but there was no other furniture, there was certainly no bed in
it. I was only in the flat for at most 10 minutes.
I asked a question and they didn’t say much. I can’t remember what I asked, it was something like, “what
happened to the last tenant?”. Again they avoided the question but the guy said something like, “we’re
thinking of moving back in”. It wasn’t exactly that but it was something like that.
F
The guy said to me, “what do we owe you?” I joked “£750”. If I knew at the time who she was I should have
asked for £750. The guy and Baroness UDDIN were polite and friendly, and gave me £10 and my grandson £5.
I think I remember Baroness UDDIN offering my 9 year old grandson fruit or a chocolate bar or something.
My grandson and I left the flat and went back to Mr RAMHAN’s house. We then went to a place round the
corner to have a look at some plans, before doing some other things and going home.
G
I returned to Mr RAMHAN’s house on Saturday 2nd May to have a look at another job. It was on this
occasion that I spoke to someone from The Sunday Times. I told them what had happened the week before.
Mr RAMHAN said the guy from The Sunday Times had been there for days.
I have drawn a rough plan of Baroness UDDIN’s flat, which I exhibit as MR/1.
H
L
L
A
Witness statement of Mr Daniel Revell dated 18 July 2009
I make this statement in relation to my ealier statement dated 2 July 2009. In that statement I stated that I was
told by the lady living at number 3 that I was parking in her car parking bay. I wish to clarify that I never
actually spoke to a lady at number 3, but rather I was left a note on my car. I made the assumption that it
was a woman as the writing was like that a woman would write and the fact the curtains in flat 3 were quite B
feminine.
I did not see anyone who lived at number 3 but I did see someone in the flat. I would qualify this by saying
that I could see lights on and even the lights of a television being watched.
All of the above incidents happened in the first few months of us moving into the flat, which was in
December 2005. C
I cannot recall exactly when the net curtains came down but it was about 2 years ago. From that point the flat
has stood empty and you could see a light was on in the hall but the flat was bare.
Witness statement of Mrs Penny Revell dated 18 July 2009

D
I am a housewife and live at The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent, with my husband Daniel and my 2° year
old child. We have lived at this flat for 3° years, since December 2005.
In about May 2006 I was made redundant and not long after that I fell pregnant with my first child.
From this point I have pretty much stayed at home full time.
E
I have been asked about my knowledge of involvement with flat number 3 and the occupants of that flat. I
can say that I know very little about the flat other than what I may have discussed with my husband, and have
not had any direct contact with the flat or its occupants. What I can say is that I did notice that the flat has
obviously remained empty for some time. I could see into it, through one of the bedroom windows, which
appeared bare and there were no curtains up at the window. As I have been off work since 2006, May 2006, I
would say that it would have been from that time I would have noticed the flat being empty, but this is an F
estimation.
I have been asked to give utility bills to police to show the usage in our flat. I have given an EDF electricity
bill for the period 16 December 2008 to 3 March 2009. The usage for that period is 733 units. I produce this
as exhibit PAR/BILL. I also gave police an EDF gas bill for the period 16 December 2008 to 3 March 2009.
The usage for this period is 184 units. I produce this gas bill as PAR/GASBILL. G
Finally, I gave police two water bills, one from South East Water, which relates to usage and from what I
understand is water from the drinking tap. The second bill is from Southern Water, which relates to sewerage.
The South East Water bill covers the period from the 9 June 2008 to 9 December 2008. The consumption for
that period was 36CM, I presume this means cubic metres. The second bill from Southern Water is for the
period 10 June 2008 to 9 December 2008. The usage for that period is 33.3 cubic metres. I exhibit these two H
water bills as PAR/WATERBILLS.
[Exhibits PAR/BILL, PAR/GASBILL and PAR/WATERBILLS not printed.]
Witness statement of Ms Yvonne Adams dated 18 July 2009

J
I moved in to The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6EE on 18 April 2006. It was the show
flat. The communal entrance for our block is for flat 1 to 6. Flats are below my flat and flats are
above my flat. Flat 3’s front door is right opposite my front door and we are on the same level as the communal
front door. I live on my own, although occasionally one of my sons stays.
I know Angela downstairs. I know the couple who lived opposite Angela, Gemma and Stuart, although they K
moved out at the end of May/beginning of June 2009. I know Matt upstairs and Sarah, who is directly above
my flat. I don’t know her partner’s name.
I would describe my relationship with my neighbours as not being in each other’s pockets but friendly, and
always to say “good morning” and have a friendly chat.
I remember when I moved in I spoke to the Project Manager of Da Vinci Homes, the company that built the L
apartments. He said something like, “oh you’ve got a well known neighbour moving in”. He would have
mentioned her name but I have forgotten it. He then said something like, “she’s in Tony Blair’s government”.
As things turned out no one did move into flat 3. It became apparent that someone had bought it as an
investment because it was unoccupied.
A
I heard and saw nothing in flat 3. I hear other neighbours’ footsteps, music and doors and windows opening
and closing. It is quite a nice feeling. I am on my own and was going to buy a house, but the other noises in
The Chenies makes you feel that there are other people about and that you are part of a community.
The only movement in flat 3 was when a group of five or six Indians, they looked like a family, went in to air
B the place. They opened the back window and doors, they put the curtains at the back of the flat out of the
window, that’s why it was obvious they were airing the place. The balcony out the back of my flat is only about
10 feet from the balcony at the back of flat 3, so I could see it clearly. These five or six Indians only stayed for
10 or 15 minutes. I may have seen them in passing coming in through the communal door. This event only
occurred approximately every six weeks. It was always at a weekend, during the day time, but I can’t remember
what part of the day.
C Flat 3 had curtains at the back of the flat. They were always drawn, day and night.
I love my balcony because it overlooks a nature reserve to the rear of The Chenies. Every time I looked over
to flat 3’s balcony all I could see was leaves. I also remember a jumper overhanging their balcony. After a while
algae started to form on the jumper, it all went green.
D I can’t emphasise enough I am 100% certain no one has ever lived in flat 3.
The postman enters our communal front door and posts the mail through each flat’s front door. Occasionally
there was mail protruding from flat 3’s letter box. After a few days I pushed it through.
On another occasion I heard water coming down into flat 3, it was obvious that there was some type of leak.
I looked through the letter box and could see that the carpet was wet. I could see no furniture but I was mainly
E concerned about the water. Matt’s, one of the neighbours above, boiler has been leaking. In the end the fire
brigade was called and I think they forced entry.
Since the very beginning there have been white sheets at the two front windows of flat 3. All the other flats
have lattice blinds or curtains so white sheets look tacky. On one occasion one of the sheets partly fell down.
There was a ceiling light on. There was no lampshade, just a bare bulb. It was night time and it illuminated
F the whole flat. All the internal doors were wide open. I could see right into flat 3 and there was absolutely no
furniture. My flat has the same layout as flat 3. When I look into my flat window I can see all the way to the
back of the flat if all the internal doors are open.
Flat 3 always had security lights. Every evening, I don’t know what time, these lights would come on. I think
the sheet at the front window was down for about a week or so.
G Things all changed the Friday before the article came out in The Sunday Times. I didn’t see anybody but a mat
appeared outside flat 3’s door, net curtain were hung at the front window and I heard a lot of activity in the
flat. It seemed to me that someone was moving in and at this time I had no idea that a newspaper article was
going to be published. Although I heard noises I never smelt anything like cooking. I like Indian food but the
smell does linger.
H About 10 days after The Sunday Times article was published an Indian lady knocked at my door. I opened the
door and the Indian lady said, “Yvonne, I am sorry for all the trouble”. I was just about to reply and the Indian
lady turned around and went into flat 3. I have never seen her before or since. She was very well spoken and
wore Indian clothes. I am assuming she was Baroness UDDIN, but I may be mistaken. There had definitely
been activity in flat 3 since The Sunday Times article, but I still haven’t smelt any cooking. For example, this
morning I noticed a window and the back door open. I saw a large black 4 x 4 BMW parked opposite the
J communal front door at the time I thought someone was moving in. In have seen the car a few times since.
Since the article I was so outraged regarding the theft of public money that when I was the car again I took a
note of the registration number, ie I wrote it on the back of The Sunday Times reporter’s card.
I have handed the utility bills that I have, gas, electricity and water, to DS Richard WARD. I exhibit these
utility bills as YA/1 and The Sunday Times reporter’s card with the registration number as YA/2. None of the
K meters for gas, electricity and water are in my flat. I think they are downstairs in the communal area of the flat.
[Exhibits YA/1 and YA/2 not printed.]
Witness statement of Mr Stuart Brown dated 4 August 2009

I lived at The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6EE with my girlfriend Gemma FOX,
L from 1 April 2006 to 9 April 2009. We rented the flat and were the first people to live there. The communal
entrance served six flats, the flat above us was number 3 and the one above that was number 5.
When we first moved in I had a job in Park Wood, Maidstone, so was at the flat evenings and weekends and
occasionally at lunchtimes during the day. After I left this job I was only at the flat at weekends and in the
weekday evenings. We knew the neighbour at number 2 and Yvonne at number . We knew the neighbour
A
at number 5 and I recognised the people in number 6. Because there was a communal entrance we saw people
come and go, and in the car park. The only flat we never saw anybody in was flat number 3. Gemma and I
referred to it as “the empty flat”. We heard a rumour that it was empty for tax reasons, but I don’t know where
that rumour came from.
We had two or three water leaks coming from up above. The first thing we did was to knock on flat 3’s door B
and there was never any answer. We then found out that the leaks were coming from flat number 5. We found
this out because on one occasion the occupant in number 5 mentioned he was having a water leak, and on
other occasions we knocked on flat 5’s door because there had been no response at flat 3.
On one of these occasions the water leak was preceded by an alarm. It was about 10 or 11 o’clock at night. I
had gone to bed, but the alarm never stopped so I went up to investigate. Someone called the Fire Brigade. I
C
looked through the letterbox at number 3. There must have been a light on because I could see damp on the
carpet. I could see the hall and part of the living area which contained the kitchen. It reminded me of when
we first moved in to our flat; there were no personal items there at all. The carpets in all the flats were light in
colour. We had put a rug down in our flat to prevent any mud from spreading. There was no rug in flat 3 and
nothing like a glass or mug or anything to suggest the flat was occupied. The Fire Brigade attended but didn’t
enter flat 3. Someone then worked out that we could stop the alarm by turning the electricity off. D
In summary I never saw anybody connected to flat 3. After one of the leaks somebody managed to contact
someone who was connected to flat 3. My landlord said someone from London was coming down. At some
point, it was not immediately after the leak, I heard someone in the flat. They were there for less than half an
hour and didn’t knock on our door to make contact.
E
Witness statement of Ms Gemma Fox dated 6 August 2009
I used to live at The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6EE with my boyfriend Stuart
BROWN.
We moved into the flat in April 2006 and moved out in April 2009. Our flat was on the bottom floor. As we
entered the block by the front door you went down some steps and it was on the left hand side. On the right F
side was number 2. Above us on the middle level was flat 3, opposite this was flat 4 and on the top floor was
flats 5 and 6. The door to our section of flats served the 6 flats in total, with the odd numbers on the left and
the evens on the right.
The flats had been recently build prior to us moving in and we were the first occupants of number 1. We rented
the flat originally through an agent but paid rent directly to the landlords, who were a married couple. The G
other occupants of the flats that I knew were, Angela at , Matt Hollis at . There were occupants at
number 6 but I do not know their names, flat 3 was empty and had no-one living there.
As I said flat 3 was immediately above our flat and whilst I am at working during the day, I never heard anyone
in that flat until possibly 4 weeks before we moved out.
H
Whilst I don’t know the names of the people at number 6, I knew them to recognise and would know them
coming and going.
What makes me think that number 3 may have had people in it just prior to us leaving is that there seemed to
me to be more noise coming from there than normal. The block was a new build and you did regularly hear
doors being open and closed on the flat front doors.
J
With regards to parking at the address, each flat had an allocated bay, if the occupants had more than one car,
the second was left on the road. I do not remember there being a regular empty plot but someone else may
have realised the bay was empty and used it themselves.
In flat 3 there was a light on a timer switch as the lights came on and off automatically. There also was an alarm
on the property and on one occasion this went off. Someone suggested turning the power off as we could not K
get any reply to knocking and ringing the door bell. This was done as the meters were under the stairs and this
seemed to stop the alarm.
The plumbing in the block was not brilliant and I remember on three occasions we suffered a water leak
from above.
On each occasion we again tried to get responses at number 3 by knocking on the door and ringing the bell, L
each time we got no-one.
I spoke to our landlords to ask them to, via the management company, contact the owners of number 3 to
sort their problems out, I was told that they lived in London and that they would have to travel down to sort
things out.
A
I think that we eventually established the leaks were in number 5 and the water was just coming through
number 3.
On occasions when there were leaks and we tried to get the occupants of number 3, I looked through the letter
box and saw that the carpets were wet in the hallway. All the carpets were beige and where the water had gone
B through the carpets had dark patches.
I remember once when we were trying to get the occupants of number 3 that Yvonne, who’s flat was opposite
number 3 told me that it was empty.
I am adamant there was no-one living in number 3, when I say that I was told the owners of number lived
in London, I am sure that our landlords told me they had tried to speak to the owners of 3 and had had
C problems because they spoke poor English. I am sure that my landlord told me the owners of number 3 lived
in London.
Witness statement of Ms Angela Storey, undated

I live at The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent and have lived here since December 2005. I have always lived
D here alone apart from a short stay for a few months by my brother in 2006. My flat is one of a block of 6 flats
and mine is on the lower floor as is flat No 1.
The flat above me is flat 4 and opposite that is flat number 3. The two top flats are numbers 5 & 6. I work a
basic 9 to 5 hour job as a manufacturing manager and leave my flat about 6 in the morning and return around
6 at night. I know the people in the flat opposite as Shelley and Michael. They are both white and in their early
E twenties. The flat above me ( ) is occupied by Yvonne, who I speak to on a regular basis and we sometimes
go out socially. Flat 5 and flat 6, I am not too sure who lives in which flat but I know they are two white couples.
One couple are in their late 20s or early 30s. The lady is blonde and the man has mousy brown hair and I think
he may be a sales rep. The other couple are about 35 and the lady has mousy brown hair and glasses. The man
has long dark hair and I think he has glasses too. I can see the occupants of my block at least once a week and
I probably see Yvonne at at least twice a week.
F
I have been asked about flat No 3 and whether I have had anything to do with the occupiers. I can say that
since I moved into my flat in December 2005 I have never seen anyone coming or going from the flat and apart
from the people described above I have never seen anyone who may belong to that flat in my block.
In the early part of this year a friend at work was looking to move into this area. I had noticed that flat No.3
G had been empty and had no curtains up, the windows closed etc so I made enquiries with the management
company about it. The management company are called Countrywide and when I rang them to enquire about
flat 3 they said they didn’t know whether anyone was living there or if it was being rented. All they could tell
me was that the management fees were being paid. I decided to put a note through the door with my contact
details asking if they would like to rent it out. This was in about February 2009 and to this day I have not heard
from the occupiers or owners.
H
Maybe two months ago my intercom buzzed and I answered it. It was a woman who identified herself as Claire.
She asked me if anyone lived at number 3. I told her that I didn’t think anyone lived there and in fact I had
tried to contact the owner to see if they wanted to rent it. The next day this Claire came again and identified
herself as a reporter for the Sunday Times. I didn’t really want to talk to the newspapers and I couldn’t really
tell her more than I had already. It was then that she explained about Baroness Uddin supposedly living there.
J I had never seen any Asian women in the block at any time that I have lived here. I have seen an Asian mal
in the block about 3 weeks ago in the entrance hall, which is the same level as Flat 3. I have not seen Baroness
Uddin in the block since the story came out in the papers but I have seen photographs of her.
I should also mention that in May sometime, just after the story broke, I was lying in bed when I noticed a lot
of noise coming from upstairs. I couldn’t tell if it was coming from flat 4 or flat 3 but the walls are very thin
K and you could tell it was coming from upstairs. I would describe the noise as someone picking up and dropping
stuff and the sound of moving stuff around. I spoke to a neighbour Penny a couple of days later and she
mentioned to me that Flat 3 had curtains up and looked like someone had moved in. I had noticed that a door
mat had appeared outside flat 3.
L Witness statement of Ms Angela Elizabeth Storey undated

I live at The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent. I have given an electricity bill for my flat for the period 3 March
2009 to 19 June 2009. The total amount of units used in that period is 400 units. I exhibit this bill which consists
of 2 sheets as AES/1.
[Exhibit AES/1 not printed.]
A
Witness statement of Ms Angela Storey dated 9 August 2009
I have made a statement already regarding the occupier of 3 The Chenies and produced my electricity bill for
comparison of useage to that flat. I now wish to exhibit the following bills, an EDF Energy bill for the period
28 August 2008 to 16 December 2008. The total cost for that period is £29.75 and the total units used is 77.
I exhibit this as AES/2. B
I also produce water bills for the period 9 June 2008 to 9 December 2008. For some reason there are two
companies that deal with water, Southern Water deal with drainage (waste water), the cost for that period was
£99.02. The company that deal with usage (drinking water etc) is called South East Water, the total cost for
that period is £63.74. I exhibit these two bills as AES/3.
The total units used for usage is 51 cubic metres and the total units for wastage is 51 cubic metres. C
[Exhibits AES/2 and AES/3 not printed.]
Witness statement of Ms Angela Storey dated 18 November 2009

Further to my earlier statement about the occupier at number 3 The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent. I now wish
to add that since the initial press interest in the flat in the summer of 2009 I have never seen Baroness Uddin D
at or around the flat. I have seen a couple of asian guys in the car park who went into my block which includes
my flat and number 3. The windows were open and I presumed that they went into number 3 as they didn’t
live in any of the other flats.
Police summary of a witness statement of a resident from The Chenies E

A witness from the Chenies States:
That they received by mistake a car parking permit from the site’s Management Company, which related to
a parking space allocated to Baroness Uddin. They received their correct permit from another resident, but
were unable to pass on Baroness Uddin’s permit to her as they could not get any answer from repeated visits
to Baroness’s property. Furthermore this same witness noting that Baroness Uddin’s car parking space was F
not being used instructed her lodger to make use of it. This arrangement continued until the media attention
started, after which a black BMW X5 started using it.
Police summary of a witness statement of an employee of Countryside Residential Lettings Ltd

A witness from Countrywide Residential Lettings Ltd states: G
That the company is responsible for the management of The Chenies, Chancery Lane, Maidstone. When the
properties were built there was some confusion over the numbering of the car parking bays. In June 2006 a
letter was sent to all the residents’ clarifying what bay went with what property and this was repeated during
July 2008. From August 2008 the residents have to display in the vehicle a permit relating to the bay that they
are parked in otherwise they run the risk of being clamped.
H
They confirm that they have had limited contact with Baroness Uddin with instruction from her to forward
any post to a property in London E1.
[The witness provided exhibits MJB-1 and MJB-2.]
L
L
L
L
L
A
Witness statement of Mr Howard Dellow, Watch Manager, Kent Fire Brigade, dated 10 August 2009
I am a Watch Manager for the Kent Fire and Rescue Service and have been in the service for 22 years. I have
been asked by DC LONERGAN if I recall an incident at The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent on the 4 June 2007.
I do not remember the actual incident but I can refer to an incident log which contains details from our
B computer records and entries I made at the time or shortly after the incident. I exhibit the log as HJD/1.
The incident log shows that a call was made to the fire service at 2328 hours on the 4th June 2007 from the
occupier of no. 1 The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent. The call type was shown as A.F.A. (Automatic Fire Alarm)
and I attended as part of two appliances attendance. According to the log we arrived at 2333 hours. The usual
circumstances at scenes is that I would take another officer in to make an initial assessment and according to
the log I had made a decision within 3 or 4 minutes. According to the notes I wrote ‘ACB—(Alarm Caused
C By) water ingress from leaking pipe in the flat above. Electricity isolated remotely, advice given to have electrics
checked by qualified person’.
The fact that the incident was dealt with so quickly leads me to believe that there was no leaking water and
no need to call the water board. I would not have left the scene if this had been the case. The alarm activation
would have been most likely caused by an earlier leak.
D
L
L
L
L
A
Witness statement of Detective Constable David Lonergan dated 3 July 2009
On Thursday 2nd June 2009 I was on duty together with other officers from the Economic and Specialist Crime
Directorate. We went to The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent in connection with an enquiry generated from
Operation Electra. This is connected to an allegation that Members of Parliament and Members of the House
B of Lords had abused the expenses system and this particular enquiry related to Baroness Uddin.
I am an authorised Metropolitan Police photographer and I took 22 images of the Chenies and the immediate
area. The camera that I used was a Nikon D80 Digital camera, serial number 8089181 and the images were
recorded onto a 512KB SD card. All images were kept and downloaded using a specialised CD copier at
Scotland Yard the following day. The serial number of the copier is NDC S 00219.
C The copier produces 3 CD rom discs. The first is the master copy which contains all the RAW data and includes
all the camera setting, times and dates etc which cannot be altered. The second two discs are the working and
viewing copies respectively. Both of these are in JPEG format which is a compressed form of RAW and does
not contain all the information kept on the master copy but is in a viewable form on most computers without
using specialist software.
Once the copier has produced all three copies the SD card is then wiped and re-formatted.
D
I now produce the master disc as exhibit DML/1/UDDIN.
[The photographs are printed on the following pages.]
Witness statement of Detective Constable David Lonergan dated 18 August 2009

E On Thursday 2nd June 2009 I was on duty together with other officers from the Economic and Specialist Crime
Directorate. We went to The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent in connection with an enquiry generated from
Operation Electra. This enquiry in this particular case was related to Baroness Uddin.
I am an authorised Metropolitan Police photographer and I took 22 images of the Chenies and the immediate
area. From the memory card I produced a CD Rom of those images and I exhibited the master copy as exhibit
F DML/1/UDDIN.
I now produce 9 selected images from that CD Rom as DML/1/UDDIN/IMAGES. Those images were sealed
in an exhibit bag bearing the seal number C31706652 and was handed to the exhibits officer DC David
Cummings.
L
L
L
L
A
Witness statement of John Leach, Police Officer, dated 16 June 2009
I was asked to produce a map of The Chenies, Maidstone ME15 6EE. I used two web sites, http://www.maps-
direct.co.uk and http://www.multimap.com to search for the location I then did screen prints of both images
and pasted these into Microsoft Word documents. I produce these documents as exhibit JGL/1.
B
L
L
A
Witness statement of Detective Constable David Lonergan dated 9 July 2009
On Wednesday 8th July 2009, I was on duty when I spoke to a number of witnesses at The Chenies, Maidstone,
Kent in relation to an allegation of crime against Baroness Uddin. As part of the investigation I wished to
establish whether Baroness Uddin had been staying at number 3 The Chenies, Maidstone and the intention
B was to examine the electricity bill for that flat and compare it against others in the block for usage.
To this end I requested recent bills from two flats in the block 1–6 and one bill from an adjoining flat in
block 7–12.
I took possession of the following exhibits:
From flat 2, I was handed by the occupier Angela Storey an electricity bill for the period 3rd March 2009 to
C 19th June 2009. This showed that she had used 400 units in that period. This is exhibited as AES/1 and I later
sealed this bill (consisting of 2 sheets) in exhibit bag C31706503.
From flat 6, I was handed by the occupier Joel Dunn an electricity bill for the period 16th December 2008 to
3rd March 2009. This showed that they had used 484 units in that period. This is exhibited as JD/1 and I later
sealed this bill (consisting of two sheets) in exhibit bag C31706504.
D From flat 7, I was handed by the occupier Penny Revell an electricity bill for the period 16th December 2008
to 3rd March 2009. This showed that they had used 733 units in that period. This is exhibited as PAR/BILL
and I later sealed this bill (consisting of 2 sheets) in exhibit bag C31706505.
These exhibits were taken by me back to Scotland Yard and handed to the exhibits officer DC David
Cummings.
E
[Exhibits AES/1, JD/1 and PAR/BILL not printed.]
Witness statement of Mr Kevin Hammond, EDF Energy, dated 22 July 2009

I am employed by EDF Energy as a Regulation and Compliance Analyst. My current remit includes answering
all Data Protection requests and Police inquiries on behalf of EDF Energy (formerly known as London
F
Energy, SWEB Energy, Seeboard Energy & VirginHome Energy).
I have been asked by Richard Ward of Metropolitan Police to check the records of EDF Energy and advise
customer details regarding the energy supply at 3 The Chenies, Maidstone, ME15 6EE.
The registered customer at the above address is Mrs Uddin from 01 August 2005 to present. The average
G electricity consumption is reflected by the actual meter readings taken by our field operatives who have visited
the premises and taken a reading from the meter. Actual meter readings will reflect the real usage whereas
estimated readings calculated according to the historic electricity consumption.
The data held within our billing systems shows the physical location of the meter as being within a communal
cupboard.
H The actual meter readings showing the electricity consumption are:
Daily
Meter average Reading
Date Reading consumption source
J 19 March 2007 69854 3.04 Actual Reading
30 August 2007 70374 3.17 Actual Reading
28 August 2008 71553 3.24 Actual Reading
03 March 2009 72244 3.70 Actual Reading
The average electricity consumption for a standard domestic customer would be around 9 units (kWh) per
K day. The daily average electricity consumption at 3 The Chenies, Maidstone, ME15 6EE shows an average of
3.29 units (kWh) per day, calculated from the actual readings taken by a field operative.
The average electricity consumption for a standard domestic customer of 9kWh per day is an average derived
from EDF Energy’s portfolio of customers billed to Standard Domestic tariffs. The average annual electricity
consumption for customer with Standard Domestic metering is 3,300 kWh per annum. When this is divided
L equally over 365 days, the average electricity consumption is calculated to be 9.04109589 kWh per day. EDF
Energy does not hold data to record the occupancy or the size of customers’ premises.
The electricity consumption at customers’ premises is likely to show some degree of seasonal variance and will
be affected by the types of appliances, how regularly these are used, the energy efficiency rating of these
appliances and the overall energy efficiency rating of the customers’ premises. EDF Energy does not keep
A
records of the types of appliances or energy efficiency ratings of customers’ premises. It is not possible to
comment on the type of premises based on the recorded electricity consumption.
Guideline values for the electricity consumption of domestic appliances:
The Running Costs of Domestic Appliances B

Appliance Quantity Usage (1 unit % 1 kWh)
Coffee Maker 40 cups of coffee 1 unit
CD Player 25 hours of listening 1 unit
Cooker 1 weeks meals for a family of four 20 units
C
Deep Fat Fryer 1.5kg chips 1 unit
Dishwasher 1 full load (cold fill) 2 units
Extractor Fan 24 hours 1 unit
Fluorescent Striplight 20 hours 1 unit
Freezer (upright) per day 1–2 units
Games Console 3 hours of fun 1 unit D
Hairdryer 6 x 10 minute sessions 1 unit
Heater (2kw fan) 30 minutes 1 unit
Iron 1 hour of ironing 0.5–1 unit
Kettle 12 pints of boiling water 1 unit
Low Energy Bulb 100 hours of light 1 unit
E
Microwave 3lb joint of beef 0.5 units
Oil Filled Radiator 10 hours of warmth 1 unit
Shaver Every day for 5 years 1 unit
Shower (7kw) 3–5 minute showers for 1 weeks 3–4 units
Television 6–9 hours of viewing 1 unit
Tumble Dryer 8–12lb sheets and towels 4 units F
Vacuum Cleaner 2 hours 1 unit
Washing Machine Weekly wash for a family of four 4–5 units
A guide to the electricity consumption of incandescent light bulbs and compact fluorescent lamps is below.
The table shows incandescent bulbs rated at 40w, 60w and 100w and compact fluorescent lamps at 9w, 14w
G
and 23w. Results shown against a value for the number of hours continuous usage for each type and rating
of lamp.
The figures for each lamp may be added or multiplied against how many lamps and type of lamps are present
at a premises to give a reasonable guidline for the overall consumption of electricity for lighting.
H
No hours kWh per
Type of lamp Energy rating Wattage use day
Incandescent bulb 40w 40 3 0.12
Incandescent bulb 40w 40 7 0.28 J
Incandescent bulb 100w 100 5 0.50 K
Compact fluorescent lamp 40w Equivalent 9 3 0.03
Compact fluorescent lamp 60w Equivalent 14 5 0.07 L
A
The information contained within this statement has been obtained from computer records compiled by
employees of EDF Energy in the course of their duties from information supplied directly or indirectly by
persons who had personal knowledge of the matter dealt with therein. All reasonable steps have been taken
to identify the persons who supplied the information but either they cannot be found or cannot be reasonably
expected to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in that information.
B
Witness statement of Ms Hazel Wallis, South East Water, dated 31 July 2009
I am the Contact Centre team leader for South East Water, Rocford Road, Snodland, Kent. I have received
a request from DS Richard Ward from the Metropolitan Police regarding the water usage at 3 The Chenies,
Chancery Lane, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6EE.
C
I can confirm that since 1 August 2005 the account holder at that address is Mrs M P Uddin. We have no
records of any previous account holder for the address.
The account is settled by cheque or cash.
The water usage at 3 The Chenies is recorded by water meter. The water meter readings are actual readings
D
and not estimates. These readings are obtained by accessing a secure South East Water outside the address
accessible by South East Water employees. I exhibit a print of the water meter readings for 3 The Chenies as
HW/1. The readings provide both a cumulative and actual reading.
The first reading was taken on 1 August 2005. The cumulative reading was 4 cubic meters. The second reading
was taken on 20 June 2006. The cumulative reading was 9 cubic meters resulting in five cubic meters of
E
actual usage.
The third reading was taken on 13 December 2006. The cumulative reading was 10 cubic meters, I.e. only one
cubic meter of water was used between 20 June 2006 and 13 December 2006.
The 4th reading was taken on 8 June 2007. The cumulative reading shown is 119 and is incorrect. This was an
F incorrect reading adjusted to a 5th reading of 13 cubic meters on 23 August 2007. I.e. between 13 December
2006 and 23 August 2007 three cubic meters were used.
The 6th and 7th readings were taken on 11 December 2007 and 9 June 2008 respectively.
Both readings show a cumulative reading of 13 cubic meters, equating to zero usage between 23 August 2007
G and 9 June 2008.
The 8th reading was taken on 10 December 2008. The cumulative reading shown is 18 cubic meters which
equates to five cubic meters of usage between 9 June 2008 and 10 December 2008.
The 9th reading was taken on 13 February 2009. The cumulative reading shown is 18 cubic meters, equating
to zero usage between 10 December 2008 and 13 February 2009.
H
The water meter was exchanged on 13 February 2009 as it was suspected that the water meter had stopped
working.
In summary, between 1 August 2005 and 13 February 2009, 14 cubic meters of water were used. This is an
average annual usage of below four cubic meters.
J I am unaware of the number of occupants at 3 The Chenies. Accordingly I exhibit a South East Water
Comparison of domestic water bills as HW/2. The estimate for annual usage for a one person low usage
household is 39 cubic meters, and an estimate for average usage for the same household is 84 cubic meters
per year.
The readings for 3 The Chenies indicate extremely low usage. Water is used when flushing the toilet, running
K any taps in the house or for the use of domestic appliances such as dishwashers and washing machines. I exhibit
a South East Water guide to cost (with usage) of water around the home as HW/3.
[Exhibits HW/1, HW/2 and HW/3 not printed.]
L Summarised witness statement of a journalist from the Sunday Times newspaper

A witness from The Sunday Times who has made two statements in relation to Baroness Uddin states:
That they attended the Chenies in Maidstone where they interviewed a number of neighbours recording
their comments onto a mini recorder. A transcript of the interviews was made and from the information
gained the articles that appear in the media coverage attached were based.
A
[The following three witness statements relate to the recordings made by journalists at the Sunday Times
newspaper. The police did not provide the exhibits referred to in those statements to the Sub-Committee. The Sub-
Committee instead obtained them directly from the Sunday Times. Transcripts of these recordings are printed at
pp70 to 101.]
Witness statement of Detective Constable Roger Noakes dated 1 July 2009 B
On Monday 29 June 2009, I was on duty at New Scotland Yard engaged on Operation Electra. At 5.00 pm in
room 590, Victoria Block, I took possession of two CD-R discs which I understood to have arrived by courier
from The Times newspaper. One was entitled “Lord Clarke” and the other “Baroness Uddin—Police”, both
written in black ink. I retained the discs in room 590 overnight. The entry door has two secure locks.
C
On Tuesday 30 June 2009, at 9.45 am I sealed the discs in exhibit bags as follows:
Disc entitled “Lord Clarke”, which I refer to as RN/1 was placed in bag MPSC31706509.
Disc entitled “Baroness Uddin”, which I refer to as RN/2 was placed in bag MPSC31706450.
I then personally transported them to Newlands Park Audio Forensics Laboratory in order for copies to be
made and handed them to Mike Bushell at approximately 11 am. D
On Wednesday 1 July 2009 I attend the Audio Forensics Laboratory and at 2 pm collected RN/1 and RN/2
from Mike Bushell which had been resealed in the same bags. I also collected the following copy discs he had
prepared:
MB/1A/CD1 relating to RN/1
E
MB/1B/CD1 relating to RN/1
F
MB/2B/CD3 relating to RN/2 G
Working copy of RN/1

Working copy of RN/2
At 4 pm I handed exhibits RN/1, RN/2, MB/1A/CD1, MB/1B/CD1, MB/2A/CD1, MB/2B/CD1 to the exhibits
officer DC Cummings. H
Witness statement of Michael Bushell, Police Staff, dated 1 July 2009

I am employed by the Metropolitan Police as a Forensic Audio Engineer, attached to the Forensic Audio
Laboratory. I am a member of the Audio Engineering Society.
J
On Tuesday 30th of June 2009 and Wednesday the 1st July 2009, I received from Detective Constable Roger
Noakes two exhibits identified as RN/1 and RN/2. I found them both to be recordable compact discs
containing some text files and recordings of audio data. I produced three audio Compact Disc (CD) copy
recordings of the audio and due to the length of the original recordings, the copies produced are in two parts,
part A and part B. I labelled the copies as follows:
MB/1A/CD1—Part A audio copy of RN/1 K
MB/1A/CD2—Part A audio copy of RN/1

MB/1B/CD1—Part B audio copy of RN/1
MB/1B/CD2—Part B audio copy of RN/1 L

A
B
After this copying process I resealed RN/1 and RN/2 with tamper-evident tape and returned it to the secure
store, along with all the copy recordings.
In order to improve the quality of some of the copy recordings, gain control, filtering techniques and noise
reduction were employed during the production.
C A full record of the work carried out in this case is available for inspection. This will include:
1. Documentation created at the time of submission,
2. Trail documents,
3. Original notes of work carried out.
D
Witness statement of Detective Constable Roger Noakes dated 13 July 2009
Further to my earlier statement, I caused the following written transcripts to be produced from the following
copy discs:
MB/1A/CD3 Part A audio Copy of RN/1 – Transcript RN/3
E MB/1B/CD3 Part B audio Copy of RN/1 – Transcript RN/4
MB/2A/CD3 Part A audio Copy of RN/2 – Transcript RN/5
MB/2B/CD3 Part B audio Copy of RN/2 – Transcript RN/6
Witness statement of Mr Anthony Gerard Jeyes, Revenues Manager, Maidstone Borough Council,
dated 2 July 2009
F
I am employed by Maidstone Borough Council as the Council’s Revenues Manager and I am the council’s
officer with responsibility for the accuracy of the council’s Council Tax records and for the demand and
collection of the tax.
At the request of Detective Sergeant WARD of The Metropolitan Police, I confirm the situation relating to
G the council’s document imaging and council tax collection systems in relation to the Council Tax Liability for
3 The Chenies, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6EE, in relation to MANZILA POLA UDDIN is as follows.
The only person who is registered as being the liable person for council tax purposes in respect of 3 The Chenies
is Manzila Pola Uddin. The property was a new build and this person has been liable for the council tax from
1 August 2005, the date the property was complete and occupied for council tax purposes.
H The information concerning who was liable was provided by the Listing Officer (formerly the Valuation
Officer) at Union House, Eridge Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN4 8HF. We received this information on 8
May 2006 and created the appropriate council tax bill on that date. Bills in respect of the period 1 August
2005–31 March 2006 and 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 were duly sent, dated 8 May 2006, listing the payments
required. These bills were for the full amount as no discount or reduction had been claimed.
J Payment in respect of the amount due to 31 March 2006 and the instalment due on 10 June 2006 in respect of
the year 2006/2007 was not received and reminder notices dated 21 June 2006 were sent, requesting that these
amounts be paid.
On 28 June 2006, the council received a letter referring to the amount due, a payment in respect of it and an
instruction for the balance to be paid through direct debiting. The direct debit instruction was authorising
payments to be transferred from an account in the name of Manzil Associates. I exhibit a copy of the letter
K from Mrs Uddin as exhibit AGJ/1 and I exhibit a copy of the direct debit instruction as exhibit AGJ/2.
Initial Bills for the year 2007/2008, 2008/2009 and the current year 2009/2010 were all sent showing the full
amount being due as if the property were occupied by more than one person. These were dated 6 March 2007,
3 March 2008 and 23 March 2009 respectively. There have been no issues with payment of the account, which
is in respect of the full, non discounted amount and is being settled by monthly, direct debit transfers.
L
Basic Information about discounts and empty homes is included on the back of every bill. Taxpayers are also
directed to www.digitalmaidstone.co.uk for additional information. More detailed information is also
included in the Supporting Information Leaflet that accompanies every Bill. The provisions applicable to
second homes and the ways in which other discounts from the council tax can be claimed are part of the
information provided in the information leaflets and on the web site.
A
Mrs Uddin has never asked for any reduction or discount from the council tax that is due on 3 The Chenies.
There has not been any other contact from Mrs Uddin since her letter received 28 June 2006.
Exhibit AGJ/1: Letter from Mrs Uddin to Maidstone Borough Council dated 19 June 2006
Council Tax B
Thank you for the information on my council tax.
I am enclosing the Direct Debit Mandate, and a cheque to cover the 1st June payment and an added amount
of £200 for my last years’ bill.
I would appreciate if you will kindly add to my monthly bills remainder of the outstanding amounts of £600 C
equally to the rest of the payment.
If there are any inquiries please do contact me on .
Thank you—Mrs Uddin
L
L
A
Witness statement of Mr David Tattoo, Council Tax and Income Manager,
London Borough of Tower Hamlets, dated 23 July 2009
I am the Council Tax & Income Manager at London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
A request has been made by the Metropolitan Police regarding Council Tax payments due in respect of B
London, Wapping, London, E1W
I can confirm that the Council Tax account holders for that address since 14th June 1993 have been Mr Komar
Uddin and Mrs P M Uddin.
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has since 1st April 2004 offered a 10% discount on any dwelling C
claimed to be a second home by the account holder and verified as such by the Council. Prior to April 2004,
the discount allowed was 50%.
However, I can confirm that the Council’s records show that no second home discount has been claimed or
allowed on this address since 14th June 1993.
D
Letter from Ms Penelope Gilham, Financial Crime Department, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, to
Detective Constable Kirsty de St Denis dated 10 February 2010
Following your fax dated 28 January 2010, I have enclosed the requested information in relation to the policy
in the name of Mrs Manzila Uddin. E
We are constantly monitoring and gathering intelligence in relation to our insurance policies, therefore as a
result of your investigation if something is established which may affect our policy we would be grateful if you
could advise us where possible.
Should you have any further enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact me. F
Statement of Ms Penelope Gilham, Financial Crime Department, Royal Bank of Scotland Group,
dated 10 February 2010
I, Penelope Janette Gilham, am employed by the Royal Bank of Scotland Group at Churchill Court, G
Westmoreland Road, Bromley, Kent, BR1 1DP, as an RBS Support Investigator, within the Financial Crime
department and I am authorised to produce this information. My responsibilities include all aspects of fraud
prevention, detection and investigation within the RBS Insurance Group of Companies.
In order to carry out these duties I have access to all my company’s records both manual and computerised.
The information referred to in this statement form part of the records relating to the business of RBS H
Insurance. They were compiled in the ordinary course of that business, from information supplied by persons
who have, or may reasonably be supposed to have, knowledge of the matter dealt within the information they
supplied. The person or persons who supplied the information recorded in the records cannot with reasonable
diligence be identified, found, or cannot reasonably be expected to have any recollection of the matter dealt
with or the information they supplied.
J
Direct Line Insurance is part of the RBS Insurance Group of Companies.
* Policy number 37296015.
* In the name of Mrs Manzila Uddin, date of birth 17 July 1959, of London, E1
K
* This was covering:
Ford Mondeo 1.6l Verona, registration number from 13 September 2003 until 17
September 2003.
Honda CR-V Auto SE Sport, registration number from 17 September 2003 until 13 May
2008. L
BMW X5 3.0l SE Auto registration number from 31 May 2008 until the present.
The details contained within this information request have been obtained from computer records and to the
best of my knowledge and belief at all times the information contained within this information request is
correct.
A
[The photographs below of the makes of car in question are provided by the House authorities not by Ms Gilham.]
D
Honda CR-V Auto SE Sport BMW X5 3.01 SE Auto
Witness statement of Detective Constable Roger Noakes dated 29 July 2009

On Wednesday 29th July 2009 I was on duty with DS Richard WARD at Forest Gate Police Station, for the
purpose of conducting a voluntary interview under caution with Baroness UDDIN.
E
An interview took place between 12.04pm and 12.14pm, in the presence of a solicitor, Paula PORTER.
One interview tape was used, which I refer to as RN/8.
During the course of the interview Baroness UDDIN read a prepared statement, referred to as REW/1.
After a short adjournment of about five minutes DS WARD requested that the interview continue.
F
Paula PORTER said, “If it is your intention to continue with the interview we would like to leave”. DS WARD
said, “I thought we would be asking some more questions today”. Paula PORTER said, “We are happy to
come back if we get fuller disclosure that we have asked for”.
DS WARD then left the room and Paula PORTERsaid to me, “We would like to leave, can you show us out
please”. I then escorted her from the premises.
G
Witness statement of Detective Sergeant Richard Ward dated 29 July 2009
On Wednesday 29th July 2009 I was in company with A/DS Roger NOAKES at Forest Gate Police Station
for the purpose of conducting a voluntary interview under caution with Baroness UDDIN.
H An interview took place between the times of 12.04 and 12.14pm, in the presence of a solicitor Paula PORTER.
During the course of the interview Baroness UDDIN read a prepared statement, a hard copy of which I exhibit
as REW/1.
After a short adjournment of about five minutes I requested that the interview continue. Paula PORTER said,
“If it is your intention to continue with the interview we would like to leave”. We complied with the request
and I said, “I thought we would be asking some more questions today”. Paula PORTER said, “We are happy
J
to come back if we get fuller disclosure that we have asked for”.
I then left the room. Minutes later I saw A/DS/NOAKES escort Baroness UDDIN and Paula PORTER from
the premises.
L
A
Record of police interview with Baroness Uddin on 29 July 2009
Person interviewed: BARONESS UDDIN

Place of interview: INTERVIEW ROOM, FOREST GATE POLICE STATION
Date of interview: WEDNESDAY 29TH JULY 2009 B
Time commenced 12.04pm Time concluded: 12.14pm
Duration of interview: 10 minutes
Interviewer(s): DS RICHARD WARD, A/DS ROGER NOAKES
Other persons present: PAULA PORTER, SOLICITOR
C
00.00 DS WARD This interview is being tape recorded. I am Detective Sergeant Richard
WARD and I am based at the Fraud Squad of the Metropolitan Police at
New Scotland Yard, and the other officer present is
A/DS NOAKES Acting Detective Sergeant Roger NOAKES attached to the same squad.
DS WARD OK. We’ll just do some formal introductions, so can I take your name D
please?
M UDDIN My name is Manzila Pola UDDIN.
DS WARD And how would you like to be addressed during this interview, Lady
UDDIN?
E
M UDDIN You can call me Pola if you want, whatever, I am very comfortable with
whatever.
DS WARD And also present is
SOLICITOR Paula PORTER, solicitor from Thompsons.
DS WARD OK, thank you very much. The date is Wednesday the 29th of July 2009 F
and the time is 12.04pm. Now today, we have been undertaking enquiries
into possible offences that may have been committed under the Fraud Act
2006 and the Theft Act 1968, in relation to claims made by you under the
House of Lords Membership Reimbursement Scheme. We wish to
establish if claims you have made for night subsistence and travel expenses G
are lawful. You have been asked today to attend this police station on a
voluntary basis for the purpose of taking part in an interview under
caution. Before we proceed further I want to explain that you are under
caution and the caution is, you do not have to say anything but it may
harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something H
which you later rely on in court. Anthing you do say may be given in
evidence. With that caution I need to also, before I go a bit further into
the caution, I need to also tell you, to remind you that you’re not under
arrest, that you are free to leave at any time. You obviously have your
solicitor present, if at any time during this interview you want to have a J
break to consult with your solicitor just say and we’ll stop the tapes.
M UDDIN OK, thank you.
DS WARD Now I also, we need to say the location, what police station?
DS NOAKES Yes, Forest Gate Police Station.
K
DS WARD We’re at Forest Gate Police Station. Now I’ve cautioned you and I want
to explain that caution to you. The first bit of it is that you do not have to
say anything, so you have a right of silence. And the last bit of it is
anything you do say may be given in evidence, so that’s the easy bits. And
the middle bit is, but it may harm you defence if you do not mention when
L
questioned something which you later rely on in court. Would you be able
to explain what you think that means, do you think you know, would you
be able to say what that means?
A
SOLICITOR Do you want to break it down one point at a time, in relation to each point,
it would be easier?
DS WARD Alright. I’ll tell you what, I just need to explain that middle sentence of
the caution because sometimes people find it difficult, and the middle
B sentence is, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when
questioned something which you later rely on in court. Now I take that to
mean if you don’t say anything now and then there’s a future trial and you
said something, or if you said something now and if there’s a future trial
you change it, the court might say well why didn’t you say that in the first
C place or why have you changed your story. They might do, so that’s, I just
want to make sure you understand the caution.
M UDDIN In that context I understand what you say, thank you.
DS WARD OK, that’s great. Now I need to go into a few questions before we get into,
could I just take your date of birth please?
D
M UDDIN 17.7.59.
DS WARD And your current place of residence?
M UDDIN Do you want both or just one?
DS WARD Just your home, if somebody asked you for your home address what
E would you say it was?
M UDDIN Well I’d give both, so I’ll give you Maidstone, which is what we are
discussing, it’s number 3 The Chenies, and it’s Chancery Lane,
Maidstone, ME15 6EE. And Wapping is London E1W
F
DS WARD OK. Thank you ever so much. And you’re a member of the House of
Lords?
M UDDIN I am. I’m a working peer.
SOLICITOR OK, I think it may be sensible actually for me to intervene now and say
G that of course prior to the interview commencing I’ve made verbal
representations to your colleague DI SHIPLEY about the lack of
disclosure in this case. What I view as wholly inadequate disclosure given
the nature of the investigation. I have made that in writing. I understand
it’s been considered but I have to repeat those representations at this
H stage.
DS WARD OK.
SOLICITOR In view of your failure to reconsider disclosure in this case Baroness
UDDIN is going to read out a prepared statement and I think it would be
sensible to deal with that now, before we go any further into your
J questions.
DS WARD Great, OK, thank you very much.
M UDDIN Shall I read now?
DS WARD Of course.
K M UDDIN OK, thank you. The statement is dated 29th of July and this is what I’d
like to say, ‘I have dedicated my entire adult working life to provide public
services and provided leadership and support to all sections of the
community irrespective of their creed, colour, religion and race, in
particular to those in need and disadvantaged sections of the community,
L as well as more broadly to the general public by serving in elected
representative positions. It was against this background that in 1998 I was
raised to the peerage and took my seat in the House of Lords. I was one
of the youngest women in the House and the only female Muslim and
Bangladeshi representative. In the last decade I have served as a working
A
peer, sitting on the back benches and providing loyal support to the
present Labour government. In accordance with my long held beliefs I am
not and have never been a Minister. In that capacity I have arduous and
wide ranging commitments in order to fulfil my responsibility in the
House, my country, my party and particularly in the interests of those B
groups, many of them have been advantaged, to which I have devoted
much of my professional and personal life. These commitments
necessitate many attendances at the House with unsocial, unpredictable
and frequently very long hours. Whenever I have made any claims in
respect of any parliamentary expenses I have done so honestly, in good
C
faith and in the belief that the whole of each claim was properly allowable.
Copy documents relating to such claims have been provided to me in
advance of this interview. Subject to checking the originals I have no
reason to doubt that I have submitted these claims in the terms set out in
those documents. I repeat in respect of each of these claims what I have
D
said about in general terms as to all the claims I have submitted. Over the
years I have spoken to and received advice and guidance, both formal and
informal and information relating to many aspects of my life as a working
peer from my colleagues in an official of the House. Entitlement to and
claims for parliamentary expenses have been among the topics concerned.
Each of the claims that I have submitted was in accordance with my E
understanding, gleaned in this way, as to the custom and practice of
members of the House, many of whom are people with great distinction
in public life, with much longer services and experience in the House and
its practices than I have myself. It was my understanding at all times at the
times I submitted the claims that it was for me as with any other member F
of the House to determine which property I should designate as a main
residence for the purpose of making a claim. I made each claim openly, it
was never suggested to me by any officials or anyone else that any aspect
of any claim was inappropriate. So far as I am able to judge no official in
considering any of these claims has acted under any misunderstanding, G
still less, any misrepresentation as to the basis upon which the claim was
made or as to my entitlement. I reject in the strongest terms any
suggestion that I have fallen short of the standard expected of a member
of the House of Lords, or that I have knowingly done anything that was
wrong or in breach of the rules or procedures of the House. To the best H
of my ability I have always sought to act in the interests of members of the
public and to fulfil my responsibility both to them and to the House itself.
I have been distressed by the torrent of unpleasant and unjustified media
attention that I have received in recent weeks. I have never previously
been the focus of allegations or investigations of any nature. It is plain that J
there are those who for unworthy motives would wish to target me as a
scapegoat in respect of the limitations and inadequacies of the
parliamentary expenses system generally and I have attended for
interview today voluntarily at the request of the police and by
appointment pre-arranged through my solicitors. I have taken advice K
from my solicitors as to this interview. I have been shown the very limited
disclosure made by the police to them in respect of this matter. They have
advised me that this disclosure is meagre, inadequate and lacking
substance and detail. It is upon the specific advice of my solicitor that in
this interview I intend to confine myself to providing this statement and
L
to decline to answer any questions. However, in the event that adequate
disclosure is made subsequently and with reasonable opportunity to
consider materials disclosed with my lawyers, it is my intention to provide
A
a detailed response to any relevant points raised by the investigation
officers, ie you, and co-operate at all times until such time when this
matter can be concluded’. And this is my statement.
DS WARD OK. Thank you very much for that.
B SOLICITOR Shall we stop the interview while you have an opportunity to digest that?
11.09 DS WARD Yes please. We will conclude the interview, the time is 12.14pm.
Prepared Statement of Baroness Uddin dated 29 July 2009

C 1. I have dedicated my entire adult working to provide public service and provided leadership and support
to all sections of the community irrespective of their creed, colour, religion and race, in particular to those
in need and disadvantaged section of the communities, as well as more broadly to the general public by
serving in elected representative positions. It was against this background that in 1998 I was raised to the
peerage, and took my seat in the House of Lords. I was then one of the youngest woman in the House,
D and the only female Muslim, and Bangladeshi, representative.
2. In the last decade, I have served as a working peer, sitting on the back benches, and providing loyal support
to the present Labour government, in accordance with my long-held beliefs. I am not, and have never
been, a Minister.
E 3. In that capacity, I have arduous and wide-ranging commitments in order to fulfil my responsibilities to
the House, my country, my party, and particularly the interests of those groups, many of them
disadvantaged, to which I have devoted much of my professional and personal life. These commitments
necessitate many attendances at the House, with unsocial unpredictable and frequently very long hours.
4. Whenever I have made a claim in respect of any Parliamentary expenses, I have done so honestly, in good
F faith, and in the belief that the whole of each claim was properly allowable.
5. Copy documents, relating to such claims, have been provided to me in advance of this interview. Subject
to checking the originals, I have no reason to doubt that I submitted claims in the terms set out in those
documents. I repeat in respect of each of these claims what I have said above, in general terms, as to all
the claims I submitted.
G
6. Over the years, I have spoken to, and received advice/guidance (both formal and informal) and
information relating to many aspects of my life as a working peer from colleagues in, and officials of, the
House. Entitlement to, and claims for, Parliamentary expenses have been among the topics concerned.
Each of the claims that I have submitted was in accordance with my understanding, gleaned in this way,
as to the custom and practice of Members of the House, many of whom are people of great distinction in
H public life, with much longer service and experience in the House, and its practices, than I have myself.
7. It was my understanding, at the times I submitted claims, that it was for me—as with any other member
of the House—to determine which property I should designate as a “main residence” for the purpose of
making a claim.
J 8. I made each claim openly. It was never suggested to me by any official, or anyone else, that any aspect of
any claim was inappropriate. So far as I am able to judge, no official, in considering any of these claims,
has acted under any misunderstanding, still less any misrepresentation, as to the basis upon which the
claim was made, or as to my entitlement.
9. I reject, in the strongest terms, any suggestion that I have fallen short of the standards expected of a
K
Member of the House of Lords, or that I have knowingly done anything that was wrong or in breach of
the rules or procedures of the House. To the best of my ability, I have always sought to act in the interests
of members of the public, and to fulfil my responsibilities both to them, and to the House itself.
10. I have been distressed by the torrent of unpleasant, and unjustified, media attention that I have received
L in recent weeks. I have never previously been the focus of allegations, or investigations, of any nature. It
is plain that there are those who, for unworthy motives, would wish to target me as a scapegoat in respect
of the limitations and inadequacies, of the Parliamentary expenses system generally.
11. I have attended for interview today voluntarily, at the request of the police, and by appointment pre-
arranged through my solicitors.
A
12. I have taken advice from my solicitor as to this interview. I have been shown the very limited disclosure
made by the police to them in respect of this matter. They have advised me that this disclosure is meagre,
inadequate and lacking in substance and detail. It is upon the specific advice of my solicitors that, in this
interview, I intend to confine myself to providing this statement, and to decline to answer questions.
However, in the event that adequate disclosure is made subsequently, and with reasonable opportunity to
consider the material disclosed with my lawyers, it is my intention to provide a detailed response to any B
relevant points raised by the investigating officers and cooperate at all times until such time when this
matter can be concluded.
Witness statement of Detective Sergeant Richard Ward dated 1 November 2009 C

On Wednesday 29 July 2009 I interviewed Baroness Uddin with A/DS Roger Noakes at Forest Gate Police
station. The interview started at 12.04 pm and finished at 12.14 pm. A solicitor, Paula Porter was also present.
During the interview, Baroness Uddin furnished a prepared statement, a hard copy of which I have already
exhibited as REW/a. I exhibit a transcript of the interview as REW/IT.
On Monday 7 September 2009 I conducted a second interview of Baroness Uddin at Forest Gate Police D
station. The interview started at 11.35 am and finished at 11.45 am. Paula Porter was again present. During
the interview, Baroness Uddin furnished a second prepared statement, a hard copy of which I exhibit as
REW/2. I exhibit a transcript of this interview at REW/2T.
E
Record of police interview with Baroness Uddin on 7 September 2009
Person interviewed: Baroness UDDIN

Place of interview: Forest Gate Police Station
Date of interview: Monday 7th September 2009 F
Time commenced 1135 Time concluded: 1145
Duration of interview: 10 minutes
Interviewer(s): DS Richard WARD, A/DS Roger NOAKES
Other persons present: Paula PORTER, Solicitor
G
DS WARD This interview is being tape-recorded, I am Detective Sergeant Richard

WARD attached to the Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad and the other
Officer present is
A/DS NOAKES Acting Detective Sergeant Roger NOAKES attached to the same squad. H
DS WARD And we’re interviewing, can you say your name please?
UDDIN Manzila Pola UDDIN
DS WARD OK and also present is
PORTER Paula PORTER, Solicitor from Thompson’s. J
DS WARD OK, thank you very much. The date is Monday the 7th of September 2009
and the time is 11.35am and we’re at Forest Gate Police Station. OK,
enquiries are being undertaken into offences that may have been
committed under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Theft Act 1968, in relation
to claims made by you under the House of Lords reimbursement scheme, K
we wish to establish if expenses claimed by you are lawful. You’ve been
asked to attend the Police Station today on a voluntary basis for the
purpose of taking part in an interview under caution. Before we start I
need to formally caution you and that is ‘you do not have to say anything
but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned, L
something which you later rely on in court, anything you do say may be
given in evidence’, OK. Now in the last interview we explained that to
you, are you happy you understand that?
UDDIN Thank you, yes I do.
A
DS WARD OK, the other things we need to tell you is you’re not under arrest today
and that you are free to leave at any time and that you also have the right
to free and independent legal advice, so you have your Solicitor present.
UDDIN Yes.
B DS WARD If you want a consultation, please say and we can, we can stop the tapes.
Now I understand that you would like to read out a prepared statement
today, so would you like to.
UDDIN Yes, thank you very much, that you very much once again meeting us, I
would like to prepare the second, prepared statement which you’ve asked
C me to read out and I shall. ‘I have been informed that the Police wish to
interview me further and I have made these arrangements through my
Solicitors to attend voluntarily for interview as you’ve said. I have taken
legal advice as to whether the very limited disclosure hither to made by
the Police is adequate, I am advised that it is not, in two principal respects.
D The Police have clearly taken statement from Maidstone residents, but
refuse to disclose this statement to me, the purpose for withholding this
information from me is plainly to see, to cause me to put forward my case
without knowing the full case against me in this vital respect. Secondly,
no information as to any enquiries made by the Police with the officials of
E the House of Lords, particularly those in the fees office have been
disclosed, although by inference, it is plain that information must have
been obtained from this source. This is of particularly importance on the
issue of (a). the basis upon which the fees office paid by claims and (b).
whether anyone in the fees office claims to have been deceived by any
F representations of claims I made. Nevertheless, I am willing to assist the
investigation by providing further information, however, the simple
point is that all of the claims were made honestly in good faith and within
the rules of the House as I understood them. I have been married since the
age of sixteen and have five children, three sons aged thirty, twenty eight,
G twenty three and eleven, , I have one daughter
aged seventeen years. Shortly after I married my husband and I moved to
Manchester to live for over two years before returning to London, my first
two sons were born there. On my return to London I began work as a
community worker in Tower Hamlets, I became very active in this role
H and was sometimes the only female activist involved in meetings or
committees representing the interest of the community. In 1988 I
received a bursary to study social work, I went on to qualify as a social
worker. I continued to work hard to build my professional and personal
life and in 1998, in recognition of my, as was quoted ‘tireless contribution
to the community’, I was appointed to the House of Lords. On entering
J
the Lords, the Chief Whip , who’s now passed away sadly,
allocated as my Mentor, as I understood the role of Mentor
was carried out by an experienced peer who was available to advise and
guide a newly appointed peer, in amongst other things, the rules of the
House.
K
As a consequence of
this, for approximately eight to ten months, I rented a one-bedroom flat
on Green Lane, Windsor, I regarded this as my own space but I simply
could not afford to maintain this accommodation and from 2001 began to
L use by brother’s home in Frinton-on-Sea as a bolt hole in order to allow
me some breathing space In about 2005,
I began looking for other
accommodation arrangements. I found the property in Maidstone at the
Chenies and bought it as a new build, after purchasing the property I used
A
it regularly, particularly as
Due to the considerable demands of the Lords and the family,
the time spent in Maidstone was unpredictable and involved unsociable
hours, as a consequence my contact with my neighbours in Wapping and
in the Chenies was extremely limited. The Maidstone property gave me B
my own space, the use of which enabled me to maintain my family
life, it was also the only property
which I owned personally. As regard to my understanding of what a main
residence is, for the purpose of any expenses claim, I would have sought
advice at all times of, at the time of my original claims and at all times. I
C
was not and am not aware of any definition of main residence contained
within the House rules. All that I would have done was act on advice from
friends, Mentor and other colleagues in the House. I always understood
my nomination of the Maidstone property as my main residence to be
within the rules. I thought that I was entitled to elect, which was my main
D
residence from my expenses claim, but in any event my connection with
and use of Maidstone property was sufficient for this to be regarded as my
main residence for these purposes. I emphatically deny that any of the
claims submitted in respect of travelling or subsistence are false, I only
ever claimed the amount to which I understood to be permissible. I never
acted dishonestly in respect of any of my expenses claim’ and that is my E
statement.
DS WARD OK.
UDDIN On the 7th of September.
DS WARD OK, thank you ever so much for that. F
UDDIN Am I supposed to
PORTER Yes, please do.
DS WARD We’ll take that, thank you. Can I, just a few more questions I’d like to ask
you if that’s OK.
G
UDDIN If I might just say
DS WARD Yes of course.
UDDIN That on legal advice and as we agreed before that I, once I finished my
statement I’d like to terminate this interview.
DS WARD OK Pola, now we would like to ask you some questions, this has been, as H
I understand, this interview has been at the behest of you and or your
Solicitor.
PORTER Actually I can correct that.
DS WARD OK. J
PORTER I mean we were contacted
DS WARD Right.
PORTER And asked to attend for a further interview, the prepared statement has
been given, Pola is here as a volunteer.
K
DS WARD Yes.
PORTER And has been asked for the interview to be terminated, so I would ask you
to terminate the interview.
DS WARD Right, this is, this may be your only opportunity to answer questions
about this case and, you know I need to make it clear to you that, I don’t L
know what your advice has been from your Solicitor but it is your decision
that you’re now leaving and that it will be you, if there is any future trial,
you will be asked to account for that fact, OK, do you understand that?
A
UDDIN I understand that on the basis of my legal advice, I wish to terminate the
interview and I would also wish to add that at all point I wish to co-operate
and that is only the reason I sought further guidance from you as to what
other information you held and I think that I have done everything that I
B know
DS WARD Yes.
UDDIN In the best interest of resolving this matter and concluding this matter.
DS WARD OK.
UDDIN And
C
DS WARD Well there’s lots we’d like to go through, all the claim forms with you and
go through details like that and you know, we would like.
UDDIN Those are the claim forms that we have provided, the House authority has
provided, that you have provided me a copy of.
D DS WARD That you have completed.
UDDIN Yes.
DS WARD You have completed the forms.
UDDIN Yes.
E DS WARD It’s all information within your sphere of knowledge.
UDDIN Yes yes.
DS WARD And its information that I’d like to ask you about, to go through, is it
possible to do that now?
UDDIN They’re on record?
F
DS WARD Yes but I’d like to ask you about the details about what’s on those forms.
PORTER Obviously you’ve had the request to terminate the interview
DS WARD OK.
PORTER And with respect I think that you, given that Pola’s here as a volunteer
G should accede to that request.
DS WARD OK, would you like to terminate the interview?
UDDIN Yes please, thank you.
10.00 DS WARD OK, we’ll stop the tapes. The time is 11.45am.
H
Prepared statement of Baroness Uddin dated 7 September 2009
1. I have been informed that the police wish to interview me further, and I have made arrangements, through
my solicitors, to attend voluntarily for interview.
2. I have taken legal advice as to whether the very limited disclosure hitherto made by the police is adequate.
J
I am advised that it is not, in two principal respects. The police have clearly taken statements from
Maidstone residents, but refuse to disclose these statements to me. The purpose for withholding this
information from me is plainly to seek to cause me to put forward my case without knowing the full case
against me in this vital respect.
3. Secondly, no information as to any enquiries made by the police with the officials of the House of Lords,
K particularly those in the fees office, have been disclosed, although (by inference) it is plain that information
must have been obtained from this source. This is of particular importance on the issues of:
(a) the basis upon which the fees office paid my claims
(b) whether anyone in the fees office claims to have been deceived by any respresentation I made.
L 4. Nevertheless, I am willing to assist the investigation by providing further information. However, the
central point is that all of the claims were made honestly, in good faith and within the rules of the House
as I understood them.
5. I have been married since the age of 16 and have five children. Three sons aged 30, 28, 23 and 11,
I have one daughter aged 17 years.
A
6. Shortly after I married, my husband and I moved to Manchester to live for over two years before returning
to London. My first two sons were born there.
7. On my return to London I began work as a community worker in Tower Hamlets I became very active in
this role and was sometimes the only female activist involved in meetings or committees representing the
interests of the community.
B
8. In 1988 I received a Bursary to study social work. I went on to qualify as a social worker.
9. I continued to work hard to build my professional and personal life and in 1998, in recognition of my
“tireless contribution to the community” I was appointed to the House of Lords.
10. On entering the Lords, the Chief Whip allocated as my mentor. As I understood
it the role of mentor was carried out by an experienced peer who was available to advise and guide a newly C
appointed peer, in amongst other things, the rules of the House.
11. As my commitments to the Lords and other work increased
12. As a consequence of this, for approximately 8–10 months, I rented a one bedroom flat on Green Lane,
Windsor. I regarded this as my own space. But I simply could not afford to maintain this accommodation D
and from 2001 began to use by Brother’s home in Frinton on Sea as a bolt hole in order to allow me some
breathing space away from my husband.
13. In about 2005, given my increasingly difficult family circumstances, I began looking for other
accommodation arrangements. I found the property in Maidstone at The Chennies and bought it as a new
build. After purchasing the property I used it regularly, particularly as my relationship with my husband E
deteriorated.
14. Due to the considerable demands of the Lords and family the time spent at Maidstone was unpredictable
and involved unsociable hours. As a consequence, my contact with my neighbours in Wapping and in The
Chennies was limited.
15. The Maidstone property gave me ‘my own space’, the use of which enabled me to maintain my family life, F
difficult and fractious though it was. It was also the only property which I owned personally.
16. As regards my understanding of what a ‘main residence’ is for the purpose of any expenses claim, I would
have sought advice at the time of my original claims. I was not and am not aware of any definition of ‘main
residence’ contained within the House rules.
17. All that I would have done was act on advice from friends, mentors and other colleagues in the House. I G
always understood my nomination of the Maidstone property as my main residence to be within the rules.
I thought that I was entitled to elect which was my main residence for my expenses claims. But in any event
my connection with and use of the Maidstone property was sufficient for this to be regarded as my main
residence for these purposes.
18. I emphatically deny that any of the claims submitted in respect of travelling or subsistence are false. I only H
ever claimed the amount which I understood to be permissible. I never acted dishonestly in respect of any
of my expenses claims.
Police summary of the witness statement of Police Constable Akhtar

States that on 12 November 2006 while on duty from Limehouse Police Station he attended an address in E1 J
in order to take details for a missing person report. The informant was a Mrs Uddin.
Police summary of the witness statement of Police Constable Looker

States that he spoke to a Mrs Uddin at 17.40hrs on 23 July 2007 while on duty at Bow Road Police Station
(Telephone Investigation Bureau). The call related to allegation of burglary which was duly reported. K
L
A
CORRESPONDENCE WITH BARONESS PITKEATHLEY
Witness statement of Baroness Pitkeathley dated 6 October 2009
[The police did not supply this statement to the Sub-Committee, the Sub-Committee instead obtained it directly
B from Baroness Pitkeathley.]
I was raised to the peerage as Baroness Pitkeathley of Caversham in the Royal County of Berkshire in 1997.
In my case, I had a conversation with the Chief Whip Lord Dennis CARTER, who in general terms explained
the Members Expenses Scheme to me, pointing out that if I lived outside the M25 I could claim for a second
house in London, for the purpose of attending the House of Lords, I assume he advised all new peers in this
C way but I cannot be sure.
Because there was not formal instruction given to Peers on how to conduct themselves in the House of Lords,
a monitoring system was introduced to give support and guidance.
In 1998, I was asked by the Chief Whip to become a mentor and the first peer assigned to me was Baroness
UDDIN. I made contact with her and we met over a period of two or three weeks. I explained how she should
D conduct herself in the House of Lords. For example this included such things as when to bow, how to put down
a question, the process of giving a maiden speech. I don’t remember going into any sort of detail regarding
what the rules are under the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme. I would have told her claim forms were
available from the Paper Office, and I would probably have told her that I put my own claims in on a monthly
basis. I would not have gone into detail about categories of claim such as Night subsistence, Day subsistence,
travel costs etc. I was not aware of her particular domestic arrangments, I certainly don’t remember ever
E discussing with her the definition of “main residence”. I would have been happy to answer any questions
Baroness UDDIN had in relation to the scheme or if I didn’t know the answer, direct her to the house
authorities.
In the early days, I had no knowledge of exactly where Baroness UDDIN lived, I think I knew she travelled
in by car and I knew she was councillor at Tower Hamlets.
F
We have never become anything more than colleagues and I would say she is quite reserved in discussing her
personal life. We have never been to each other’s addresses. On occasions I have been aware that she has been
under stress in her personal life, but I have never known what the underlying cause has been.
I have never been aware that Baroness UDDIN has been connected to Maidstone, but as I say, I am not privy
to her personal circumstances.
G
I would like to add that in my conversation with Lord Carter about the Members Expenses Scheme, I
mentioned that I was living in Reading at the time, this prompted him to say that if I needed to have a place
in London for the purpose of attending the House of Lords, then I could claim night subsistence.
In my opinion, the rules on what constituted a main residence are very unclear and liable to different
interpretation.
H
L
Minutes of Evidence
TAKEN BEFORE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT
(SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS’ CONDUCT)
THURSDAY 15 JULY 2010
Present Cope of Berkeley, L O’Neill of Bengarve, B

Dholakia, L
Irvine of Lairg, L McDonagh, B
Manningham-Buller, B (Chairman) Uddin, B
Examination of Witness
Witness: The Baroness Uddin, a Member of the House, examined accompanied by the Baroness McDonagh.
Q1 Chairman: Lady Uddin, first of all, let me as possible. We look forward to hearing your
introduce you to the members of the Sub-Committee answers.
on Lords’ Conduct. I am Eliza Manningham-Buller Baroness Uddin: Thank you very much, Lord
and I am the Chair; Lord Irvine; Lord Cope; Lady Chairman. I am glad that we have come to this
O’Neill; and Lord Dholakia. Thank you for the letter meeting and thank you for the acknowledgement of
that you sent us yesterday, which all members of the the letter that I sent yesterday which I am assuming
Committee have seen. The purpose of this evidence you have read.
session is to give advice to the Clerk of the
Parliaments on your use of the Members’
Reimbursement Scheme. This process is set out in the Q2 Chairman: We have noted what you have said.
report from the Committee for Privileges on the We may have some questions on it.
procedure for considering complaints against Baroness Uddin: I just wanted to say before I start
members. Our report will go to the Clerk of the answering the questions that obviously I have got my
Parliaments and then on to the Committee for friend Baroness McDonagh who is here. I had given
Privileges to whom you have a right of appeal. This notice that Lord Alli was to be here but he is abroad.
session is confidential, both confidential on you and
on us. A full transcript is being taken and you will Q3 Chairman: We heard that he is not available.
have an opportunity to see that in draft and see if
Baroness Uddin: So I am really pleased that my friend
there are any mistakes in the transcription that you
Baroness McDonagh is here. With the indulgence of
want to suggest should be corrected. I should also say
the Committee I hope that you will bear with me. It
that it is likely that the transcript will be published at
is a very long, difficult and arduous process, so I may
the end of the process, at the discretion of the
need to confer with Baroness McDonagh from time
Committee for Privileges. The burden of proof here is
to time, but I will absolutely ensure that I answer the
not the same as in a criminal court. The report from
questions myself. I have also made some notes so
the Committee for Privileges on considering
again with the indulgence of the Committee I will
complaints requires that the allegation is at least
refer to the notes.
proved on the balance of probabilities. Lady
McDonagh is with you but you must answer for
yourself, as you know, and we will ask you, in your Q4 Chairman: I should say that we do not expect you
responses, to act always on your personal honour as to confer extensively with Lady McDonagh in this
we all are required to do. We will have a number of room. If during the course of the morning you wish
questions to put to you. We have to stop at quarter to take a short adjournment we would be happy for
to one. If for some reason we have not completed the that to happen.
evidence-taking or if, for example, you have further Baroness Uddin: I merely make the point about
things you wanted to say, we would stop then and conferring; I think it does state in the Code of
complete your evidence on another occasion but Conduct that I will be able to do that.
obviously we would like, for your sake as much as
anything, to try and complete your evidence this
morning. At the end of the session, I will give you an Q5 Chairman: I think it is that you answer for
opportunity to add anything you wish. Before that, yourself and not through the person who
all members of the Committee will have questions to accompanies you to the meeting.
put to you. Please answer our questions as accurately Baroness Uddin: Absolutely, I accept that.
15 July 2010 The Baroness Uddin
Q6 Chairman: That is my understanding. Okay, let Q15 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And you have got five
us kick off and I am going to ask Lord Irvine to start, children?
unless you want to say anything else at the beginning? Baroness Uddin: I do.
Baroness Uddin: No, thank you1.
Q16 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And I think you have got
Q7 Lord Irvine of Lairg: We all have the same bundle four sons.
of documents, would you confirm, separated by tab Baroness Uddin: Yes, I do.
numbers B to K and you have that bundle in front
you, do you? Q17 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And one daughter,
Baroness Uddin: Yes, I do. correct?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, correct.
Q8 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Let me say at the outset,
Lady Uddin, it is necessary to answer these questions Q18 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And this residence, the
even if they sound merely formal because a nod does residence has been your London
not go down on the transcript. The documents within residence throughout?
each tab are numbered at the foot of the page and Baroness Uddin: Yes.
when I refer you to a document, take the time to find
it and I will point you to the relevant passage or Q19 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Your brother lives at
passages within it. The starting point in this saga is Frinton-on-Sea?
the Sunday Times article about you on Sunday 3 May Baroness Uddin: Yes.
2009. I do not think there is any need to look at it
again, you must have looked at it many times. It is at Q20 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And he has lived there with
tab B (p44)2, that is right, is it not? his wife I think since 1999, is that correct?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, it is. Baroness Uddin: Perhaps, that seems to be correct,
yes, I cannot remember the exact time.
Q9 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Your claims for expenses
which we will be asking you about require us to Q21 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Although it is your
consider your residences, your London residence brother’s property, you designated it for the purpose
which is Wapping, correct? of claiming night subsistence as your main residence
Baroness Uddin: Yes. at some point in 2001?
Baroness Uddin: Yes.
Q10 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And it is a three-
bedroomed house, is it? Q22 Lord Irvine of Lairg: In this inquiry you know
Baroness Uddin: Yes. that we may only look at your conduct over the four
years before the complaint?
Q11 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Rented under a housing
association tenancy?
Baroness Uddin: Yes. Q23 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And the complaint was
made by Mr Angus Robertson MP on 3 May 2009
and we have got his complaint if we wanted to look
Q12 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And is it by you and your at it, although I do not think there is any need to, at
husband or simply by your husband? tab C (p45)?
Baroness Uddin: It is assigned to my husband. He is Baroness Uddin: Yes.
the sole tenancy holder.
Q24 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And it is dated the same
Q13 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And you have resided date as the Sunday Times article, 3 May 2009,
there as your London residence certainly since June correct?
1993? Baroness Uddin: Yes.
Baroness Uddin: Yes, that sounds about right.
Q25 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am just making it plain
Q14 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And you have been to you in this case that we may only examine your
married, I think, since the early age of 16, is that conduct back to 3 May 2005; we cannot go behind
right? that.
Baroness Uddin: Yes, that is also right. Baroness Uddin: Yes.
1 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
added: Nothing more than I have already said and asked for. Q26 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Frinton ceased to be
2 The Sub-Committee and witness had before them tabulated
bundles containing copies of original documents. The references designated as your main residence on 1 August 2005
in brackets cross-reference these bundles to the printed evidence. when you designated 3 The Chenies, Chancery Lane,
Maidstone, Kent as your main residence, that is “Mr Calvert: Do you have a place in Kent? Mr
correct? Uddin: Kent? Mr Calvert: Kent, as in the county
Baroness Uddin: Yes. Kent? No? Mr Uddin: “No, okay, try her mobile.”
Did your husband report that conversation to you?
Q27 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I could take you to Baroness Uddin: Not in exactly the same terms. He
documents demonstrating that but you are agreeing said that a journalist had been in touch with him and
with me so that is fine. 3 The Chenies continued to be had asked. I think that Mr Calvert got to me via
designated as your main residence until 1 January mobile telephone before my husband was able to ring
2010? me or get hold of me5.
Q35 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Your husband told you the
Q28 Lord Irvine of Lairg: When you designated fact that the Sunday Times had been in touch?
Wapping, your London residence, as Baroness Uddin: Had been in touch, yes6.
then your main residence, correct?
Baroness Uddin: Yes3. Q36 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And was aware you had a
property in Maidstone in Kent?
Q29 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What I am first going to Baroness Uddin: He didn’t say that. He had said he
ask you to do is to consider the period when had been asking various questions about where he
Maidstone was designated as your main residence, lived, et cetera.
that is from 1 August 2005 to the end of December
2009. Q37 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Would it be fair to say that
Baroness Uddin: Yes. you appreciated after you had this conversation with
your husband that the Sunday Times knew that you
Q30 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But I am going to ask you had a property in Kent?
to deal first with the period 1 August 2005 to 24 Baroness Uddin: By that time I had already been
April 2009. contacted by Jonathan Calvert in the office and he
Baroness Uddin: Okay. had asked me this question.
Q31 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And I am going to ask you Q38 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Now then, let me ask you
to deal second with the period from 24 April 2009 about this Maidstone period from 1 August 2005 to
until the end of that year. 24 April.
Baroness Uddin: Okay. Baroness Uddin: Forgive me, Lord Irvine, are you
asking me to make any responses to what my
Q32 Lord Irvine of Lairg: The reason that I am husband would have said?
making this subdivision, is because I am going to be
suggesting to you in due course that on 24 April 2009
Q39 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I certainly will if you
you first became aware that the Sunday Times was
would like to. The transcript suggests that perhaps
going to publish, are you agreed?
your husband was completely unaware of the Kent
property.
Baroness Uddin: I just want to say that—
Q33 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And the Sunday Times did
publish on 3 May 2009. If you go to tab G, page 22
Q40 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Was he unaware of it?
(p88E), we see a transcript of a conversation between
Baroness Uddin: The property?
Mr Calvert, a Sunday Times journalist, and your
husband, Mr Komar Uddin, on Friday 24 April
2009. Do you see that? Q41 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Yes.
Baroness Uddin: Yes, I do4. Baroness Uddin: Of course not.
Q34 Lord Irvine of Lairg: May I just read it to you Q42 Lord Irvine of Lairg: He did know that you had
from the foot of page 22—“Mr Uddin: “Yeah, we a flat in Kent?
came here in ‘93. Mr Calvert: ‘93, I see. Am I also Baroness Uddin: The question to him from the
right in thinking you have a place down in Kent?” journalist is very much saying, “Do you have a place
and your husband is recorded as saying: “Sorry?” in Kent?” Which is I think what my husband
3
understood, does he own something, and if he would
When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
added: In March 2010 I wrote to the Finance Department and 5 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
designated Wapping, as my main residence due added: Mr Calvert had spoken to me and left a message before I
to death threats. spoke to my husband.
4 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin 6 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
added: I am not able to remember the exact date on which I was added: At this point the Sunday Times had already left me a
contacted but it was around 24 April 2009. message and spoken to me.
have been asked something to that effect he would Baroness Uddin: Yes8.
have said no, he does not, which is absolutely true. It
is my property. Q51 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you in fact make the
journeys every weekend for which you claimed?
Q43 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I understand that but my Baroness Uddin: Yes.
question is different: did your husband know that
you had this property in Kent? Q52 Lord Irvine of Lairg: No doubt about that?
Baroness Uddin: Of course he would have, yes. Baroness Uddin: No.
Q44 Chairman: Lady Uddin, if you want to add Q53 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And you did stay every
things please do. You do not need to apologise: say weekend as indicated on the document in the flat?
what you want to. Baroness Uddin: Yes, I did.
Baroness Uddin: Okay.
Q54 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Now then, when you went
Q45 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Now then, if we look at to the flat, there is a hallway, is there not?
your expenses claim forms from 1 August 2005 to 24 Baroness Uddin: A very small one, yes.
April 2009, we find them at tab D, if you want to go
to tab D (pp24–43). Do you accept, and this may save Q55 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And to the right is a living
me taking you through a great deal of detail, that the room and a kitchen?
forms disclose a broad pattern, namely that you Baroness Uddin: Yes.
claimed travel expenses from London to Maidstone
and from Maidstone to London almost every Q56 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And to the left there are
weekend when the House was sitting? two bedrooms?
Baroness Uddin: Yes. Without looking at every Baroness Uddin: Yes.
detail, yes.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: That is broadly the position. Q57 Lord Irvine of Lairg: At the rear there is a
balcony?
Q46 Chairman: You need to be at tab D, Lady Baroness Uddin: Yes.
Uddin. The front page of it will show you (pp24–5).
Baroness Uddin: Yes, okay, I can see that, yes. Q58 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Overlooking a nature
reserve?
Q47 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What you see is a Baroness Uddin: Yes.
reconstruction of your claims from August 2005 to
February 2006 and then you see in the final column Q59 Lord Irvine of Lairg: A rather attractive place
travel every weekend in term time and then a series to sit?
of yeses? Baroness Uddin: Very beautiful.
Baroness Uddin: Yes, I can see that.
Q60 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And I am not now going
Q48 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Then if you go over you to ask you how the flat is currently furnished or what
will see that from February 2006 your journeys are its furniture became after the Sunday Times
graphically represented in the blue marks on the published on 3 May 2009 but I am asking you about
calendar (pp26–9). the period commencing 1 August 2005 and prior to
Baroness Uddin: Yes, I see that. the Sunday Times article of 3 May 2009. Do you
follow me?
Baroness Uddin: Okay.
Q49 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I think in any event you are
agreeing with me that the general pattern was that
you claimed for travel at both sides of the weekend Q61 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You follow the thrust of
and each weekend indicating that you were staying my question?
overnight in Maidstone for one or two nights, and Baroness Uddin: Yes.
that is a correct picture, is it?
Baroness Uddin: Yes7. Q62 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could you describe—and
this is before the Sunday Times article—the furniture
in each room starting, say, with the living room?
Q50 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Not just as shown in the
What was the furniture in the rooms?
documents but in accordance with your own
recollection?
added: I recollect that this was the pattern most weekends. The
7 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin day of travel depended on when the House was sitting and my
added: This was the pattern most weekends. other commitments.
Baroness Uddin: First of all I want to say that all of Q70 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Which was yours?
the flats in all three blocks, I believe, if I can recall, Baroness Uddin: I am trying to figure which is right
there are three blocks, in fact I know that, are exactly and left. It is the first one which is the smaller one, not
the same layout, if you like, so somebody who lives the one with the adjacent bathroom.
on top of me or below me has a similar layout.
Q71 Lord Irvine of Lairg: The smaller one is yours?
Q63 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Configuration. Baroness Uddin: Yes.
Baroness Uddin: Exactly.
Q72 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What was the furniture in
Q64 Lord Irvine of Lairg: All I am asking you about that bedroom?
is the furniture in your flat. Baroness Uddin: Just a very low soft bed.
Baroness Uddin: I know. I was going to say that the
living room and the kitchen is one open plan space
and there is a fully equipped kitchen with a cooker, Q73 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What furniture was in the
fridge and there have always been utensils, crockery bedroom that you used?
and pots and pans. There has always been a dining Baroness Uddin: Just a bed.
table with three or four chairs, I cannot exactly recall
right now but I think it was four chairs9. There has Q74 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Only a bed?
always been a sofa bed, curtains blinds and carpets in Baroness Uddin: And a bedside table where I always
the living room and the passage and the hallway. put my mobile and there was always a small radio.
Q65 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Just repeat for me what the Q75 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Where did you hang
furniture was in the living room, would you? your clothes?
Baroness Uddin: In the corner just opposite the Baroness Uddin: Next door which I used also.
kitchenette bit there is a dining table and four chairs,
they are a very old-style wooden dining table and
chairs, and opposite the living space area I believe Q76 Lord Irvine of Lairg: In the next door bedroom?
that at that time there was like a showcase type thing Baroness Uddin: Yes because there was a built-in
and a sofa bed10. wardrobe there and there was also an additional
cupboard or wardrobe and a small chest of drawers,
a small one.
Q66 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Where is the sofa bed, in
the living room?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, just exactly opposite against the Q77 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What use did you make of
wall and curtains, blinds and carpets. In the small the balcony when the weather was good?
bedroom there was always a very low bed and like a Baroness Uddin: Pardon?
mattress, and in another room11—
Q78 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What use did you make of
Q67 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I just want to deal with the the balcony when the weather was good?
living room first and then we can move to the two Baroness Uddin: I tended to just open it and let the air
bedrooms. in and that is pretty much it.
Baroness Uddin: Ok.
Q79 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You never sat on the
Q68 Lord Irvine of Lairg: That is a full account of the balcony?
living room, is it? Baroness Uddin: No. There is no furniture in the
Baroness Uddin: Yes and I think there was one table, balcony as there is in other people’s balconies, but
like a tea table or coffee table. not in mine12.
Q69 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Which of the two

Q80 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But it is a very attractive
bedrooms was yours?
feature, is it not, of a flat of this kind? It looks down
Baroness Uddin: There are two rooms, one with—
on a nature reserve and I would have thought at
9 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin weekends particularly you would have wished to
added: There have always been four chairs. The table and chairs
were bought as a set. I often had one in the bedroom and three have sat on the balcony and enjoyed the view.
in the living room/kitchen area. Baroness Uddin: You can pretty much get the same
impact if you simply keep your doors open.
added: There is no separate living room.
added: In this answer I am talking about a bedroom. I have added: Sitting on the balcony is not something I am accustomed
obviously misheard Lord Irvine as he interrupts and repeats it to doing. Furthermore, sitting on the balcony would not be a
to me. socially acceptable thing for me to do.
Q81 Lord Irvine of Lairg: In the recess when the Q88 Lord Irvine of Lairg: When you say you came
House was not sitting how frequently did you reside back at the weekends, do you mean home to London
in Maidstone? or to Kent, which?
Baroness Uddin: At the weekends. Baroness Uddin: Yes, both of them were my homes for
all intents and purposes so I came back to London
after the weekends. I usually went, as I have stated—
Q82 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Every weekend in the
recess?
Q89 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You are drifting away a
Baroness Uddin: Are you talking about the recess?
little bit from the recesses. It the recesses when the
House is not sitting. I quite appreciate that you come
Q83 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Yes. back to London when the House is sitting. My
Baroness Uddin: At the recess, sorry, I am just going question goes to recesses (some quite lengthy) when
to— the House is not sitting; do you reside in Maidstone
then?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, I did say that, that I went and
Q84 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Can you not recall stayed there most weeks and most weekends15, and
generally the usage that you made of the flat at the what I am saying is that the reason I would need to
weekends? come back is because I had work, I had responsibility
Baroness Uddin: I have already made a statement on for my family, there would be frequent meetings or
a number of occasions, Lord Irvine, including the whatever. I made sure, just as I have been doing it at
response that I set out with the questions and in the weekdays from London, I would be visiting some
letter that I have sent that I have spent most time out of London, some time abroad, some time
weekends there. I visited at least once a week during visiting family, so even in London if I stayed in
the recess. 13 London weekdays I would not necessarily be
stationed all the time every moment just because it
Q85 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But you were free to spend was a place that was home. Similarly—
much more time in your main residence when the
House was not sitting. Q90 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Which place was home?
Baroness Uddin: That is true. I have a very complex Baroness Uddin: I am talking about both of them. I
set of existences. I have a number of commitments; I am just making reference if Maidstone was home for
attend work; I have five children14. On numerous that period. I would also be undertaking an equal
occasions if the house was in recess my husband number of commitments which would be shopping,
would perhaps be abroad and I would be responsible cooking, cleaning, visiting family, whatever16.
for the children so really dependent on how much
time I had, because Maidstone is a place which Q91 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Where?
almost became my sanctuary, it was a space of my Baroness Uddin: In both places.
own, and so I used it at my own leisure and indeed I
went there for peace. Q92 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Your youngest son is 12?
Baroness Uddin: He is going to be 13 shortly in
September.
Q86 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I quite understand all that.
I am just trying to get an impression from you—and Q93 Lord Irvine of Lairg: He is still 12, just.
only you can give it to us—of the length of time that Baroness Uddin: Yes.
in recesses you spent in Maidstone.
Baroness Uddin: And I have said, yes, I have been Q94 Lord Irvine of Lairg: During the period that we
there at least once a week and— are concentrating on, August 2005 to April 2009, he
was seven at the outset and 11 by 2009, so did he
Q87 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Once a week, sorry, I do accompany you on your weekend visits to Maidstone
not quite follow. being your youngest child?
Baroness Uddin: That depended on when I was Baroness Uddin: Perhaps sometimes but, as you
working. It may have been at weekends. I always know, my children’s ages range from 12 to 32.
came back in the week in order to ensure that I was
able to support my family. Q95 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am concentrating on the
13
youngest boy.
When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin said
that she meant to have also said: “Sometimes I visited during the 15 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
week, sometimes at the weekend.” suggested that she meant to have said: “ . . . I went and stayed
14 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin said there some time during most weeks and most weekends . . . ”
that she meant to have said: I have five children and childcare 16 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
responsibilities.” added: Maidstone is my only home, which I own.

Baroness Uddin: Yes, and given my work have any overall impact on the way the children were
commitments and life in the House my husband has living. It was a very separate space for myself, for a
always been almost a full carer and fully responsible variety of reasons.
for taking care of children when I am17—
Q102 Lord Irvine of Lairg: That would explain if
Q96 Lord Irvine of Lairg: My question to you is: did your youngest son was not there. I am trying to
your youngest son stay overnight with you at understand what the facts are.
weekends in Maidstone? Baroness Uddin: I am saying to you, and you will
Baroness Uddin: I cannot recall18. please have to forgive me, Lord Irvine, it has been an
arduous journey; I cannot tell you what happened ten
Q97 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did he ever stay with you minutes ago. I am so submerged with this whole
in Maidstone? Sunday Times article and the impact it has had on my
Baroness Uddin: Pardon? family. It has been absolutely devastating so you will
forgive me if I am sometimes sounding unsure about
Q98 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did he ever stay with you certain things. It is not something that I mean to. I
in Maidstone? want to answer absolutely with certainty.
Baroness Uddin: Maybe one or two occasions, not
frequently. The only son that I used to take frequently Q103 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You can only do the best
was my second one you can.
Baroness Uddin: I can only be as truthful as I can and
I can only tell you honestly with the way that I
remember things and I cannot recall whether he
actually stayed overnight with me.
Q99 Lord Irvine of Lairg: The answer in relation to

Q104 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Ever?19
your youngest son is you cannot recall whether he
Baroness Uddin: Yes, but I am just saying to you that
stayed overnight at any time with you?
it might have been that on one or two occasions that
Baroness Uddin: Once or twice maybe.
he had stayed over. It would not have made much
difference it nothing unusual would have happened
Q100 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Once or twice maybe? to make sure that it is imprinted on my mind in any
Baroness Uddin: Yes, I cannot recall, frankly. I am just particular way.
saying to you perhaps he stayed one or two times. He
has visited. I would take him from time to time,
maybe bring him back, drop him off. Q105 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could you give us a
description of how you spent your time in Maidstone
during a typical weekend when you were staying
Q101 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Surely you would
there?
remember if he had ever spent overnight in
Baroness Uddin: Well, time on my own would often
Maidstone?
mean that I would have papers or books. I like
Baroness Uddin: Perhaps I should be more clear. I am
listening to music.
saying that whatever I have done with my own
particular bit of space I always ensured that it did not
17 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin said
Q106 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You had a record player,
that she would have said, if she had not been interrupted: “ . . . did you?
taking care of the children when I am away or unavailable Baroness Uddin: No just a CD and a radio. I enjoy
because of work.”
18 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin radio much more.
added: My agreement with my husband is that I stay in my own
home in Maidstone for one or two nights a week. He is the
primary carer for our children. During the week I help him care Q107 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you form any
for them. At weekends my adult children also help him so that I friendships with any of your neighbours in
can have a break and prepare for the week ahead. This also Maidstone?
allows me to concentrate on my second son
whom I sometimes take to Maidstone with me. Baroness Uddin: No.
During the week I work 16–18 hours a day. In the period under
investigation I was the only female Muslim member on the
Labour benches in either House. For some of the period I may Q108 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you ever run into any
have been the only Muslim woman. My work for my community of your neighbours?
is significant. I did not as a rule take my youngest son to
Maidstone but I can’t say categorically that he did not come once 19 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
or twice over the period. For the last 2 years my youngest son has added: Questions 92 to 107 are based on a very narrow
lived with my sister for 3 or 4 nights a week for schooling. At understanding of family roles based on a small, nuclear, western
weekends my husband and I believe it is best he stays in Wapping family. I was brought up by my aunt. Extended families play a
rather than travelling between a further two locations. wider and more important role in my culture.
Baroness Uddin: I just wanted to go back in terms of Q115 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you eat in the flat in
I was just going to say in terms of time spent if you Maidstone?
are talking about late evening, I would often go there, Baroness Uddin: Yes, of course I did.
depending on when the House was sitting either
Thursday or Friday, I would go either Saturday or
Friday night, and then I would stay there and then Q116 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Now I have got to ask
perhaps in the morning I would visit my brother or you a rather embarrassing personal question perhaps
my mum or I would just sit there reading my papers because it relates to some information we have about
or prepare for meetings or whatever. Then sometimes water consumption at the flat. Did you wash and
I would come back and do the shopping, maybe bathe there?
spend the day with the children, then go back. It Baroness Uddin: I would definitely have had a shower
would be like that. You were asking me? before I go there and—
Q109 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I was asking you a Q117 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Do you normally take a
particular question and that is if you formed any bath or shower daily or what is your preference?
friendships with any of your neighbours. Baroness Uddin: Yes.21
Baroness Uddin: That was your question.
Q118 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you when staying in
Q110 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You said no. Maidstone?
Baroness Uddin: No.20 Baroness Uddin: I would always have had a shower
before I went.
Q111 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could I ask a different
question: did you ever run into any of your Q119 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Before you went to
neighbours and converse with them? Maidstone?
Baroness Uddin: Can I take you back to your last
Baroness Uddin: Yes because I would have been at
questions about forming friendships with
work.
neighbours. I have a very large number of neighbours
in both Maidstone and in Wapping.
Q120 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am asking what
Q112 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am only asking you happened at Maidstone?
about Maidstone. Baroness Uddin: Yes, perhaps I would. It is not
Baroness Uddin: Yes, but I am just giving you some unusual that I would use the shower or the bathroom
understanding. I would like you to understand that I or clean my teeth.
do not have any friendships either in Maidstone or in
Wapping for the simple reason that I have a large Q121 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Which did you use, was it
enough family, I have a very hectic life. In fact, the a shower or bath?
friendship belongs within my family and friendship Baroness Uddin: It is a shower. There are showers in
groups and they meet all my needs. I have not both the rooms.
therefore ever really had friendships with neighbours
as such. Sorry? Were you going to say something?
Q122 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And you recall showering
Q113 Lord Irvine of Lairg: No, on you go, I am not there most weekends, do you?
trying to stop you. Baroness Uddin: No. I recall having showers.22 Always
Baroness Uddin: Okay, that is pretty much it. I had showers before I went to Maidstone because
that would be at the end of the day. I would have done
work or shopping or meetings and then I would have
Q114 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you shop in prepared. Some time I would go in my long dress
Maidstone for food? which I wore at home and I would just drive because
Baroness Uddin: No, maybe on the way at the petrol that was the simplest thing. I would pretty much just
station I would have got some drinks or milk or go there, read and fall asleep or sit down with my son
whatever but I would stop, depending on which way and have long discussions.
I went, either at Bluewater or Lakeside or something 21 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
like that and I would always bring food home from added: I shower 2 or 3 times each day. I shower twice if I come
London if I needed anything for breakfast or juice or back late. I shower three times if I get back in the late afternoon
whatever. or early evening. I always shower as soon as I get in.
20 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin said added: If I went to Maidstone late at night, between 10pm and
that she meant to have said: “No. I did not make friends of my midnight, I would have had a showered before I left home and
neighbours.” then showered in Maidstone when I got up in the morning.
Q123 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Which son? Baroness Uddin: If I can just get there.
Baroness Uddin: My second son.
Q128 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You will see: “The first
Q124 Lord Irvine of Lairg: He stayed overnight too, reading was taken on 1 August 2005. The cumulative
did he, sometimes? reading was 4 cubic meters. The second reading was
Baroness Uddin: Yes, I just want to say something taken on 20 June 2006. The cumulative reading was 9
about the water. I cannot explain Hazel Wallis’ cubic meters resulting in 5 cubic metres of actual
statement.23 What I can say is I am sure, having just usage. The third reading was taken on 13 December
looked at it, the overall water consumption is correct. 2006. The cumulative reading was 10 cubic meters i.e.
I know that there are some suggestions that it is low only one cubic metre of water was used between 20
usage. June 2006 and 13 September 2006. The fourth
reading was taken on 8 June 2007. The cumulative
Q125 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I can take you reading shown is 119 and is incorrect. This was an
straightaway to the relevant document— incorrect reading adjusted to a 5th reading of 13 cubic
Baroness Uddin: May I just— meters on 23 August 2007, i.e., between 13 December
2006 and 23 August 2007 three cubic meters were
used. The 6th and 7th readings were taken on 11
Q126 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Of course you can go on. December 2007 and 9 June 2008 respectively. Both
Baroness Uddin: May I just make one point which is readings show a cumulative reading of 13 cubic
that there has been huge chaos with water billings and meters, equating to zero usage between 23 August
I recall, after receiving some of the papers from the 2007 and 9 June 2008.” So that is saying nil usage for
Committee, having looked at my water bills that for that ten-month period. Do you accept these figures?
some reason I have been billed by three different Baroness Uddin: May I say that I believe that is the
water companies. I just assumed that they were for reading from one company not the three different
different elements. Of course I paid accordingly. companies that I had bills from. I want to reiterate
What I can say is that I think my water usage is about the point about overall usage. I believe that Ms Wallis
four cubic metres a year, something like that, overall. in her statement says that South East Water
I do not know whether there had been some mistakes themselves recognise that there had been problems
in the billing. I was never there when they did the with the meter.
meter reading. The meters are outside of the building
and I have a history of having received wrong water
Q129 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I can help you on that. If
bills and refunds from the water companies. All I can
you go to page 39 (p148H), in complete fairness to
say is that I believe I complied with the rules and used
you, you will see that the water meter was exchanged
water as appropriate and when I needed it, and of
on 13 February 2009 as it was suspected that the
course the water usage would have been low in
water meter had stopped working.
comparison to some of the bills that have been
Baroness Uddin: It would have been following a
submitted because I was not staying there seven days
whole history of difficulties and chaos with water
a week. It was something that primarily I would use
billing. In the whole block of Chenies there has been
once a week24, so I think there is no correlation to
a history of problems with allocated parking to flats,
some of the bills that have been submitted by other
meters to flats. There had been confusion right from
neighbours. That is the only thing I would say.25
the beginning. I had questioned them as soon as I had
moved in and I think by the time there was some
Q127 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could we go to tab J, satisfaction it was nearly 18 months or so later.
page 38, this is the statement of Hazel Wallis, Contact
Centre Team Leader for South East Water (p148B). Q130 Chairman: Sorry, it is a bit difficult when you
If you go to the bottom of page 38 I will read a section are answering questions and getting notes from Lady
to you. McDonagh at the same time.
23 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin Baroness Uddin: It is fine.
added: Hazel Wallis works for South East Water, one of 3 water
companies from whom I have received bills for water
consumption and waste. We are unaware of Ms Wallis visiting Q131 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I wanted to ask you: are
the property. She has not taken note of the bills from South East
Water which we disputed. you saying that you were paying bills to more than
24 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin said one water company at the same time or are you
that she meant to have said: “ . . . once or twice a week . . . ” saying that different water companies succeeded each
added: I have been billed simultaneously by three water other in the provision of water to your flat?
companies: Mid Kent Water, Southern Water and South East Baroness Uddin: I believe that there are some bills that
Water. Sometimes meter readings have been wrong and later I have that correspond to the same time period. I have
corrected. I have received and paid bills for different flats and
addresses and have later received a refund. This finally not looked at them in detail except I know that I
cumulated in my meter being replaced. cannot account for the nil usage. I do not know what
happened. I can only imagine that there had been Q138 Lord Dholakia: Have you kept those bills?
some kind of mistake because if you look at the water Baroness Uddin: Not all of them. It has been a long
usage it is low but I have used it and Ms Hazel Wallis time and of course I would have never envisaged that
pretty much says it is low consumption but there we would come to this.
was usage.26 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Let us leave water.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Which was the page that you
were drawing our attention to?
Q132 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Periods of nil usage. The
Chairman: Lady Uddin had a recollection that there
last period I drew to your attention was a ten-month
was more than one water company. We have bills
period of zero consumption.
collected by the police from another resident of the
Baroness Uddin: I have no explanations for that. block who showed two water bills, one for waste and
one for water supply, so I was seeking to clarify what
Q133 Chairman: I think I can answer my own Lady Uddin was saying.
question from pages 126 and 127 [not printed] which Lord Cope of Berkeley: Which page is that?
shows, there are two water bills (this is for a Chairman: Tab J, pages 126 and 127 [not printed].
neighbour, not for you) one for South East Water and Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: I think it is worth
one for Southern Water so there were two sources noting also that it is not the case that the waste water
of water. bill bears any relation to the water consumed because
Baroness Uddin: I know the companies merged at there are charges for things like surface water
some point but there were two different bills.27 drainage from the street and so on.29
Q134 Lord Dholakia: Are you able to exhibit those Q139 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Are you agreeing with
bills? that?
Baroness Uddin: Not at the moment.28 Baroness Uddin: I accept what you are saying. It is not
something I have reflected on or examined.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: I say that simply
Q135 Lord Dholakia: The bills are for two different because you said that you can only waste what you
things. One is for the supply of water and the other is use but this is not about wastage in that sense. It is a
for waste. That is it? bill for waste water that is imputed to you as having
Baroness Uddin: I think that there are two companies, a parking place where water is drained away and so
yes, there was South East Water and Southern Water on or a roof where water is drained away.
or something and then Mid Kent Water. Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is partly a volume charge
for the waste water for particular premises.
Q136 Lord Dholakia: What I am trying to get at is Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: Yes, partly and partly
others.
the supply of water, and that is what you are talking
about, would not in any way impact on the other two Lord Cope of Berkeley: And partly others.
bills; it is completely different things, water coming
out rather than what is used. Q140 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: So it is not the
Baroness Uddin: You can only waste what you are case that there is a relationship between the two bills
using. That is the only thing I can say. There would be and that the waste water bill straightforwardly
no waste if you are not using. reflects the water usage bill.
Baroness Uddin: That is obviously not my
understanding. I am assuming that there is some
Q137 Lord Dholakia: But the charges would be
correlation between water waste and water use and I
different.
would draw your attention to Hazel Wallis’
Baroness Uddin: Yes, of course. As it happens, I am
statement that she had said that meter was exchanged
not aware of different companies charging for
in February because it had stopped working.
instance. We have one bill that we receive in Wapping.
That is not the practice in Maidstone.
26 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin Q141 Chairman: Suspected of stopping working.
added: OFWAT state that 29 cubic metres is the average annual Baroness Uddin: Yes, and they had a history of very
water consumption for a low usage apartment occupied by a
person who resides there 365 days a year. My water consumption chaotic billing and so I had assumed that a big water
is 10% of this figure. company would not suddenly one day think it has
just gone wrong yesterday. They would have been
added: My neighbours may have been billed by two water
companies but I was billed by three. 29 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
28 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin added: This may be the case but I imagine that flats cannot have
added: I do not retain utility bills over a five year period. waste water unless they use a sink, shower and toilet.
quite annoyed by a huge amount of complaints group of five or six Indians, they looked like a family,
before they would have acted on it, so I can only went in to air the place. They opened the back
make that assumption. window and doors, they put the curtains at the back
of the flat out of the window. That is why it was
Q142 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Let us leave the subject of obvious they were airing the place. The balcony out
water. Could we revert to your neighbours in the back of my flat is only about ten feet from the
Maidstone. Let me take you to the statements that balcony at the back of flat 3 so I could see it clearly.
they have made about the occupation of your flat as These five or six Indians only stayed for ten or fifteen
they have observed. Go first of all to tab J, to page 27 minutes. I may have seen them in passing coming
(p127A). This is Mr Revell’s statement. Go to the through the communal door. This event only
second half of page 27 (p127B): “I did not see anyone occurred approximately every six weeks.31 It was
who lived at number 3 but I did see someone in the always at a weekend during the daytime but I cannot
flat. I would qualify this by saying that I could see remember what part of the day. Flat 3 had curtains at
lights on and even the lights of a television being the back of the flat. They were always drawn, day and
watched. All of the above incidents happened in the night. I love my balcony because it overlooks a nature
first few months of us moving into the flat, which was reserve to the rear of The Chenies. Every time I
in December 2005. I cannot recall exactly when the looked over to flat 3’s balcony all I could see was
net curtains came down but it was about two years leaves. I also remember a jumper overhanging their
ago.” And you see that this statement is dated 18 July balcony. After a while algae started to form on the
2009. He goes on: “From that point the flat has stood jumper. It all went green. I can’t emphasise enough, I
empty and you could see a light was on in the hall but am 100 per cent certain, no-one has ever lived in flat
the flat was bare.” Do you accept that from about 3.” Then if you go over to page 15 (p128E): “Since the
two years prior to the date of his statement, that is very beginning there have been white sheets at the
two years prior to 18 July 2009, and before the two front windows of flat 3. All the other flats have
Sunday Times article, which was 3 May, that the flat lattice blinds or curtains so white sheets look tacky.
was empty? On one occasion one of the sheets partly fell down.
Baroness Uddin: I do not accept that the flat was There was a ceiling light on. There was no lampshade,
empty.30 just a bare bulb. It was night-time and it illuminated
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Well then, would you go to page the whole flat. All the internal doors were wide open.
13 (p127J). I could see right into flat 3 and there was absolutely
Chairman: We are still in tab J. no furniture. My flat has the same layout as flat 3.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: If we go to another tab I will When I look into my flat window I can see all the way
tell you. to the back of the flat if all the internal doors are
Chairman: This is another witness statement given to open. Flat 3 had security lights.32 Every evening, I
the police. don’t know what time, these lights would come on. I
think the sheet at the front window was down for
Q143 Lord Irvine of Lairg: This is the statement of about a week or so.” This lady appears to be saying
Yvonne Adams who lives next door to you in the that so far as she was concerned the flat was empty.
Maidstone flat. She says: “Flat 3’s front door is right Is she mistaken about that?
opposite my front door and we are on the same level Baroness Uddin: Yes, she is, and until the story itself
as the communal front door.” broke none of our neighbours really took much
Baroness Uddin: Yes, I have seen it. interest. I do not believe that they were looking for
me. It is a very quiet block although I had met one or
Q144 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could I read to you pages two of them. I have described a few times about how
14 and 15 and we pick it up in the second paragraph I would arrive late on Friday night or Saturday
(p128A): “The only movement in flat 3 was when a morning and sometimes leave early on Saturday or
30 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin Sunday morning. In fact, I would often hear them
added: Residents were being asked the question “Does she live coming in from outside very late. There is no
here?”. The common understanding of what it means to live
somewhere is that you are there 7 days a week, 365 days a year. particular reason why the neighbours would always
The statements only reveal that the residents were answering the see me. I have to say, and I have reiterated this, I kept
question of whether I lived there as they themselves live there. myself to myself. I keep myself to myself in all my
They are not answering the question “Was it possible that she
came here for one or two days at the weekend without you 31 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
building a relationship with her or necessarily seeing her?”. This added: Ms Adams states from memory that she say me
misunderstanding and misinterpretation is encouraged by the approximately every six weeks. This did not mean that I did not
Sunday Times in order to allow them to write the story they want come to my property at other times on my own; she only saw or
to write. One resident appears to believe he will be paid by the heard me when I was in a larger group.
newspaper. The police statements were given subsequent to the 32 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
media interviews and interest. We know from research that added: There are security lights outside the front door of my flat
individual’s memories come to be what they hear, discuss, see and outside the main building. I do not have security lights inside
and read about an event rather than the actual event itself. my flat. I would turn lights on in my flat when I arrived there.
conduct wherever I am other than with my family. I Baroness Uddin: I certainly never recall apologising to
believe, not in this place but I think in one of the her. I recall meeting her and that is what I was going
statements somewhere, please forgive me if I am not to say. If you bear with me, she makes the assumption
able to cite the particular one, I think someone says that I only like Indian foods and I should cook them.
why would no-one have seen me if I made 80- But leaving that aside—
something trips or so. That is out of so many days a
year. I do not know what my neighbours are doing
and I would never want to claim that I do.33 Q149 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I would just ignore that.
Baroness Uddin: I am trying to ignore as many of
these kinds of comments as possible but, again, I
Q145 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I do not want to cut you
cannot fully detail everything that was said by
short but we are trying to be as specific as possible. If
Yvonne Adams to the journalist in the first instance
you go to page 15 you will see the paragraph
and following.
beginning (p128G): “Things all changed the Friday
before the article came out in the Sunday Times. I
didn’t see anybody but a mat appeared outside flat
3’s door, net curtains were hung at the front window Q150 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You would surely
and I heard a lot of activity in the flat. It seemed to remember if you had spoken to her?
me someone was moving it and at this time I had no Baroness Uddin: Sorry, I was just answering about the
idea that a newspaper article was going to be inconsistencies. Please forgive me, Lord Irvine, I was
published. Although I heard noises, I never smelt trying to point out the inconsistencies in some of her
anything like cooking. I like Indian food but the smell comments to the journalist initially and to the police
does linger.34 About ten days after the Sunday Times afterwards. I believe that the question that they were
article was published an Indian lady knocked on my asked by the journalist was whether I was living there.
door. I opened the door and the Indian lady said, I have never said that I was living there except that I
“Yvonne, I am sorry for all the trouble.” I was just was there at the weekends and her definition of living
about to reply and the Indian lady turned around and there is compared to perhaps how she herself was
went into flat 3.” Was that you? living there. By the time the police would have come
Baroness Uddin: I do not believe that I would have to take the statement she had already been very
had such a conversation with Yvonne. biased in the way that she reported my living
conditions and her relationship with me, et cetera, to
the newspapers and she appeared on television a
Q146 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Why do you call her number of times. I want to say this, that—
Yvonne?
Baroness Uddin: Because that is what it says here.
Q151 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You see, what she is
Q147 Chairman: You do not think it was you? You saying is that she could see into the flat and there was
would probably remember knocking on her door? Do absolutely no furniture. That is a question of fact.
you recollect whether you knew her name? Baroness Uddin: That is not a question of fact.
Baroness Uddin: By that time of course I knew her Lord Irvine of Lairg: It is a question of fact.
name and I know her name now very well. May I just
make a couple of comments.
Q152 Chairman: It is a question of fact that she said
it. What is your response to her saying it?
Q148 Lord Irvine of Lairg: It would help me Baroness Uddin: It is simply that the flat is furnished
particularly if you could tell me whether you recall as I have stated, as I have said. If you are happy, I
having a conversation with the lady who was your undertook to take some photos just simply because I
immediate neighbour in the building and apologising wanted to see it from a viewpoint that somebody else
to her? Do you recall that or not? would have had of the flat. [Eight photographs are
33 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin handed in at the bar; they are printed at pp192–6.]
added: This is normal in London and surrounding areas. Many Obviously I have not taken the pictures before but I
people who live full time in properties in these areas do not see
their neighbours for many years, let alone somebody staying one have taken the pictures to demonstrate that from the
or two nights a week. There is also a cultural misunderstanding outside you cannot see into the flat in great detail. It
here. A Muslim woman on her own would not seek friendships
or draw attention to herself in any way. is outrageous to say that I would have used white
34 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin sheets to cover my curtains. There have always been
added: This reveals a stereotype. Just for the Sub-Committee’s blinds.35 In one of the rooms, because the wall is pretty
information, I do not cook curries for one or two people because
they take two or three hours to prepare. I prepare curries for my 35 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
family. I am more likely to eat things like yoghurt, fruit and suggested that she meant to have said: “There have always been
salads. blinds; I bought them with the flat.”
thin the net curtains kept falling down36, and you Q156 Chairman: There are windows at the front of
would see there is another statement there somewhere the flat and windows opposite her front door so this
where it says that it was then seen as though someone is only one of your windows?
had come and picked it up which would have been Baroness Uddin: Yes and the other one is just there
entirely consistent because I kept putting it up every and you cannot see anything from there because there
time it fell down. It is not true that there were no is like a little hut made for the dustbins.
lampshades. There were always lampshades on each
of the lamps. It is a really pretty flat. It is a very clean
flat. So her story is not that of my experience and is Q157 Chairman: What you are saying is that her
not a fact. I do want to make one comment about my evidence to the police given as a witness statement
experience with neighbours. I have seen some of the that she could see in and she could see that there was
neighbours and in fact with Yvonne Adams in no furniture, you are saying that she could not have
particular she had invited me in on one occasion to seen that?
show me her flat and it was different. For instance, if Baroness Uddin: I am saying that her descriptions
her door is open from the balcony as you go in, you were incredibly biased and post all the articles and
can actually have a slanting view of the corner into everything else where she had been told about what I
her living room although you cannot see much. That was doing there.
is not the case for me because my bedroom leads into
a little hallway and then at the end of the living
room—and you have no pictures other than this one Q158 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could you go now to Mr
and I do not know whether you can see, there are a Matthew Hollis’ statement which is on page 17
lots of bristles through the letter box, and the only (p121H) of this tab. If you go to the foot of page 17
thing that you see is the carpet. I just wanted to show (P121K): “Flat 3 is directly below my flat. There is
you on one of the pictures the curtain is up and so you without question no-one who has lived in number 3
can see nothing and in the other you can just about until the last two or three months. I know this
see the reflections and very little else. because I have heard someone in flat 3 late on Friday
night for the last two or three months. The floors here
are so thin I can hear them banging around. In fact
Q153 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: Lady Uddin, the first couple of times I heard them in there recently
when were these pictures taken? I thought about phoning the police. Over the last
Baroness Uddin: I only took them this week because I couple of months I have heard them leave on
wanted to explain what people would see from the Saturday morning at about 9 or 10 am. Before the last
outside. two or three months I heard absolutely nothing in the
flat below—guaranteed. I never heard or saw
Q154 Chairman: Could I just clarify this. These anybody connected to flat 3. In fact about a year ago
photographs were taken because you wanted to use I had some washing drying over the balcony. It fell off
them to demonstrate that she could not have seen in and landed on Baroness Uddin’s balcony. I totally
the window on the front balcony, which is the one we forgot about it. I thought about hooking it up but in
see with the curtains up and with the reflection of a the end forgot about it.” So what I really want to ask
red car? you is whether your conduct in relation to your flat,
Baroness Uddin: Yes, and the curtains down. or indeed your family’s conduct, changed as a result
of the Sunday Times article?
Baroness Uddin: No, it did not. Actually I just want to
Q155 Chairman: This is only one of your windows. say something specifically about Mr Hollis. I do not
Baroness Uddin: And the other window you cannot know whether it was Mr Hollis and his girlfriend, but
really see anything because there is a great big dustbin I had actually met them with my son. They had come
thing right opposite the window. 37 down to see for themselves the damage that had been
36 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin done by the water leak.38 So I cannot remember, it is
added: My flat has net curtains and roller blinds on each
bedroom window. I bought the blinds, lampshades, carpets and
true, meeting them on numerous occasions but we
small tables with the flat. It was a show flat. The living room have had at least two encounters. I was very surprised
windows have a heavy curtain. The bathroom does not have an to read that he had considered calling the police. I can
outside window. There is no glass in the front door.
added: The only ground floor window is my bedroom window added: I had met Mr Hollis and his girlfriend long before this. A
which has net curtains and blinds. Even if you could see in this pipe burst in their flat and came down through the ceiling. I
window you could not see through into other rooms. My living brought them down to show them the damage. They said they
room/kitchen is on the first floor if you are outside. It is not weren’t insured and refused to pay a builder to repair my
therefore possible for someone to see into my living room/ damage. Over the period I had 3 leaks from their flat and had
kitchen from the outside. The only other window is for the sent them lots of notes and met with them. I can appreciate why
second bedroom; you cannot see into this window even if it does he would not make reference to this to the media or other
not have curtains and blinds because it is obscured by a large hut. authorities.
only imagine that by the time the articles had neighbours. They have been entirely inconsistent in
appeared he would have had as much hatred in the numerous ways. One person says they had seen some
hundreds and thousands of articles and death threats Indian ladies, some people say they had seen a
and other threats that I have received, I can only couple, some people make reference to “they might
imagine he felt similar anger, but certainly nothing to be seen once in a while”. It would be consistent with
do with the conduct. I have never had any police coming across neighbours that are not there all the
being called as a result of my conduct anywhere. time and that have a pattern of coming in or coming
out and a relationship with the flat. If I had a
Q159 Chairman: I interpreted his statement to mean relationship with Yvonne Adams or a friendship, I
that he thought there might be burglars in there would have said, “Hello, Yvonne, just keep an eye on
because he had never heard people or noises before, my flat, or “Hello, Yvonne, I’m here, come over for a
not that he was complaining about you. That is how coffee.” It was never like that. I can only explain that
I read it. it is as it was and that I do not have them as friends,
Baroness Uddin: I beg your pardon. Okay, you can see I only have them as neighbours, and I totally and
how under stress I am feeling myself about it. utterly refute the way that they have suggested that I
have no relationship with the flat.
Q160 Chairman: As you are feeling under stress, Chairman: Thank you.
Lady Uddin, would you like a five-minute break
now? The Sub-Committee was adjourned during pleasure
Baroness Uddin: Can I just say one thing about Mr from 11.09 am to 11.27 am.
Hollis. I do believe that his initial responses to the
journalist and subsequent statements are equally The Sub-Committee was resumed.
biased. If he says that he was not aware of my
existence he contradicts that by the fact that he came
down to the flat and saw the damage. I actually do Q162 Chairman: Thank you. I just want to say, Lady
not remember at all, it was the first time that I had Uddin, we do understand this is stressful but we have
read it about the jumper having fallen off39. a duty to go through a detailed examination.
Subsequent to the article I saw it and it was Baroness Uddin: It is fine, thank you, and I want to
absolutely in one corner and in fact I did not do make sure that we can all move beyond this.
anything with it. It is only months and months after
the Sunday Times article I finally felt able to deal with Q163 Chairman: Sorry?
that and just chucked it away over the balcony. So I Baroness Uddin: I am also here to ensure that we can
myself was not aware that the jumper had been just put this to a conclusion and move beyond it.
sitting there, because the balcony is like this, and if
you just open the first couple of doors it opens and
then you would not necessarily see. It is pretty clean. Q164 Chairman: Okay.
There is no reason for me to see into the balcony and Baroness Uddin: Yes, thank you.
what had fallen. He does mention from time to time
that he had seen people or he had heard people. He
Q165 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Lady Uddin, I just want
could have left me a note or he could have contacted
to try to deal as quickly as I can with this business of
me to say he had left a jumper and I would have
the laundry that was supposed to have fallen on to
returned it.
your balcony. Would you go to tab J and to page 18
which is the statement of Mr Hollis (p121H). He says:
Q161 Chairman: The difficulty we have is that a
“In fact about a year ago I had some washing drying
number of your neighbours have made formal
over the balcony. It fell off and landed on Baroness
witness statements to the police saying in varying
Uddin’s balcony. I totally forgot about it. I thought
ways that they believe the flat not to be lived in. That
about hooking it up but in the end forgot about it.”
is obviously the area of questions, but if you are
There are two other witnesses who refer to this. Could
happy, if you and Lady McDonagh would like to
you go to page 21 (p120F) in the statement of Sarah
have a break at this stage, would that suit you or
Dunn. That is page 21, tab J, and you see the second
would you like to continue? It is entirely a matter
complete paragraph (p121A): “I remember an
for you.
incident probably last summer”—and her statement
Baroness Uddin: I would very much like a break but I
is dated 17 July 2009—“when the people at flat [ ]
would just want to say one thing in relation to some
hung some washing on their balcony and at some
of the statements that have been made by different
point some of the washing blew off. I remember
39 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin seeing some of the washing had gone into the ground
added: The jumper did not belong to me. There was no reason for
me to know it, or other items of clothing, were missing. Mr Hollis floor grass area and a couple of long-sleeved tops or
is clear that he did not speak to me about it. shirts had fallen on to the balcony of number 3. These
shirts remained there for months and in fact long Q171 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And he would have
enough for the shirts to have gone green and mentioned it to you?
mouldy.” Then finally could you go to pages 32 to 33 Baroness Uddin: Yes.
(124F). That is a statement of Ann Manning made on
2 July 2009 and it says: “The balcony of the middle Q172 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And the very next day,
flat nearest to us . . . ” You are following this, are you? Saturday 25 April, you travelled to Maidstone, did
Baroness Uddin: Yes. you not?
Baroness Uddin: I can’t recall but if it is stated so, yes
I would have, yes.
Q166 Lord Irvine of Lairg: “The balcony of the
middle flat nearest to us for many months had what
Q173 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You can either accept it.
looked like an old sweater hanging over the balcony. Baroness Uddin: Yes.
It sort of irritated me because I kept thinking why
doesn’t someone take it in. Since about May 2009 it
Q174 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You do accept it?
has disappeared.” On the footing that this laundry of
a neighbour had fallen on to your balcony, surely if
you were residing in your flat you would have
Q175 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Thank you. And you
returned a neighbour’s laundry that had accidentally
found that your boiler was not working, is that right?
fallen on to your balcony? That is what I want to put
Baroness Uddin: It is not as stated by the person.
to you.
Baroness Uddin: I can only tell you that I had not seen
Q176 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Do not anticipate my
the sweaters. Are you suggesting there was more than
question.
one or just one?
Baroness Uddin: Forgive me.
Q167 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am suggested that some Q177 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Just answer this question:
laundry of a neighbour, so these neighbours say, fell did you find that your boiler was not working?
on to your balcony and all I am asking you is: did you Baroness Uddin: My boiler was working.
know about it and, if you had known about it, you
would obviously have returned it, would you not? Q178 Chairman: Was or was not?
Baroness Uddin: I would absolutely have returned it. Baroness Uddin: It was working.40
Just reflecting and thinking as we speak, I think I said
just before we concluded the last session that I am Q179 Lord Irvine of Lairg: It was working?
surprised that he did not come and knock on my Baroness Uddin: Yes, that is why I wanted to just
door, he did not leave me a note, if the sweater was explain. May I explain?
important. I am surprised that it did not hang off and
fly off. There is a huge amount of wind that comes Q180 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Not yet.
that way. Baroness Uddin: Sorry, please forgive me.
Q181 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Let me take you to a

Q168 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So as far as you are
question and then by all means answer and explain.
concerned this incident simply did not occur or are
Who accompanied you on this journey?
you saying that you are not aware that it occurred?
Baroness Uddin: My son.
Baroness Uddin: I was not aware that it had occurred
otherwise of course I would have returned it.
Q182 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Which son?
Baroness Uddin: My second son.
Q169 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Okay. Let me put it to
you this way: Do you recall that Mr Calvert of the Q183 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Now then if you go to tab
Sunday Times spoke to your husband on Friday 24 J, page 43 (p124L), this is a statement not of a
April? neighbour but of a working plumber, Mr Mark
Baroness Uddin: The statement to which you Ryan.
referred earlier? Baroness Uddin: Yes, page 43?
Q184 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Page 43, yes. So I will

Q170 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Yes, and that is the week take you straight through it: “As I came out of Mr
before the Sunday Times article appeared. I think you Rahman’s house an Indian guy approached me. He
have already accepted that there was that 40 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
conversation with your husband? added: The issue was not the boiler. The issue was low water
Baroness Uddin: Yes. pressure in the boiler.
said, “My boiler is not working. Can you have a anything about the pipes or the boilers because all of
look?” I said I could only give him five minutes. I a sudden the water pressure was low, all of a sudden,
grabbed a couple of screwdrivers and spanners and and so I was worried about that. My son started
went into a flat through a communal entrance. I fiddling down there with the switches and I said,
followed him in there with my grandson. In the flat I “Don’t do that, just go round and see uncle.” As he
saw an Indian lady who I have since recognised in the went out—this is what my son told me—he had seen
press to be Baroness Uddin. It was just the two of this person standing opposite a van that looked like
them there.” Do you recall such an occasion? he was a workman. I think he had asked him, “Do
Baroness Uddin: I recall that my son had asked him to you know anything about boilers?” or, “Do you
come and see something and I recall that he had come know anything about pipes?” By the time I met Mr
in with his grandson or someone, yes. Ryan he was in my kitchen and literally all he did was
bend down and he said, “Oh, the switch is in the
Q185 Chairman: A child or young person? wrong place. I have just switched it on.” I said, “Oh,
Baroness Uddin: Yes, thank you. I am really glad. Thank you very much for doing
that.” He made absolutely no comment. He did not
Q186 Lord Irvine of Lairg: He says; “We went into even ask for money. He did not say what was wrong
the kitchen/diner/sitting room (all one room). There with it; nothing. The only thing I said to him is, “Can
was a breakfast bar and the boiler was to the left. I I give you a little money for a drink?” because I was
had a look at the boiler and filled it up with water to very grateful that he suddenly said it is nothing. I had
increase the pressure.” Do you recall that? some sweets I think and I gave them or offered them
Baroness Uddin: May I— to his grandson and he did not take them.41 He did not
want to take them because he said he did not want the
Q187 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Do you recall it? sweets or whatever. I said, “Can I give him £5 for
Baroness Uddin: I recall that he touched a switch sweets?” That was pretty much the only
very briefly. conversation. As he was coming out—
Q188 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But he was coming in to

Q193 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you know he was a
your flat presumably with your consent to do some
plumber?
work there.
Baroness Uddin: No, I did not at that time. I only
Baroness Uddin: If I may just say what happened and
know that my son brought him in. I only knew he was
I can explain. I am very happy to wait for your
a plumber after he left the property because I
question. He did come in.
accompanied him out and there was the van outside
which said that he was clearly a workman and he
Q189 Lord Irvine of Lairg: With your consent?
knew what he was doing. As he came out he said,
Baroness Uddin: Yes, absolutely.
“Where are your other rooms?” And he was just
leaving, this is the bedroom one, bedroom two and
Q190 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did he effect a repair to
this is the bathroom. The bathroom door is obviously
the boiler?
shut because it is a huge door and opens out into the
Baroness Uddin: Not as I saw it. That is what I wanted
hall. If you left it open it would block everything.42 I
to say. We had gone in there, we had switched on—
said, “That is the bathroom and I think everything is
the first thing I always did was go in there and switch
working and that is my other room.” That was the
on everything just to make sure that everything was
only exchange that I had with him and he then left
right and run the water. Because of the nature reserve
and we both walked out with him and I said thank
there was always a huge amount of bees or insects or
you very much. That was my only experience of him.
whatever and I washed them out with the water, and
I think that suddenly there was some pressure that
was low. Q194 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I would like to take you
through his statement, Lady Uddin, if I may. He says:
Q191 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But this plumber— “We went into the kitchen. There was a breakfast bar
Baroness Uddin: Just a minute. I met him. Please, and the boiler was to the left. I had a look at the boiler
Lord Irvine, please bear with me, please be patient and filled it up with water to increase the pressure.”
with me. Pausing there, do you recall that he did that?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, he did something to just—
Q192 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I will bear with you. 41 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
Baroness Uddin: Thank you. I really appreciate that. added: Mr Ryan took £10 for a drink for himself and £5 for his
Obviously we did not know that he was going to be a grandson. This was correct and I was grateful to him.
plumber and he was going to be there. I just said to suggested that she meant to have said: “If you left it open it would
my son to go next door and just find out if he knows block everything as it is a disabled door for wheelchair access.”
Q195 Lord Irvine of Lairg: The boiler? cupboard, and the kitchen is as I bought it in 2005.
Baroness Uddin: Not the boiler. It was the pipe down There is always stuff over on the unit. I can only
below in the sink. He never touched my boiler.43 assume his recollection is as brief as I am suggesting
to you that it was. It was a very few moments and
there was very little discussion because he seemed to
Q196 Lord Irvine of Lairg: He says: “The room was
just go there quickly and he said, “Oh yes, the switch
not lived in. I remember seeing a cupboard under the
has been moved.” I said it might have been because
boiler and there being nothing in it. It is unusual
my son by mistake had moved it. Thanking him was
because I could get access straight to the pipes, no
the only thing. I said thank you very much and I was
pots or pans or cleaning stuff. I ran the taps. I can’t
speaking to his grandson.45
remember the details of what was in the kitchen, but
it definitely wasn’t a place where you would stay at
the weekend. The whole place looked like the rent Q200 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I want to ask you
hadn’t been paid for six months and the tenant had particular questions about what he says. He says if
done a runner.”44 Now then, is that a fair description you go back to the statement on page 44 (p125D):
of the cupboard that he is referring to, no pots, pans “There was a bedroom at the back of the flat. It had
or cleaning stuff? a mattress on the floor but no sheets or pillows, again
Baroness Uddin: Let me answer it in this way. it was not a lived in room.” What is your comment
on that?
Q197 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You can answer that Baroness Uddin: I believe that he is being inconsistent
directly, were there pots, pans or cleaning stuff in the and short with the way that he has chosen to in a very
cupboard? biased way to reply to the questions that were asked.
Baroness Uddin: Not in that cupboard because that is If there was a mattress why would there not be any
the cupboard where all the pipes are and there was pillows? What would I do with a silly mattress
always on this side tissue paper and dustbin liners in without the need for sheets? I think it is the same
one corner and on that side there is nothing because spirit with which so many comments have been made
there is just pipes. It hides all the pipes. And he never based on an assumption that I would choose to live
touched any other cupboards or anything. He did not in some dirty, grotty place. Even if I never went there
touch my boiler. He made no comment about it and for one second it would still be clean. I would hope
how can he— that you would be assured on that. So I think that
these kind of comments have been loosely made
based on the fact that they have already had an
Q198 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did he bleed the enormous amount of stories.
radiators?
Baroness Uddin: No, he never touched any of the
radiators, nothing. Q201 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So you are saying that
this plumber is prejudiced by the Sunday Times
article?
Q199 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Do you mind pausing for Baroness Uddin: Actually, if I was not hugely
me. He says: “I then bled radiators. I went into the concerned that the Sunday Times would come and
bathroom, there were no towels and no shower gel or rush me again and again, I would say that those
shampoo or anything like that. It definitely wasn’t would be comments that are consistent with some of
clean but it wasn’t dirty, it just wasn’t lived in.” Do the comments in these papers [Baroness Uddin
you have any comment to make on that? indicated a bundle of correspondence but did not seek
Baroness Uddin: Several. How can he reconcile his to exhibit it.]. Many, many hundreds of people who
comments to saying it was dirty or some tenants had
have never laid eyes on me, never seen my property,
done a runner with somebody not living there at all.
never known my children, never spoken to my
I do believe that he says somewhere that he did not
husband, nonetheless they have chosen to make
recall exactly what it was, there might have been a
comments as though they know me.
cupboard or something like that, and the assumption
that it was dirty is absolutely outrageous. There have
always been shampoos or at least hand wash and two Q202 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Coming back to the
or three toothbrushes, a towel may have been in the plumber’s statement.
43 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin Baroness Uddin: His comments are entirely in line
added: My boiler is cased in and completely sealed. I don’t know with some of the comments that have been made.
if this was done by the developers as it was a show flat but it
would have been impossible for Mr Ryan to touch my boiler. 45 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
44 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin added: My Ryan did not live at the Chenies and only came
added: I disagree with Mr Ryan’s description. However, he is forward after he saw the media reports. He shows himself to be
saying that the flat looked like residents had been living there hostile to politicians in his own statement when he says “If I had
full time. known who she was I would have charged her £750”.
Q203 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: Could I just Q207 Chairman: I have just checked. Your
draw your attention to a very small point. The recollection that he did complain about the dirtiness
plumber does not say that the bathroom was dirty. He of the place is in his interview with the Sunday Times.
explicitly says— Baroness Uddin: I think so, sorry, please forgive me
Baroness Uddin: He says it was empty. because there is just so much information.
Q204 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: He says: “It Q208 Chairman: It is not surprising you got
definitely wasn’t clean but it wasn’t dirty, it just confused between the papers.
wasn’t lived in.” Is that more accurate? I think you Baroness Uddin: I might have read it somewhere.
are mistaken in thinking he said it was dirty.
Baroness Uddin: I think he mentioned either in the Q209 Chairman: Can I ask a very trivial question.
statement to the police or the Sunday Times that the You refer to Mr Rahman as an uncle which I assume
flat was grotty. That is the comment I am making. is just a respectful title. You knew him. He was not a
Perhaps I am somewhat biased against his remarks in friend but you were acquainted with him?
the way that I do not recall and I think that he Baroness Uddin: I knew him only by the fact that I
explained the conversation in ways that I do not know his brother who on many occasions when we
recall. If you just look at the statement he made he talked about me having a place in Maidstone would
joked, “If I knew who she was . . . ” In fact, by the say that he lives there.48
time he made that statement to the police he knew
indeed who I was and maybe I should not be so Q210 Chairman: So you knew his brother but not
assertive in assuming what may have led to him him really?
making these comments. Baroness Uddin: Yes and everyone, if my children
come in here now they would have said aunty.
Q205 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Do you mind going back
to his statement where he says: “I then went to the
Q211 Chairman: I just wanted that on the record.
second bedroom. The room was empty apart from
Baroness Uddin: That is what it is. It is not because he
some clothes that were slung on the floor. There may
is an uncle himself.
have been some built-in cupboards but there was no
other furniture, there was certainly no bed in it.46 I was
only in the flat for at most ten minutes.” Do you have Q212 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What the plumber is
any comment to make on that? saying here is that the flat was devoid of furniture and
Baroness Uddin: I have never left clothes on the floor personal effects but you dispute that?
of a bedroom just like that. There is on the left, and Baroness Uddin: Yes I do, absolutely.49
if he had gone in properly he would have seen it, a
very small chest of drawers, I believe it is a four- Q213 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And you are conscious
drawer chest of drawers. It is white, it is sort of that you have to act always on your personal honour
blending in and if he had actually opened the door on and that means to tell us the truth to the best of
to the right— your ability?
Baroness Uddin: Lord Irvine, I do not have a huge
Q206 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Is it right there was no amount in my life. I have always been a professional
bed in this bedroom? person and—
Baroness Uddin: In the second bedroom there is no Chairman: Do you want to take a break, Lady
bed. If he had actually opened the door as he went Uddin? Please feel free to pop outside if you would
into the second bedroom he would not have known like to.
that there was a built-in cupboard because it would
have shut any view of the built-in cupboard so I do Q214 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I recognise this must be
not understand why and on what basis he would have very upsetting for you, Lady Uddin.
known that unless somebody else told him about the Baroness Uddin: Maybe because you raised the issue
layout of the house or somebody else explained to of honour. It is only honour that I uphold with every
him that there was a built-in cupboard in there. I do breath that I take. With regards to the House I value
not understand why he would have got that because if it enormously. I have taken nothing from the House
you go into the second bedroom you shut your door except that to which I believed I was entitled and not
against the built-in cupboard. It just goes like that47. a penny more than that, ever. Indeed, every day I
added: There are two beds in the property, a low bed in my added: The Sunday Times do not appear to have interviewed
bedroom and sofa bed in the living room. I use this room to pray Mr Rahman.
and meditate. I also use it to store clothes and other belongings. 49 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
47 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin added: There appears to be little understanding of the ways in
suggested that she meant to have said: “It just goes like that and which different ethnic and religious groups live and furnish
would have obscured the views of any cupboard or wardrobe.” their homes.
have remembered honour as I come before you. Baroness Uddin: Yes and, as I believe I have answered
Would you please excuse me? that. It is a properly furnished place. It was adequate
Chairman: Please come back when you feel able to. for me. It was where I went. It is where I spent looking
at my papers. It is where I listened to music. I do not
The Sub-Committee was adjourned during pleasure know whether there is any other information that you
from 11.47 am to 11.52 am. are seeking. For me it provided exactly my residence
and that is why I was able to claim for it. If it did not
The Sub-Committee was resumed. comply with what I believed then I would not have.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Thank you.
Q215 Chairman: Just to give you an idea of the
remaining questions we want to ask, Lord Irvine Q219 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: Could I ask just
wants to ask a few questions about your car and a little bit more about that. I understand very well
parking. that one may wish to have a place that is simple and
Baroness Uddin: That is fine. rather stripped down and less furniture than some
other people like, but, after all, the way the allowance
Q216 Chairman: Then the rest of the Committee is claimed is for one’s main residence on the
have areas of questions they want to talk to you assumption that one is obliged for the purpose of
about. attending Parliament to come to London to a place
Baroness Uddin: I do not know whether I can take you that is not what is a main residence.50 As you know,
back to Mr Ryan and indeed the other witnesses. various colleagues will stay in a B&B or in a club or
What I am suggesting is that by the time they got to they will perhaps have a flat in London, but it is very
talk to the police they had in their heads a definitely an additional place that they have for the
comparison, if you like, between where they are living purpose of attending Parliament. I do not
and the lives they have in their own homes and I think understand why this nice but stripped down flat that
that is a question that is being asked of me to say that you have been describing to us, and you have even
it is the same thing, so if they have got three sofas or spoken of it as a bolt hole, was your main residence.
300 little bits and bobs that I should have exactly the Baroness Uddin: I think I have set that out on a
same thing. I think that is what I am trying to get to. number of occasions although I think perhaps we did
That is not what the Maidstone flat was for me. It was not have cause to make reference to that in this
basically furnished and it is absolutely to my morning’s conversation. My family home was in
satisfaction. For instance, there is absolutely nothing London for a long time and it is simply because
wrong with sleeping on the floor with a mattress. It circumstances having changed that I was not in
completely concurs with any experience that I would London and that I had stayed first of all out of
have anywhere else. So long as it is clean and it is London and then because of financial constraints my
good quality that is all that matters. I think that is family stepped in and my brother said, “I am very
what I am trying to say. They are asking a different happy; you can come and stay with me,” which is
question and I think that they are answering a very usual, it is nothing unusual, I believe, in our
different question to the one that I have which is that culture. It is like I would regard my brother’s home as
it is a place that belonged to me for me, my weekends, my home, et cetera, so my circumstances changed
if you like, and I think that the limited amount of and I have made these comments repeatedly. In an
furniture or whatever that they would want to see is ideal situation today I would have liked to have
maybe not concurring to a whole furnished place as discussed in detail what those circumstances are but
they would do it. I believe it was adequately I am not going to; I have chosen not to.51
furnished. I just want to make that point.
Chairman: Thank you. Lord Cope?
Q220 Chairman: We are not going to ask you
about that.
Q217 Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not sure if we will
pursue this a bit later but what all this is about is
added: There is a cultural misunderstanding here. All of my
where your main residence was, not just a residence, family and most of my community furnish their homes in a
but your main residence. simple way.
added: Maidstone is my one and only home. My husband and I
came to an agreement at the end of 2001 that we should childcare
and wider family responsibilities. For me, childcare
Q218 Lord Cope of Berkeley: I understand the responsibilities would mainly fall during the week to coincide
points that you have made just now but at the same with parliamentary duties. However, these responsibilities would
not be exclusive to week days. At weekends I would see to my
time it is also a question of where you keep your extended family responsibilities; my mother also lives in Kent. If
possessions and that kind of thing. a child had particular issues they could also stay with me.
Baroness Uddin: It is because my circumstances Department to say that I was going to change my
changed that I felt I needed somewhere. Bolt hole for address and that I would give details.
me does not describe a bare necessity because I
believe the place is a very beautiful place. Bare
necessity does not describe an empty place, and so Q224 Chairman: Did you ever talk to the Finance
that is what I am saying, that even as a bolt hole it is Section?
adequate for me on my own. Baroness Uddin: About?
Q221 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: I understand Q225 Chairman: To get their advice on the
this entirely but if I can give you an analogy. Many of interpretation of the rules?
us only would have a residence in London and it is Baroness Uddin: No, because I do not believe I ever
quite frequent that we would be fortunate enough to asked the question, “Can you tell me about the
be invited to stay with members of our family interpretation of the rules?” It was made clear to me
elsewhere, but we would not thereby be entitled to by my Chief Whip and my colleagues that if I was
claim the London allowance because of the time we staying at weekends in a place that could be
spent with our family in various houses, or indeed if determined to be my home that I was able to then
we rent a cottage for a time. It has exactly the purpose claim overnight subsistence. They would have asked
you describe but it does not get away from the fact what I was doing. I certainly recall conversations
that this is not our main residence.52 It is not where we about what I was doing in London when I was in
have all our possessions, our family and everything. London and I said my children and my family
It is not where we spend the majority of the year. That continue to live there, I stay there, and that I went
sort of place is not a main residence. weekends to Maidstone for instance.
Baroness Uddin: I am assuming, forgive me, from Chairman: And before that to Frinton. Lady O’Neill?
what you have just said that you live outside
London—this is how the description came over to
me—and for the purposes of coming to Parliament Q226 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: Yes, when you
you had to have somewhere in London. read the rules did you note that it had to be, if we are
fortunate enough to have two residences and claim
that the main one is the one outside London, that the
Q222 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: That is exactly other one is maintained for the purposes of attending
what the allowance is for. Parliament? How did you interpret that?54
Baroness Uddin: Yes, I appreciate that but then you Baroness Uddin: In the beginning my understanding
acquire that and my circumstances were such that I was simple and for about three years I did not claim,
was already based in London over a long period of I claimed London and when circumstances changed I
time and my family circumstances changed so described those circumstances and sought advice, of
dramatically that I began to stay where my family course. I could not just suddenly go to the Finance
were even though they were out of London. Once I Department. There was no question of that. I had
had come back and had been doing that for a little been distressed for quite a considerable period and I
while, I discussed that with my Chief Whip and my had shared that distress with my supporter and my
mentor, and it was on their advice that I was already mentor and the Chief Whip. He was a dear friend and
doing this, I was spending money and that it would he knew my family, he knew all the circumstances,
be perfectly acceptable and right that I designate it. I
and I believed his advice was correct in the way that
had made it quite clear that it was my brother’s house
he guided me. I know on reflection we are way past
and for not one moment was there any question
the period when we did things differently and I wish
about that. I was advised, I talked to other
that we had not perhaps done those things differently.
colleagues.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: We are only looking at
the rules as they were.
Q223 Chairman: Can I just ask you, the people who Chairman: Not as they now are.
advised you, were they other peers or did you speak
to the Finance Department?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, they were other peers and then Q227 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: I am just trying
after I had spoken to the Chief Whip and then spoken to understand why a place where you went for one
to the peers53, I had been told to go to the Finance night a week—
52
Baroness Uddin: —Or two nights a week.
When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
added: I was not visiting friends and family. Frinton and then 54 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
Maidstone were my home. added: I did not have two residences. I only ever had one
53 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin residence. First, for 3 to 4 years, my residence was in London,
suggested that she meant to have said: “ . . . spoken to the peers when I didn’t claim. After that my residence was in Frinton and
including my mentor . . . ” then Maidstone. In my head it was clear.
Q228 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: —and rather are in a situation where we are now and we look at it
fewer during recess and where you did not have many post all of the newspaper articles and everything. We
personal things why you designated this as your main have come to examine things in a way that we have
residence?55 never examined them.
Baroness Uddin: Just on the particular issue of
Frinton, frequently, even now, although I do not go Q233 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: Lady Uddin, if
there at weekends, during the recess in particular last I may so, many of us who do not have the good
summer we spent a huge amount of time there. They fortune to have additional places outside London
have a huge house. We have a very close family in that have always looked at it this way and have not
sense and we go there and spend the summer. designated our families’ houses as our main residence
because they were not our main residence and I do
Q229 Chairman: Lady Uddin, if I may suggest, you not see why you should have seen the rules differently.
are not answering the question which is, if I can help Baroness Uddin: I suppose I am trying to say that I
you, on your expenses form you signed this as your almost had separate lives and for that purpose I had
main residence. designated that to be my main separate home. In that
Baroness Uddin: Yes. instance, I did seek advice and I was told that that
was absolutely acceptable at that time. Please forgive
Q230 Chairman: Lady O’Neill is asking you why me if I am not answering in a way that you are
you thought that Frinton and then Maidstone were expecting me to but I can only tell you what I had
your main residences at that time. I know that your experienced and why I did exactly what I had done.
circumstances have changed and we do not need to go
into that but why was it your main residence? Q234 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: I understand
Baroness Uddin: Because that was my understanding. that. It just seems very strange from the perspective
That was the advice I had been given once I had of people who have played carefully by the rules.
described my circumstances and so I was told that Baroness Uddin: I do believe that I played absolutely
these are the rules as laid out. I cannot remember ever by the rules and not for one second would I accept
having a great deal of discussion with any colleague that I have broken any rules. I have too little in my
saying this is the main residence, this is the lesser life to value and I would not have put anything like
residence. It was simply that once I described the that in danger and that is one of the reasons it really
circumstances, I was told, I was guided to designate does distress me that I am not able to articulate that
the place where I was at the weekends and that this with sufficient clarity.
was acceptable within the rules. I broke no rule. If I
for one second realised or had been made aware or Q235 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: You are
been told, never, never would I have broken such a articulating it.
rule. Baroness Uddin: I am not able to articulate that as
being how it was. It looks different perhaps now
Q231 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: So you thought because of all that I am being told here and there and
we had, as it were, the entitlement to designate a place in the papers, but at that time it was exactly as I was
that we visited outside London as our main given to understand.
residence?
Baroness Uddin: Only if that was regarded as your Q236 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: You keep saying
home. “I was given to understand; I was told; I was
advised”. I am not going to ask you whose advice it
Q232 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: Not just a home was but do you accept that it was your responsibility
but as your main home? That is really what I am to read and understand the rules so that when you
asking you about because I think it is quite difficult signed this was your main residence it was your
to understand why you designated this as your main responsibility to check against the rules that it was
home given how little you were there, even on your your main residence?
own account. Baroness Uddin: Yes, and I absolutely accept the
Baroness Uddin: Yes. I think that on the definition as it was placed before me, either in the
circumstances I described I was advised that that is book or in the rules or as the advice, combinations of
my main home, and I am just saying to you that we which, and I believed that that separate life was where
55 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin my main bolt hole was. On that basis—
added: This question reveals bias. Baroness O’Neill asserts that
I did not go to Maidstone as much during the recess despite by
answer to Q1. The question also suggests that Wapping is Q237 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: I understand
furnished differently from Maidstone. This is not the case apart that it was your main bolt hole but that is different
from what arises from the difference in the number of people
living in each of the properties. Baroness O’Neill is unable to surely from a main residence? A bolt hole is a home
grasp cultural differences in furnishings. you go to when you go away from your residence.
Baroness Uddin: It was a home. Just as I have said sometimes, sometimes social worker, sometimes
now, I believed that I could easily say I had two manager, and then of course I have had responsibility
homes. I have two lives. One in my own way and one being given to me by various members of the House
for a period in my life where I am required to be with for chairing committees and things, so there is a
my children, with my family, with my community, variety of things that I do.
whatever. That is when I said to you I am not
articulating, not that I am not articulate but I am not
articulating what the circumstances were that led to Q242 Lord Dholakia: So there is extra work that you
that. I would hope that you would accept what I have do. In that case would you be able to produce
said to you. evidence that at weekends (many people take
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: I hear what you say. commitments et cetera) you have undertaken a
particular exercise to be able to prove that you were
not in Maidstone or you were in Maidstone? Are you
Q238 Lord Dholakia: Let me move slightly away able to produce that sort of evidence?
from that particular point. Can I ask you whether the Baroness Uddin: I want to make two comments about
accounts section has ever questioned your expense my diaries. One of the first things that I did as soon
forms? as the story broke on 3 May is I went to the House
Baroness Uddin: Never. asking them to furnish me with all the details of my
expenses because the Sunday Times were asking
Q239 Lord Dholakia: There have not been any whether I could prove A, B, C. That was the very first
discrepancies? time I learned that they only keep records for three
Baroness Uddin: Other than sometimes from time to years or four years. Then I also looked at my diary on
time they would say, “Oh, Baroness Uddin, were you Outlook and suddenly realised that they do not
in the Chamber because we have not got you down?” necessarily keep dating back to however long, so I
I would say yes I was. I would look at what I was have limited diaries. They are available but I think
doing that day and I would say yes actually I was. you would see that they self-erase after a time.
Sometimes it is very busy and you are standing at the
back of the queue of people to get in. Other than that
they have never questioned me. Q243 Lord Dholakia: Could I just take you to a
particular photograph which shows either the entry
Q240 Lord Dholakia: I accept that. In that case you or the exit, I am not quite sure. For the purpose of the
obviously keep a diary of your attendances, et cetera, record this is a photograph with a sign that says
of what you are doing on a particular day because the “Stop” and the entrance to The Chenies (p192F). Is
accounts would come in about a month later and they that somewhere that you enter the car park at the
would say, “Look, something is wrong here,” and you back or you come out and the car park is on this side?
would be able to refer to your diary to be able to see Baroness Uddin: Please forgive me.
what has gone on.
Baroness Uddin: Obviously it is on my office diary Q244 Lord Dholakia: Let me put the question more
what I am doing. Usually, and I am sure the simply: do you have to use any particular evidence to
accountants office would verify this, because I am not enter that car park?
very good at keeping a lot of details I always try and Baroness Uddin: No.
get them to print out my attendance so I check if there
were odd occasions (and they were only odd
occasions) when they said, “It looks as though you Q245 Lord Dholakia: Nothing at all?
were not there” and then I would just look whether I Baroness Uddin: No.
was in the House doing any meetings and I would say,
“Yes, I was actually there” or, “Yes, there was a
Q246 Lord Dholakia: How does it open?
mistake.” Sometimes I would fill things in, even
Baroness Uddin: It just opens because you press the
recently I just fill forms in and it is the wrong date and
button. There are several places to park. There are
they are always very helpful.
places here and you can see there. There is street
parking going right up to there and there is a big car
Q241 Lord Dholakia: Let me take you forward. I park there.
now understand. It happens to many of us
sometimes. Are you still full time or mostly working
in the House of Lords as a working peer or do you Q247 Lord Dholakia: You have answered my
have another job? question. What I was trying to get at was if there was
Baroness Uddin: A full-time peer conjures up all sorts any evidence of a card system that would record you
of other commitments that I have always had. I also in and out?
work in my professional capacity as a consultant Baroness Uddin: No, there is not.
Q248 Lord Dholakia: Thank you. Q256 Lord Irvine of Lairg: You did.
Baroness Uddin: Can I say that in terms of if you are Baroness Uddin: Yes, for bay eight or something.
looking say for instance in my community or I went Actually I do not know whether I have a picture. I
to a wedding or something like that, obviously in my think I have a picture that I wanted to show you
family kitchen there are yearly calendars and (p193F). Have you got that picture? This is my flat
afterwards you just get rid of them. We have one now somewhere up here and my parking is behind there.
and my husband would keep some details if my You cannot actually see; it just behind there. There is
autistic son needed to go to a clinic or something, a wall; can you see there is a wall?
which I invariably take him to if he is not able to do
that, so we run on different things. I hope I have Q257 Chairman: It is round the corner
explained that I have a personal calendar. Baroness Uddin: It is round the wall, yes, it is just
Lord Dholakia: Thank you. there. In fact Yvonne Adams’ parking bay is the one
Chairman: I think we would like to ask you a few that you can just see by the white post.
questions about the car which crops up and then we
would like to come to this letter at the end, if that is
Q258 Chairman: Behind the BSM car.
all right.
Baroness Uddin: If I was looking at this I would see
Yvonne Adams’ car.
Q249 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If you go to tab J, page 96
(p154A), you see there the cars that you have owned Q259 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Now then, can we now
and in particular we see reference to a Honda CR-V discuss the period when you designated Frinton as
Auto SE Sport and then a BMW X5 3.01, so these are your main residence. That was your brother’s house,
the two cars, are they, that you have most recently was it not, in Frinton, Frinton-
owned? on-Sea?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, we have access to other cars Baroness Uddin: Yes.
because my children own other cars.
Q260 Lord Irvine of Lairg: The police did not
Q250 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So in the relevant period investigate your period at Frinton so what I want to
then you insured two sports utility vehicles, this large do is take you to the transcript of a recording made
Honda and this big BMW, correct? by the Sunday Times journalist of a conversation
Baroness Uddin: Yes. between them and your brother’s wife. Could we go
to tab G, page 28 (p93H). If you go to that and we
Q251 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And these vehicles are start at line 18: “Ms Newell: Hi, sorry to bother you.
large and prominent, are they not? We were wondering if you could help us solve a bit of
Baroness Uddin: Yes. I think the BMW in particular a mystery, actually. We are just doing some research
became even more prominent since the Sunday Times on a woman called Manzila Uddin and she seems to
article, but yes. trace to this property, so I was wondering if she lived
here before you. Ms Khan: I’m not sure she did, no.
Ms Newell: Okay. She’s also called Pola Uddin, or I
Q252 Lord Irvine of Lairg: There is an area in front
think she may even be Baroness Uddin. I’m not sure.
of the Chenies consisting of bays for residents to park
It seems that . . . Has she ever lived here? Do you,
their cars?
does she . . . ? Ms Khan: Not that I can recollect.”
Did you in fact live in your brother’s house?
Baroness Uddin: As I have stated on a number of
Q253 Lord Irvine of Lairg: They are numbered but occasions, yes.
not, unfortunately, consistently with the flat
numbers? Q261 Lord Irvine of Lairg: In what sense was it your
Baroness Uddin: No. main residence?
Baroness Uddin: I said that following a great deal of
Q254 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And the managing agents difficulties and personal circumstances, I had gone to
introduced a permit system to this effect from June live there with them.
2006, but they managed to send the wrong permits to
most residents, that is right, is it not? Q262 Lord Irvine of Lairg: All week?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, that is what I hear. I have mine. Baroness Uddin: No, I travelled.
Q255 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you during the Q263 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So you lived with your
period up to 25 April 2009 have a parking permit? husband in the London residence?
Baroness Uddin: Yes. Baroness Uddin: With my children.
Q264 Lord Irvine of Lairg: During the week. Baroness Uddin: Papers. Yes, it is a furnished room. It
Baroness Uddin: With my children, yes is a very well-furnished room.
Q265 Lord Irvine of Lairg: With your children and

Q273 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But I have the same
you went to live with your brother at the weekend?
puzzlement as Lady O’Neill. When you designated
Frinton as your main residence what did you
understand “main residence” meant for the purposes
Q266 Lord Irvine of Lairg: In a room in his house?
of the Scheme?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, they have numerous rooms56
Baroness Uddin: I had not thought about my
and, yes, I was very well taken care of. My brother is
circumstances in relation to the Scheme or the travel
a very special person so is my sister-in-law.
allowances or the expenses. I had only responded
once the matter was—
Q267 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If your marriage was Chairman: For the record we are handing you a copy
under such pressure why did you not move to Frinton of the quick guide on the reverse of the claim form for
permanently? 2005 (p14F).
Baroness Uddin: I think that would require me to
make a huge amount of explanation and I think that
I am not comfortable. You will understand that many Q274 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am asking you to look
of us make different choices and I chose to live with at the reverse of the claim form and you see there
my children and support them in every way I could, under (i) “Overnight subsistence. Members whose
and I continue to do that. It reflects in no way main residence is outside Greater London may claim
whatsoever my relationship with my partner. I expenses . . . for nights spent away from their only or
wanted to just say one thing. My sister-in-law and I main residence for the purpose of attending sittings
are really good friends and I love her like my own on the House.”
sister and she and I and my brother and I have much Baroness Uddin: Yes, to all intents and purposes that
in common describes my circumstances and my situation and my
and I believe that she would have been use of London.
absolutely terrified to have received, without any
notice, a journalist coming, just as I was, although I
am used to dealing with journalists. She tells me that Q275 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But how does it if you are
she would have done absolutely everything, and I living with your family throughout the entire week in
think she did try—and I have not read this for a little London and occupying a room in your brother’s
while now but I think she tried everything—to ensure house at weekends? I want to understand but I
that the journalist went away. Just as they had cannot understand how you could have thought a
startled my husband and my husband responded in room in your brother’s house was your main
the way that he has. residence.
Baroness Uddin: But they did not consign me to a
Q268 Lord Irvine of Lairg: What room did you have room. I was part of their family. They are part of mine
in your brother’s house in Frinton? and it is very simple. I have two sets of lives and I
Baroness Uddin: A very large one. continued that for a very long time. At the first
opportunity I had thorough discussions on my
circumstances. I can only assume that those who are
Q269 Lord Irvine of Lairg: One that was specially
more well-informed, those who are in greater
allocated to you?
positions of authority than I was would have said to
Baroness Uddin: Yes, there are several rooms on
me, “Pola, what you are describing is none of this.
each floor.
You are not entitled to this (not that I went and said,
“What am I entitled to?” I did exactly as I was
Q270 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am just asking you
advised and directed to do. It did not seem to
about the one that was yours.
contravene anything other than what fulfilled my
Baroness Uddin: Yes, yes,.
circumstances and what seemed to me, even though
you have referred this to me to read, no different from
Q271 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you keep clothing what I was experiencing and it explains perfectly the
there? two different sets of lives that I had.
Baroness Uddin: Of course I would have needed to.
Q272 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Did you keep any other Q276 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: But how do you
personal effects there? choose which is the main one?
56 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin Baroness Uddin: I think the selection is they ask you
added: The property has 7 bedrooms. to define that.
Q277 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: You think it is brother’s home in Frinton-on-Sea as a bolt hole in
just a matter of designation? order to allow me some breathing space away from
Baroness Uddin: Yes, with a huge amount— my husband.” We do not want to explore the detail
of that.
Q278 Chairman: I am putting words into your Baroness Uddin: I believe that was what I was
mouth which I should not do but I want to be clear referring to earlier.
that I have understood it—and contradict me if I
have got it wrong—you have designated it because
Q283 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am trying to help here.
you believed that was the way you got the allowances
and it was proper so to do? Baroness Uddin: I am sorry, please forgive me.
Baroness Uddin: The issue of allowances never came
into my mind in the first instance. It was never about Q284 Lord Irvine of Lairg: If you go to paragraphs
that. I did not claim any outside allowances for three 16 and 17: “As regards my understanding of what a
years. My circumstances changed. You will please ‘main residence’ is for the purpose of any expenses
forgive me, I can only repeat— claim, I would have sought advice at the time of my
original claims. I was not and am not aware of any
Q279 Chairman: We do not want you to go into what definition of ‘main residence’ contained within the
those circumstances are. We are happy for you to say House rules.” Paragraph 17: “All that I would have
that your circumstances changed. We know from the done was act on advice from friends, mentors and
record of your own statement that you had some other colleagues in the House. I always understood
my nomination of the Maidstone property as my
We are not wishing to probe that; that is a main residence to be within the rules. I thought that
private matter. We are trying to understand how you I was entitled to elect which was my main residence
thought it was your main residence and I think you for my expenses claims. But in any event my
have answered by saying that is what people connection with and use of the Maidstone property
advised you. was sufficient for this to be regarded as my main
Baroness Uddin: When I described my circumstances residence for these purposes.” Does that mean in
that is what the advice was. I did not come seeking your mind, when you say you were entitled to elect
advice about the allowances; never. It was something which was your main residence that if you had more
that I was explained about and I believed that I did than one residence you can simply nominate which is
do that within the rule as was applied at the time. I your main residence?
saw both my homes in the same way and I make no Baroness Uddin: Yes.
distinction. I do not see my mother’s home as my
mother’s home; I see my mother’s home as my home
as I have rights to that. Q285 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Regardless of any
ordinary understanding of what the words ‘main
Q280 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So are you saying that residence’ mean?
you could designate as your main residence a Baroness Uddin: Yes, so long as I determine that to be
residence owned by any close member of your family? my home.
Baroness Uddin: I believed that is what the rules stated
and I believe that is exactly what has happened with
Q286 Lord Irvine of Lairg: So in other words, it is a
a number of Members.57
unilateral act, you just state that it is your main
residence and that is that, and that is your
Q281 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Do you mind going to tab understanding?
J, page 102 (p162H), which is your second statement Baroness Uddin: Yes. Please forgive me, you asked me
to the police dated 7 September 2009. Have you got about my parking. I do not know whether—
that?
Q287 Chairman: You said you had no problem with
Q282 Lord Irvine of Lairg: This may help to clarify the parking permit but actually there was an
matters. You say in paragraph 12 which I am reading anonymised statement, if I could refer you to page 28,
to you: “As a consequence of this, for approximately tab J (p131E), if this is accurate, and it may not be,
8–10 months, I rented a one bedroom flat on Green could you comment on the suggestion that somebody
Lane, Windsor. I regarded this as my own space but else got your parking permit and they could not find
I simply could not afford to maintain this you to hand your one to you?
accommodation and from 2001 began to use my Baroness Uddin: That is one of the reasons I wanted
57 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin to make this clear is because I am very surprised that
added: For me I no longer had a London home after 2001. somebody else would have had my permit.
Q288 Chairman: It happened with other people Q293 Chairman: As a gesture, that is what you said
Baroness Uddin: Yes, but surprised that they would earlier.
not have found me. They sent letters, often Baroness Uddin: It is a very personal gesture. I do not
duplicates, to both my addresses. Countryside would have an explanation for it. I thought about it deeply
sometimes send one letter to Wapping and another to and if it is something that is inappropriate I did not
Maidstone and there was no particular reason why even think whether it would be.
they did that, but when we did have allocated parking Chairman: We are not going to comment on whether
permits we would often find that it was occupied it is appropriate or inappropriate or acceptable or not
when I came in late and then I would just park on the acceptable.
streets and walk in. It is not a great distance. In fact,
I think my son said to one of the neighbours, I think Q294 Lord Irvine of Lairg: I have one question I
it was a lady, “You can continue to park during the would like to ask you arising out of the Chairman’s
week days but please do not do that during the question. On the last page of the letter you say: I
weekend, but she still did not listen sometimes. We believe I complied with the rules but I realise that is
did not make a great fuss of that because it really did no longer enough.” You mean by that it is no longer
not inconvenience us in any way. I was quite used to enough to believe that you complied with the rules. “I
it. It just became a habit. know now I should have maintained a higher
standard.” What are the reasons that make you say
Q289 Chairman: Can I ask you one question about that you should have maintained a higher standard?
Frinton and then we would like to talk about your Baroness Uddin: I think certainly that is the
letter. You explained that your brother welcomed you conclusion post this last one and a half very difficult
to stay with him and his wife at Frinton when you years for Parliament.59 I would be incredibly arrogant
needed to get away.58 Could you talk about the and unfeeling to have gone through this process of
frequency of how often you went there. deep personal pain for me and my family and a
Baroness Uddin: At the weekends. challenging of the fundamental basis on which all of
us have operated in Parliament and not been seen
to—
Q290 Chairman: At weekends?
Baroness Uddin: Yes, most weekends.
Q295 Lord Irvine of Lairg: How should you have
maintained a higher standard?
Q291 Chairman: We had this further letter which Baroness Uddin: What we are now saying is that there
you sent us last night (p66C). Much of what is in it should have been great clarity of definition. There
you have said in your other statements to the police should have been training for Members. There
and we have covered some of it earlier today. I should have been proper inductions. There should
suppose what I wanted to ask you about was towards have been proper—
the end really. “I believe I complied with the rules”
but then you are offering to make a personal
payment. We will obviously make a recommendation Q296 Chairman: This is general?
but if you think you have done nothing wrong, which Baroness Uddin: General, for everyone.
your evidence has strongly suggested that you
thought you were within the rules as they were at the Q297 Chairman: Do you want to stand by your
time, why have you decided to offer this? statement though which is retrospective because
Baroness Uddin: I have thought about it a lot. It is obviously the rules have changed now.
kind of like an act of contrition. It is not related to Retrospectively, do you want to stand by the
anything. I want to be reflective on this point very statement: “I know now I should have maintained a
much. I suppose it is kind of related to making a higher standard”?
gesture of some kind. Baroness Uddin: Yes, I am saying that because it is a
personal letter from me. By that I absolutely mean
Q292 Chairman: What are you contrite for? and I do believe, without suggesting that anyone has
Baroness Uddin: The fact that we are where we are, done anything wrong, that all of us together should
that there has been so much misunderstanding, that have maintained a higher standard. We were never
there has been so much hatred and so many different asked for receipts and it is true on reflection, I never
things. I have gone through so many different
added: I have complied with all of the rules. But the public say
emotions that I am not necessarily able to explain. It that all members of the House signed up to a system that was
is not a payment in lieu of anything but I wanted to unacceptable and bore no relation to expense claims elsewhere
make a payment. e.g. members were not expected to provide receipts. For this we
are all culpable, whether or not we ever claimed. I did not need
58 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin to claim between 1998 and 2001 but I was still responsible for the
added: My brother invited me to come and live with him. rules at that time.
thought about the fact that it did not require me to going to difficult for me—but I wanted to make a
put in receipts. gesture.62
Q298 Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: I think you Q303 Chairman: Is there a reason why you chose a
should note that many people have not been making sum approximate to travel?
claims. “All of us” is a bit severe on the colleagues Baroness Uddin: No, I think it is little bit more than
who have expenses and do not make claims.60 that.
Baroness Uddin: In which case I suppose collectively
I am suggesting that there are those that have made Q304 Chairman: I said approximate; it is slightly
claims but not everyone has gone through the process more.
of public scrutiny by individual newspapers. I think Baroness Uddin: It is. No, £5,000 seemed a number
that there are a number of colleagues who are in that I could perhaps over a period cope with.
exactly the same position that I am in but have not
faced these kind of attacks. Q305 Lord Cope of Berkeley: Your travel costs over
the various years are given under tab E on page 4
(p47A) and you will see them set out by year there
Q299 Lord Irvine of Lairg: But on reflection do you that have been claimed. I could not quite get to
now think that neither Frinton nor Maidstone were £5,500.
main residences? Baroness Uddin: No, it does not relate to that, please
Baroness Uddin: No I do not. I believe that they were forgive me; it is a figure.
exactly as I said.
Q306 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Is it a figure really just
Q300 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Main residences? plucked out of the air?
Baroness Uddin: For me they were at the time. Baroness Uddin: Please forgive me, it almost is, yes.
Q307 Lord Cope of Berkeley: But, in any case, the

Q301 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Main residences?
travel costs are only allowable if the overnight
Baroness Uddin: Yes, they were my homes. Sorry, I
subsistence is allowable because the two are linked to
think that I made the general point about us coming
one another.
to a place where we can see that there was a
Baroness Uddin: That is why it is not a link. I have
difference. The fact that we are now proposing to
maintained throughout my statement with you this
change the way that we behave, not necessarily our
morning and in everything I have said that I have
personal conduct but perhaps making sure that we do
made those journeys. In fact I may have made many
everything by receipts, et cetera, et cetera, in terms of
more journeys than I have ever claimed for. Certainly
our claims has not been a House practice, and I am
it does not relate to any travel during the recess,
really pleased that it now is, and I think that is what
obviously that is something that we cannot claim so
I am saying in my statement, that I hope that we will
it would not be in the forms. It is not related to
adhere to a different of standards61 which were not
anything. I wanted to make a gesture, as other people
necessarily evident by some of our actions.
have I believe. Perhaps I was doing that in line with
some thoughts that have come across from different
Q302 Lord Cope of Berkeley: I just wanted to ask people talking to me at different times.
how you arrived at the figure of £5,500 in your letter Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is clear.
of last night. I think you used the words “a gesture”.
Is it a made-up figure, as you might say, as opposed Q308 Chairman: Thank you, Lady Uddin. It has
to relating to a repayment? been a long morning for you and I would like to wind
Baroness Uddin: I think that correlates partly to some up. Before I do, is there anything you want to say that
of travel that I have got, but I think it is a little bit you have not already said to us?
more than that. I just wanted to make a gesture of Baroness Uddin: I did want to say something. I would
something that was not going to give me a huge just reiterate that whatever my own personal
amount of pain—not that if I need to pay this it is not experience is of the circumstances, it may not be
60 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin yours, and I would accept and understand entirely
added: Baroness O’Neill and I are having two different that you do not recognise the descriptions of my life
conversations here. I am saying that, in retrospect, we all, both
those who claimed and those who did not, should have stood up and my existence, but that is exactly what they are. I
and said that the system was unacceptable to the public. We all believed that I had no need to designate any other
need to take responsibility for this. It is perfectly correct to place as a home or as somewhere else that I was living
operate and claim within the rules and at the same time say that
we should have had different rules. 62 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin
61 When invited to comment on the draft transcript, Lady Uddin suggested that she meant to have said: “I just wanted to make a
suggested that she meant to have said: “ . . . I hope we will adhere gesture of something that was not going to bankrupt me—but
to a different set of rules . . . ” would be difficult for me—but I wanted to make a gesture.”
A 15 July 2010 The Baroness Uddin
until such time that I did. It is purely because of my Baroness Uddin: I think that very fully explains my
own personal circumstances, and I can understand rationale for my actions. Without giving any details,
that in the absence of a view on those circumstances I would concur with that statement. I think that is my
B and an understanding of those circumstances I leave difficulty. I have already exposed my family to a huge
myself perhaps open to this question which Baroness amount of pain. We are an incredibly private family.
O’Neill has asked on a number of occasions. For me Actually there are people inside the House who are
from everything I hold dear I am restating the fact aware of those circumstances. They are very, very
that both of those places have been my homes and I well-versed in those circumstances because very often
did this with the understanding as was given to me those were friends or colleagues that I relied on to
C guide me because it is a very, very difficult journey for
and with all the support that I had been given by my
colleagues, my mentors and officers, and I have only a person with the responsibility of the House and five
done what I knew to be appropriate and correct. I children and family responsibilities, and I believe that
have never knowingly done or undertaken any I maintained.
actions that would contravene the integrity of the
House or the integrity of myself or my family and Q310 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Am I right when I put to
D you that what you really wanted was a place that you
particularly the honour of the House and the honour
could regard as your own?
of my family.
Baroness Uddin: It is, completely.
Q311 Lord Irvine of Lairg: And that is why you

E nominated it as your main residence?
Baroness Uddin: Yes and it is the single thing that is
Q309 Lord Irvine of Lairg: Could I just ask you one quite clear: for me that place is mine; that is the only
thing to see if this helps. Are you really saying that the thing that I can have complete control over.
personal relationship between your husband and
yourself had become such that you wanted a Q312 Chairman: Thank you very much.
F residence to call your own, to regard as your own? Baroness Uddin: Thank you for your time.
Photographs exhibited by Baroness Uddin

G
L
L
L
L
L
A
Letter from the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct to Baroness Uddin
dated 16 July 2010
Members’ reimbursement scheme

Investigation by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct B
Oral evidence: transcript
Thank you for attending the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct yesterday. I now enclose a copy of the
transcript of your oral evidence and invite your alterations.
Alterations should be restricted to the correction of inaccuracies in the transcript; changes to punctuation; and
minor changes of wording to clarify the sense. If you wish to qualify an answer, you may suggest a brief C
footnote. If you undertook to provide further information, you should do so either in a brief footnote or a
supplementary memorandum. You should amend only your own answers, but may correct misspellings and
similar mistakes in the questions. Please mark your alterations in red ink and put a large cross in the margin
beside each alteration. Please return the amended transcript to Miss Claudia Rock, Registry of Lords’
Interests, House of Lords ( ) by the end of Tuesday 20 July. If we have not heard from you by that D
date, the Committee may print your evidence in its original form. As with the other evidence, the transcript is
covered by parliamentary privilege and must remain confidential unless and until it is published by the
Committee for Privileges and Conduct. You may not show it to anyone other than the person who
accompanied you to the evidence session.
The Sub-Committee have asked me to give you their best indication of the timetable for report. They wish to E
consider your case together with two others and hope to agree their reports shortly before the summer recess.
The report on the Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against members (a copy of which
you have) sets out the procedure for allowing you to see the Sub-Committee’s account of the facts:
26. When its investigation is concluded, the Sub-Committee assesses the evidence. In order to find F
against a Member, the Sub-Committee requires at least that the allegation is proved on the balance of
probabilities.
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 G
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. H
The Sub-Committee hope that this stage can be completed in the course of next week: I will be in touch as
soon as a draft has been prepared.
The Sub-Committee will then report to the Clerk of the Parliaments who in turn will immediately pass the
report to the Committee for Privileges. At that stage, you will be provided with a copy of the report and (if it J
is against you) you will have a right of appeal to the Committee for Privileges. I should remind you that
paragraph 15 of the report on the Code of Conduct: procedure for considering complaints against members
(a copy of which you have) says:
“from the point that the Sub-Committee decides to undertake an investigation all evidence and K
correspondence relating directly to the inquiry is covered by parliamentary privilege. It must remain
confidential unless and until it is published by the Committee for Privileges. If such evidence or
correspondence were to be published or disclosed to anyone else without the Committee’s agreement,
this would be a contempt of the House. Any attempt to obstruct an investigation may also be treated as
a contempt.”
L
I understand that the Committee for Privileges are likely to set a date in the summer recess by which you will
need to decide whether to appeal. Any appeal would be heard as soon as the House resumes in October. The
House Committee have agreed to have no role in the process.
16 July 2010
A
Email from Baroness Uddin to Mr Andrew Mackersie, Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct,
sent at 16.58 on 21 July 2010
Please find attached alterations and footnotes to the transcript. Both are marked in red so you can easily view
the changes.
B In addition, I believed that my letter would be read into the transcript. Please could you ensure this happens.
I do have broader issues I wish to raise with the committee in line with the code of conduct and arrangements
for the hearing are not matters for the transcript. I will raise both with the committee at a later date.
Thank you again for allowing me until today to get these amendments back to you. As I explained previously,
C my son married on Sunday and my daughter is not well and is about to go into hospital. You will appreciate
that a seventy page transcript takes a considerable amount of time to proof.
If there are any problems with any of this please call me on .
21 July 2010
D
Letter from the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct to Baroness Uddin dated 21 July 2010
and sent by email at 00.09 on 22 July 2010

E Draft report: facts
I have received your corrections to the transcript. Your suggested corrections and footnotes are more extensive
than usual but we will print most of them in full. I will however be recommending to the Sub-Committee that
they should not agree to print four of your footnotes: 17, 31, 33 and 40. In no way do I seek to prevent you
from making the statements contained in those footnotes. If you wish to make those statements you should
F do so on appeal (if the Sub-Committee find against you). Other than to comment on the Sub-Committee’s
draft account of the facts, there is now no opportunity for you to make further submissions to the Sub-
Committee because it is time for them to consider their conclusions.
Later this week, the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct will consider the Chairman’s draft report on your use
of the members’ reimbursement scheme. The report from the Committee for Privileges on the procedure for
G considering complaints against members, a copy of which you have, says:
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.
H
To fulfil this paragraph, I enclose an extract from the draft report [not printed] and would be grateful for your
comment, if any, by the end of Friday 23 July.
21 July 2010
J Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct
dated 23 July 2010

K Draft report: facts
1. I have received a letter from Mr Mackersie dated 22 July with the accompanying extract from the draft
report on facts. That letter arrived by email at 00.09 on 22 July and, as I read it, required a response by the
end of today.
2. I am writing to you because I am rather unclear as to the precise role and authority of Mr Mackersie in
L this matter and the concerns that I have in relation to procedural matters. I understand from Mr Mackersie
that he is not prepared to share my concerns with you and other members of the Sub-Committee.
3. I set out below my response to the extract from the draft record of facts which I very much hope will be
of assistance to the Sub-Committee-although I have found it very difficult to complete this task within a period
of less than 48 hours, as requested. I also explain the concerns that I have in relation to procedural matters.
A
4. Mr Mackersie referred in his letter to Paragraph 27 of the Code of Conduct: procedure for considering
complaints against Members (the “Code”), which provides that I am entitled, before the Sub-Committee
reaches its conclusion to have shared with me a draft of those parts of the report dealing with issues of fact,
so that I may have an opportunity to comment on them.
5. As I understand it, it is inherent in the requirements of Paragraph 27 of the Code, and other provisions, B
that:
i) those parts of the report dealing with issues of fact will record in full the relevant factual circumstances
(and not just those about which I was asked questions by the Sub-Committee);
ii) where reference is made in those parts of the report to issues about which I was asked questions by
the Sub-Committee, the evidence that I gave will be recorded accurately and fairly; and C
iii) I am entitled to an adequate length of time in which to consider my response.
6. I am sure that you and other members of the Sub-Committee already have these requirements at the front
of your minds. But I am afraid that I have become rather concerned that they have not actually been applied
in my case. I very much hope that you will bear with me as I set out below the areas which trouble me.
7. In relation to the draft report on facts and other matters, I am unsure what Mr Mackersie’s role and D
authority in the process is. My understanding, for example, is that it is for the Sub-Committee to decide on
matters of evidence. Yet it seems to me that decisions (at least in the form of recommendations) are being taken
by Mr Mackersie. Examples of this are in relation to the setting of deadlines for my responses, and which of
my suggested corrections and footnotes to the transcript should be included.
E
Relevant factual circumstances omitted from the extract from the draft report
8. There are matters of fact which I consider to be very relevant to the circumstances of my case which are
not referred to in the extract from the draft report. This may be because they are not matters about which I
was asked questions by the Sub-Committee. But, I am very anxious for the Sub-Committee to have the full
picture before it, and very much hope that the Sub-Committee will understand why it is important for me to F
be confident that all relevant matters are taken into account.
9. First, as I have always said, in making the claims that I did, I acted in accordance with the advice and
guidance that I was given by fellow peers, my mentor, the Chief Whip and officials from the Accounts Office.
I made this point in my letter to the Sub-Committee of 14 July, and also in my witness statement and earlier
correspondence. G
10. Secondly, it is a matter of record that, on 9 February 2010, the Clerk of the Parliaments published a
response to complaints about expenses in which he made it clear that the House Committee had considered
the definition of “main residence” and that the threshold set by the Committee was that “….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 a relevant factor. Ownership is
H
not a requirement but is a factor in each case”.
11. Thirdly, Mr Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, had this to say in relation to that response
and the circumstances of my case:
“… On that interpretation, in any criminal proceedings, it would almost inevitably be necessary for the
prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard, that any peer in question had not even visited the address J
they deemed their “only or main” residence once a month.”.
12. I am well aware that the Sub-Committee is working according to a standard of proof based on the
balance of probabilities. Nonetheless, I respectfully suggest that these developments are apt for recording in
the report on facts.
13. Fourthly, there is no mention of the evidence contained in the statements gathered by the Police from K
officials and staff of the House.
14. Mr Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance at the House, said that the term “main residence” is not defined in
the guide to the Members’ Reimbursement Scheme and that his department had no interpretation of the term.
15. Ms Maureen Buck, the Member Services Manager, refers to the mechanisms to prevent a new peer from
inadvertently making incorrect claims through lack of understanding. She also says that there has never been L
a situation where a claim identified as being incorrect has been suspected to be deliberately false or misleading.
16. Ms Patricia Young, a payment clerk, says that she has been asked what her understanding of “main place
of residence” was. She says that she has not been given any guidance on this and that she took it to mean the
place where the peer lived.
A
17. Ms Shanaz Ali, also a payment clerk, says that she can not remember exactly what a “main place of
residence” denotes, but thought that it probably referred to the address from which the peer travelled to the
House.
18. Again, I respectfully suggest that this evidence from officials and staff of the House is highly relevant
B because it demonstrates that those responsible for the administration of the Members’ Reimbursement
Scheme had no clear and consistent understanding of the definition of main residence.
19. Fifthly, and perhaps most importantly of all, there is no mention of the evidence of Baroness Pitkeathley,
my mentor in the House. She says that she simply “had a conversation with the chief whip who in general terms
explained the Members Expenses Scheme to her, pointing out that if [she] lived outside the M25 [she] could
C claim for a second home in London for the purpose of attending the House.” Baroness Pitkeathley explained
to me how she would conduct herself. She concluded that “in my opinion the rules about what constitutes a
main residence are very unclear and liable to different interpretation”.
20. Finally, I wrote to the Sub-Committee on 14 July setting out again my explanation of my conduct,
expressing my regret that I may not have attained the standards to be expected of peers, and making a
D voluntary offer of payment of £5,500. I stand by the sentiments that I expressed in that letter. As I have said
previously, I would be most grateful if this letter could be read into the report on facts.
Evidence not recorded fairly or accurately

21. In the time available, it has been extremely difficult for me to cross-check the content of the extract of
E the report on facts with the answers that I gave to the Sub-Committee. My difficulties have been compounded
by the fact that many of the numerical references to questions that I was asked by members of the Sub-
Committee seem to have been mistakenly referred to (see, for example, the reference to Q228 in line 4 of
paragraph 35, and the references to QQ 219 and 267 in line 12 of paragraph 37). Nonetheless, even in the
limited time available, I have been able to identify a number of summaries which I do not believe accurately
reflect the evidence that I gave.
F
22. The last sentence of paragraph 39 records my evidence as being that my sister-in-law was “scared” by the
journalist who approached her. I said that she was “startled” by the journalist.
23. The third sentence of paragraph 43 records the evidence as being either that my husband was unaware
of the Maidstone property, or that “in [my] interpretation clear that it was not in any way his”. My responses
G to Questions 42 and 43 were different. First, my evidence was that the question put to my husband by the
journalist seemed to be whether he had a flat in Kent. Secondly, I was unequivocal in saying that he would
have known of the flat.
24. The last line of paragraph 43 records that I said that my agreement with my husband was that I would
stay at Maidstone for one or two nights a week “for a break”. I also said that the agreement allowed me to
H prepare for the week ahead
25. The first sentence of paragraph 47 describes the furnishing of the flat as “furniture, curtains and
lampshades (QQ 64-76;152), some due to it having been the show flat…..”. That account does not reflect the
additional furnishings that I referred to such as the fully-equipped kitchen with a cooker, fridge, crockery and
pots and pans and also the dining table with four chairs. It also does not reflect my evidence that I kept clothes
J in a built in wardrobe and drawers.
26. The penultimate paragraph 47 describes my comment that there is nothing wrong with sleeping on a
mattress on the floor in a way which suggests that that is how I slept. That was not my evidence. I slept in the
bed in the main bedroom.
K 27. Paragraph 49 records Yvonne Adam’s evidence that there were white sheets covering the windows. I
categorically stated in evidence that this was not the case.
28. Paragraph 54 attempts to summarise my evidence as to why it is my belief that evidence referred to at
paragraphs 49 to 51 should be discounted. The penultimate sentence records my evidence as being that each
witness was biased against me to the point of being prepared to lie to the police. I have not suggested that any
L witness was “lying” to the Police or the Sunday Times journalists (the same point applies to paragraph 84).
29. What I said was that these witnesses appeared to have been asked leading questions by the Sunday Times
journalists going to whether or not I lived permanently at the Maidstone flat, and seeking to prove the
proposition that I did not which was put to them. That is what I was trying to explain, for example, in my
answer to Question 216.
A
30. Paragraph 54 also fails to accord due weight to the evidence that I gave as to exactly how much of my
flay Mr Ryan saw and, even from his own statement, how uncertain his recollection was. It also fails to give
due weight to the evidence that I gave as to why the explanations given by the neighbours as to the furnishing
of the flat were not correct.
31. Paragraph 55 records that neighbours and Mr Ryan had “earlier made similar, consistent observations B
to the journalists…..”. What paragraph 50 does not record is that the earlier questions by the journalists were
not asked in a neutral and open-minded way, but with a view to building an evidential case against me for the
purpose of their story. Those questions went to the irrelevant question as to whether I lived at the flat
permanently and exclusively. The fact of those questions then tainted the evidence that was given to the Police.
32. The final sentence of paragraph 67 says that the electricity usage in the flat is consistent with “a flat lightly C
occupied at weekends or with an unoccupied flat illuminated on a timer for part of the day”. My evidence was
that at no time did I ever use a security light whether on a timer or otherwise in the flat.
33. At paragraph 68, the extract records the evidence in relation to water usage. Contrary to what the
penultimate paragraph says, I believe that I was billed for simultaneous periods by more than one water
company and that this was shown by the bills. It is also undoubtedly the case that I have been sent bill for D
different addresses.
34. Paragraph 78, referring to the evidence of one anonymous witness and Mr Allcock concludes that “the
neighbours’ statements are consistent that Lady Uddin’s car was not seen at Maidstone until the weekend of
25–6 April”. I suggest that there is insufficient evidence, particularly in the light of my evidence about how I
parked, to make this assertion. E
35. I am quite sure that a fuller analysis of the extract would reveal numerous other inaccurate recordings of
evidence. It is certainly not my intention to trouble you and other members of the Sub-Committee with picky
comments about what witnesses did and did not say. But the Sub-Committee did have the benefit of testing
my evidence in person, which it did not of course have in relation to the other witnesses.
F
Requirements of the Code
36. You already have my comments as to why a timeframe of less than 48 hours in which to comment on the
extract from the report has been very difficult to comply with.
37. As I have said, I am also unclear as to the extent of Mr Mackersie’ authority in this matter. As I G
understand it, Mr Mackersie has been taking decisions as to the deadlines for responses, which of my
corrections, footnotes and comments should be recommended to the Sub-Committee for inclusion in the
record and what the assessment will be in relation to at least some areas of contested evidence. In relation to
the inclusion of my corrections, footnotes and comments, I refer to the content of Mr Mackersie’s letter to me
of 22 July and to the fact that those footnotes which he is recommending for non-inclusion relate in the whole H
to concerns I have as to procedure. In relation to assessments on contested evidence, I refer, for example, to
the comments in relation to water usage in the penultimate sentence of paragraph 64 of the extract.
38. Furthermore, in the final sentence of Mr Mackersie’s letter to me of 16 July, he said that the Committee
of Privileges was likely to set a date in the summer recess by which I would need to decide whether to appeal.
This does rather pre-suppose that the Sub-Committee concludes that the complaint against me is to be upheld, J
which is yet to be determined.
39. Further, my understanding of paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Code is that I am entitled to comment on all
of the parts of the report which deal with issues of fact. The Sub-Committee will come to its own conclusions
where there is any conflict in the evidence. Paragraph 28 specifically provides that if there remain significant
contested issues of fact, then it will agree its own account of the fact of the case. But, before it does so, my K
understanding is that I am entitled to have shared with me the Sub-Committee’s assessments of the evidence
so that I may have an adequate opportunity to comment.
40. Paragraph 25 of the Code provides that of a Member chooses 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”. L
41. At various stages during the hearing on 15 July, I sought to confer with my accompanying friend
Baroness McDonagh. At no stage did she seek to answer questions on my behalf. Yet members of the Sub-
Committee expressed disapproval at my conferring with her. My understanding is that this is expressly
permitted by paragraph 25 of the Code.
A
Request to withhold personal details
42. Finally, I am well aware that it is for the Committee for Privileges and Conduct to decide which parts of
the evidence should be made public.
43. Please may I crave the Committee’s indulgence on certain matters which are of a deeply personal nature
B and which it does not seem necessary to recount in detail in public.
44. First, please would the Committee feel able to remove references to my bathing arrangements? Secondly,
please would the Committee feel able to
C 45. These are all matters which I have been very willing to describe in private to the Sub-Committee, but
which would cause embarrassment in the community in which I live were they to be made public.
Conclusion
46. I very much hope that I have not troubled you unduly by writing to you direct. I wanted to set out clearly
D what has been troubling me in relation to procedural matters and the role of Mr Mackersie. I have also set out
my comments on the extract from the draft report on facts as best I can in the severely restricted time available
to me.
47. If there is any way in which I can assist the Sub-Committee further, do please let me know.
23 July 2010
E
Letter from the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct to Baroness Uddin
dated 24 July 2010
F Investigation by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct
I am replying to your letter dated 23 July, which the clerk of the Sub-Committee has forwarded to me. I shall
respond to each of the points in your letter, though not in the order in which you raised them.
Deadlines
G You are concerned that you have had less than 48 hours in which to comment on the draft account of the facts
provided to you by the clerk. If you would like to take longer to comment on the draft account of the facts,
you are welcome to do so and comment by the end of Wednesday 28 July. If you choose to do so, the only
consequence will be that the Sub-Committee will not report to the Clerk of the Parliaments before the summer
recess. I had understood that you, like the Sub-Committee, were keen that the process in the Sub-Committee
H was concluded before the summer recess.
Draft account of the facts

The Sub-Committee will take account in its report of a number of your comments on the account of the facts.
We will draw the particular attention of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct to the remainder of your
J letter.
Personal details
I will consult the Sub-Committee on your request that we leave out from our report the personal details
referred to in your letter. I am sympathetic to your request to reduce the references to your children and we
K shall try to do so. My recommendation will though be that the other details should be included in our report
to the Clerk of the Parliaments. It will then be a matter for the Committee for Privileges and Conduct to decide
whether any of these details should be redacted in the final report to the House.
Transcript corrections and additions

L At our meeting on Thursday, the clerk drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to all of the corrections and
footnotes you were suggesting to the transcript. The Sub-Committee agreed that you may not generally correct
the text recorded by the shorthand writer but that you may suggest additions or corrections in footnotes. The
Sub-Committee also agreed that footnotes to the transcript were the wrong place for you to make serious
allegations about the fairness of the process. You are entitled to make those points, but your letter to me (or
a letter to the Chairman of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct) is the right place to make them.
A
Procedural fairness
You make three points about procedural fairness: i) the timetable set for your written response to the draft
account of the facts; ii) the limited conferral you were allowed with your friend during the oral evidence
session; and iii) the role of the clerk. I have addressed (i) above: you are welcome to take more time over your
response to the draft account of the facts. (ii) is a point to raise on appeal, if the Sub-Committee find against B
you. My recollection of the evidence session is that your friend passed you a significant number of notes during
the session. You could have requested an adjournment to confer at any stage. As to (iii), the clerk has no
authority to act other than on the Sub-Committee’s instruction. As far as I am aware, he has acted throughout
in accordance with our instructions. I have seen all of your correspondence with the clerk. If you have any
further criticism of the clerk, please make it to me directly in writing at the House of Lords.
C
24 July 2010
Letter from Baroness Uddin to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct
dated 26 July 2010
Members’ reimbursement scheme D
Draft report: facts
Thank you for you letter of 24 July. I was very grateful to you for replying so quickly.
I am keen for the matter to be determined before the summer recess and I would not want to take any action
which would delay the matter until the autumn. Indeed any further delay would be an intolerable burden on E
the well being of my family.
You already have detailed comments from me in relation to the extract from the draft report on facts. My only
further comment in relation to the evidence and procedure is about the circumstances in which the evidence
gathered by the Sunday Times journalists and the Police was obtained.
The questions put to my neighbours in Maidstone were along the lines of “Does Baroness Uddin live in the F
Maidstone flat?”. They were, for journalistic purposes, seeking to prove that I did not live exclusively at the
Maidstone flat and asked leading questions, seeking to elicit a particular response. In fact, the question posed
by the journalists is different from the question of whether I was entitled to designate the Maidstone flat as
my main residence.
I respectfully submit to the Sub-Committee that the evidence obtained by the Sunday Times journalists is G
unreliable and should be discounted.
What then happened is that the Police interviewed many of the same people who had been interviewed by the
Sunday Times journalists. I respectfully submit that the evidence obtained by the Police from the very same
witnesses is necessarily tainted by the questions that they had already been asked, and the suggestions made,
by the Sunday Times journalists. The recollections expressed to the Police will undoubtedly have been H
influenced by the witnesses’ previous discussions with the Sunday Times journalists.
I submit to the Sub-Committee that the evidence obtained by the Police should also be discounted because it
is unreliable and improperly influenced.
I very much appreciate your due consideration with regards to my children and my personal circumstances.
I would be very grateful if the Sub-Committee would take these additional comments into consideration. I J
shall not be submitting any further comments before the Sub-Committee undertakes its deliberations.
26 July 2010
L
A
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
AND CONDUCT
Letter from Christopher Johnson, Clerk of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct,
B to Baroness Uddin, dated 21 September 2010

Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the report of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, following its
investigation into the complaint against you. Also enclosed is a copy of the accompanying evidence. The
C purpose of this letter is to notify you of your right to appeal against the Sub-Committee’s findings, and to
explain how any such appeal would be conducted.
As you know, the Sub-Committee’s investigation was conducted in accordance with the Code of Conduct,
agreed by the House in 2001, and the procedure described in the 4th Report of the Committee for Privileges
of 2007–08 (“the 4th Report”), which was agreed by the House in December 2008. I draw your attention in
D particular to the following paragraphs:
Appeal to the Committee for Privileges

1. Paragraph 19(e) of the [2001] Code of Conduct states that “If after investigation the Sub-Committee finds
E the allegation proved, the Member complained against has a right of appeal to the Committee for Privileges”.
To give the Member an opportunity to make such an appeal, at the same time as the Sub-Committee’s report
is forwarded to the Chairman of the Committee for Privileges, the Registrar will give the Member concerned
a copy, indicating at the same time the deadline by which an appeal should be made . . ..
2. If the Member decides to make an appeal, he or she should do so in writing, setting out the grounds for the
F appeal, and enclosing such supporting material as the Member thinks appropriate. The Committee will then
meet to hear the appeal, and in so doing it will have before it the Sub-Committee’s report, along with any
annexes, and the Member’s written appeal. As a courtesy, the Member will be given an opportunity to appear
in person, if he or she so wishes.
3. The Committee will not normally reopen the Sub-Committee’s investigation. Rather the Members of the
G Committee will use their judgment to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, they endorse the
conclusions of the Sub-Committee.
It is thus your right to appeal against the Sub-Committee’s findings. If you choose to exercise this right, you
should submit your appeal in writing (if possible, also by email) to me not later than noon on Tuesday 5
October. In so doing you should set out the grounds for your appeal in full, and may enclose such supporting
H material as you think appropriate. However, when deciding on the scope and terms of any appeal, you should
bear in mind the wording of paragraph 35 above.
Whether or not you decide to appeal the Sub-Committee’s findings, you are of course free to comment on the
Sub-Committee’s recommended sanction, for instance by drawing attention to any relevant mitigating factors.
J I also note that in earlier correspondence with the Sub-Committee you requested that certain material be
redacted from the evidence and report; the Sub-Committee did not accede to your request, and left the final
decision on this to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. If you wish to pursue the question of redaction,
I suggest that you include it in any appeal.
K The Committee for Privileges and Conduct will consider the Sub-Committee’s Report, along with any appeal
which has been lodged, at a meeting starting at 3.30 pm on Monday 11 October.
Paragraph 34 of the 4th Report, quoted above, states that any Member who decides to make an appeal is “as
a courtesy . . . given the opportunity to appear in person, if he or she so wishes”. I would therefore be grateful
if, at the same time as you notify me of your decision whether or not to appeal, you could also let me know if
L you wish to appear in person before the Committee. I will then contact you to confirm detailed arrangements.
If you do exercise your right to appear in person, you will first be invited to make an oral statement, and this
may be followed by brief questions for clarification. However, the Committee will not seek to reopen the Sub-
Committee’s investigation by means of detailed questioning. You may also wish to address the Committee on
the matter of redaction.
A
The meeting will be held in private, but a verbatim transcript will be taken, and will be published as evidence.
In accordance with paragraph 25 of the 4th Report, you may bring a friend or adviser to the meeting; this
person may sit next to you, and you may consult him or her in the course of the meeting. However, you will
be expected to speak and answer any questions for yourself. I should point out that under Standing Order 66
Select Committees cannot “hear parties by Counsel unless so authorised by Order of the House”.
B
Members of the Sub-Committee who also sit on the Select Committee (that is to say, Baroness Manningham-
Buller and Lord Irvine of Lairg) will take no part either in considering the Sub-Committee’s Report or hearing
any appeal.
Once the Committee has considered the Sub-Committee’s report and heard any appeal, all the relevant
documents will be published as a Report, with recommendations, by the Committee for Privileges and C
Conduct. The Report will be published as soon as possible after the meeting on 11 October. Any final decision
will be for the House as a whole when it comes to consider the Report.
The Report and all evidence submitted to the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct are privileged, and must
remain confidential until such time as the Committee publishes them. I draw your particular attention to D
paragraphs 15 and 16 of the 4th Report, concerning privilege and contempt of the House, particularly in
relation to disclosure before publication.
If you have any questions regarding the procedure that will be followed by the Committee for Privileges and
Conduct, please don’t hesitate to contact me. My email address and telephone number are given above; if I
do not answer my telephone, email, rather than voicemail, is normally the best way to reach me. E
21 September 2010
Letter from Baroness Uddin to Michael Pownall, Clerk of the Parliaments, dated 5 October 2010
F
Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct
I wish to appeal against the findings made against me in the Report of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct.
I enclose my grounds of appeal together with a statement prepared by Baroness McDonagh, who accompanied G
me when my evidence was taken. Bearing in mind the time available to me for the submission of my appeal
documents, the accompanying statement prepared by Baroness McDonagh is as yet unsigned. I propose to
give you a signed copy of the statement as soon as it is available.
I wish to attend at the meeting on 11 October and would be grateful if you could let me know the arrangements.
I may also wish to be accompanied by a friend or adviser. H
5 October 2010
Appeal submitted by Baroness Uddin, dated 5 October 2010

J
Introduction1
1. This is the written appeal of Baroness Uddin to the Committee for Privileges against the findings made
against her in the Report of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct in this matter (“the Report/“R”).
2. This written Appeal has been prepared by Baroness Uddin’s lawyers acting on her instructions. For this K
reason it refers to Baroness Uddin in the third person.
The complaint
3. The matter came before the Sub-Committee by way of a complaint by Mr Angus Robertson MP dated 3 L
May 2009 (R4). Mr Robertson’s complaint was prompted by the Sunday Times article Labour Peer Baroness
Uddin claims £100,000 expenses on empty flat [p.44]. The complaint asks the Registrar of Members Interests
to investigate whether an offence has been committed. . .[p.45].
1 This document makes references to the printed evidence in the same way as in the Sub-Committee’s Report; eg “p.16E” and “Q114”.
References to paragraphs in the Sub-Committee’s Report are given as, eg, “R44”.
A
4. The background to the complaint was the media frenzy, and consequent public outrage, over MPs’
allowance claims. Details of these were being leaked to media organisations which were publishing stories,
often about the designation by MPs of their main/second homes for the purposes of the rules for members’
allowances.2
B 5. Investigation of the complaint by the Clerk of the Parliaments was delayed by investigations into alleged
misuse of Parliamentary expenses by a joint Metropolitan Police (“MPS”) / Crown Prosecution Service panel
(“CPS”) [p.54F]. On 7 July 2009 MPS commenced an investigation into the allegations against Baroness
Uddin [p.56L].
6. On 12 March 2010 the CPS announced that it did not intend to bring criminal charges against Baroness
C Uddin [p.56L]. On the same day the Clerk of the Parliaments referred the complaint to the Sub-Committee in
order for it to investigate and determine the facts [p.57C].
The procedural approach of the Sub-Committee

7. Though the complaint was not about a breach of the Code of Conduct the Sub-Committee applied the
D procedure in the fourth Report of the Committee on Privileges of session 2007-08 [p.57L; R13]. The Report
on Procedure indicates at paragraph 25 that the Member has the right to procedures as rigorous as those applied
in the courts and professional disciplinary bodies. In a conduct case paragraph 26 of the Report on procedure
specifies that In order to find against a member, the Sub-Committee requires at least that the allegation is
proved on the balance of probabilities. These points will be returned to below. It is to be noted that the Report
does not state when (ie in what type of case) the Sub-Committee will require proof to a higher standard (see
E the words at least).
8. Baroness Uddin was examined by the Sub-Committee on 15 July 2010 [p.165].
The Report
F 9. The Report of the Sub-Committee was not sent to Baroness Uddin until 21 September 2010 (though she
had an opportunity to comment on a draft of the findings of fact).3 She has been required to submit this
written document, by way of appeal, by 5 October 2010.
10. Baroness Uddin wishes to record her concern that she was expected to prepare this appeal in just eight
working days, when it has taken nearly sixteen months for this matter to progress from the complaint to service
G of the Report on her and over two months to progress from the giving of the oral evidence to the service of
the same. Eight working days is an unnecessarily short period of time in which to consider the Report and
prepare this important document. She and those assisting her have done their best in the limited time allowed.
However she considers this aspect of the procedure to have been unfair.
The reasoning and conclusions of the Sub-Committee

H
11. The Sub–Committee considered transcripts of interviews conducted by Sunday Times journalists in
investigating the story. It also considered the statements given to the police in the course of their investigation.
12. The Sub-Committee considered, first, Baroness Uddin’s designation of her brother’s home in Frinton on
Sea, Essex as her main residence from 3 May 2005 to 31 July 2005 (“Period 1”). Then it considered her
J designation of a flat which she had purchased at No 3, The Chenies in Maidstone, Kent as her main residence
between 1 August 2005 to 24 April 2009 (upon which date she was approached about the story by the Sunday
Times) (“Period 2”). The occupancy of The Chenies, a purpose built block of flats is illustrated in a diagram
at R para 44. Lastly it considered her continued designation of that property from the Sunday Times
investigation to 31 December (“Period 3”).
K 13. The three issues considered by the Sub-Committee are set out at R86, namely:
(a) Whether Lady Uddin’s designations of these two properties during the relevant periods met the
criteria for a main residence endorsed by the House Committee on 26 January 2010;4
(b) Whether she correctly claimed for travel to and from those main residences;
2 Most prominently in February 2009 the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was attacked in the press for designating her main home as her
L second home while living with her sister; on 23 March 2009 the Kelly inquiry into claims for Additional Cost Allowance by MPs was
announced; also in March Home Office Minister Tony McNulty was attacked for claiming allowance for second home 8 miles from
his main home in London. On 8 May 2009 the Daily Telegraph began its blanket coverage of leaked details of MPs expenses.
3 R20.
4 Laying down a minimum threshold of one weekend visit per month when the House was sitting and for periods during recesses. These
factors would be considered along with others in deciding whether a designation was valid. A property occupied by a relative other
than a spouse or partner could in specific circumstances be a main residence. See R87.
A
(c) If there was a wrong designation—had she acted in good faith in making her designations and
travel claims?
14. The Sub-Committee concluded:
(a) In respect of period 1, the circumstances of the designation of the Frinton address might have been
“specific circumstances” for the purposes of the House Committee’s criteria as per footnote 3 below B
[R97]. But Lady Uddin’s “occasional weekends” at her brother’s house to escape marital difficulties
in London prevented the property acquiring the character of a “main residence” [R99];
(b) In respect of period 2, that Lady Uddin gave “deliberately misleading” evidence to the Sub-
Committee as to the frequency of her visits to Maidstone [R103/104]. It considered that it could give
weight to untested evidence in written police statements from neighbours as to: C
— The extent to which her flat was furnished;

— Her water usage;
— Her and her car’s visibility at Maidstone. D
Relying on these police statements the Sub-Committee concluded that these statements proved
well beyond the balance of probabilities,5 that Lady Uddin in this period did not stay at the
Maidstone property for the minimum of one weekend a month when the House was sitting. The
property was therefore wrongly designated [R104/105]. .
(c) Period 3: The Sub-Committee found that in this period Lady Uddin stayed in the Maidstone flat at E
least one weekend a month. Her increased visits were, however, only an attempt to suggest that the
property was and had been her main residence since 2005. It did not therefore acquire the character of
a “main residence” [R107].
15. The Sub-Committee’s consequential conclusions were that Baroness Uddin:
F
(a) had wrongly claimed £121,139.50 in night subsistence over the three periods [R108];
(b) had wrongly claimed £4209.60 in travel allowance over the three periods [R110];
(c) in continuing to designate the two properties as her main residence when she stayed only “occasional
weekends” (period 1) and less than one weekend a month when the House was sitting (period 2) had
engaged in a deliberate misrepresentation of her position even on the basis of her understanding of the G
scheme [R117]. She had also put in false travel claims to give the impression that she was staying at
the properties more often than she was [R119].
16. The Sub-Committee recommended that the House sanction Lady Uddin by requiring her to make a
personal statement of apology to the House and thereafter suspending her from the service of the House for
three years or until she has repaid the sum of £125,349.10 wrongly claimed whichever is the later. H
The ambit of this appeal

17. Paragraph 35 of the Fourth Report from the Committee for Privileges, in providing for this appeal,
indicates that:. J
. . .The Committee will not normally reopen the Sub-Committee’s investigation. Rather the members of the
Committee will use their judgment to decide whether, on a balance of probabilities they endorse the
conclusions of the Sub-Committee. . .
The Members Reimbursement Allowance Scheme K

18. The history, and relevant terms of, this scheme are dealt with at R22-33. The resolution of 25 July 1991
dealing with travelling expenses allows recovery of expenses, amongst other things, certified by the member
as incurred in staying overnight away from their only or main residence where it is necessary to do so in order to
attend at sittings of the House [R para 24].
L
19. Para 4.2.1 of the 2005 edition of the accompanying General Guide provided a working principle for
determining when this would be regarded as necessary (a journey of over five miles from the main home to
Westminster was required).
5 Though not, it should be noted, beyond reasonable doubt; or so that they were “sure” which is the standard of proof applied in
criminal cases.
A
20. Para 4.2.2 provides simply:
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. . ..
B 21. Baroness Pitkeathley gave a statement to the police in the investigation into Baroness Uddin. This is dated
6 October 2009. She concluded In my opinion, the rules on what constituted a main residence are not very clear
and liable to different interpretation.
22. There was no guidance at all on the two words main residence during the period of this case [R33].
23. However on 26 January 2010 the Clerk of the Parliaments explained to the House Committee a difficulty
C he was having in determining allegations about Members past use of the Reimbursement Scheme. He
explained:
. . .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. . . [R87 emphasis added].
He asked the House Committee to endorse the criteria set out R87 and summarised at footnote 3 above for
D use in the determination of such allegations. These criteria were not, however, in place during the years with
which this case is concerned. The concept of a “main residence” was entirely undefined for the purposes of the
scheme during those years.
Baroness Uddin’s case before the Sub-Committee

E 24. This is clear from her letter to the Registrar of Lord’s interests dated 7 April 2010 [p.60]; the accompanying
statement of the same date [p.61]; her letter to Baroness Manningham-Buller [p.66]; her oral evidence to the
Sub-Committee. In summary:
Frinton
F (a) From 2001 she was spending weekends at her brother’s house in Frinton, Essex, as an escape from
problems in her marriage [p.61K; p.188 Q275]. She was advised by her Chief Whip to re-designate
her main residence from the flat in Windsor she had been renting for this purpose [p.66J].6
Maidstone
G (b) In 2005 she bought the flat at 3 The Chenies in Maidstone and used it to stay in overnight at least
once a week including during periods when the House was in recess [p.61L; p.170 Q84]. Her stays
could be during the week and/or at weekends [p.66K]. They could be one or two nights a week [p.184
Q227]. When she asked fellow Peers about her designation of this property as her main residence she
was told that it was in accordance with the rules [p.66K].
H (c) Her stays at Maidstone did not follow a pattern (were “unpredictable”) and were often at unsocial
hours. She would arrive late at night and leave early in the morning [p.175 Q144].
(d) She frequently took her second (adult) son with her [p.171 Q98].
(e) She had only limited contact with neighbours in Maidstone [p.62B].
(f) She did make the trips to Maidstone for which she claimed travel allowance between 1 August 2005
J and 24 April 2009 [p.169 Q51].
(g) The living / kitchen room in the Maidstone flat was furnished and had curtains/blinds [p.169 Q64, 65,
68]. In the smaller of the two bedrooms which faced the street there was a very low bed, like a
mattress. . . a bedside table with a radio [p.169 Q66, Q72, Q74]. There was a built-in wardrobe, a
cupboard and a small chest of drawers in the larger bedroom [p.169 Q176]. She did not want it to be
K anything other than basically furnished and this was absolutely to her satisfaction. For instance there
is absolutely nothing wrong with sleeping on the floor with a mattress. . . [p.183 Q216].
General
(h) She understood it was up to her which property she designated as her main residence so long as she
L considered it a home [p.62C; p.189 Q284, Q285].
(i) It was made clear to her by my Chief Whip and my colleagues that if I was staying at weekends in a
place that could be determined to be my home that I was then able to claim overnight expenses. . . [p.184
Q225]. See to the same effect [p.185 Q230].
6 See also Baroness Uddin’s second statement to the police at p.163D.
A
(j) She regarded both her London address and Maidstone as homes [p.170 Q88].
(k) She owns a BMW. Before that she owned a Honda [p.187 Q249].
In her evidence before the Sub-Committee Baroness Uddin alleged bias in the witness evidence
(l)
against her—see eg p.177 Q157 (Yvonne Adams); p.178 Q160 (Matthew Hollis); p.181 Q200
(Mark Ryan). B
The Sunday Times interviews [p.68F–101]

With the neighbours [p.70-86]
25. Misleadingly, the journalists’ approach was to suggest that someone was supposed to be living in the flat.
They also suggested the answers they wanted. Adverse assumptions by the residents are also apparent from C
these transcripts, no doubt based on the media coverage of the MP’s expenses “scandal”. For example:
p.70E
Ms Newell: . . .I was just looking for the person that lives in number 3. . .
Mr Hollis: I don’t think anyone does live there. I’ve never seen anyone in there D
Ms Newell: There’s an Asian woman called Manzila Uddin, who says that’s her main residence. But you
haven’t come across her?. . .
p.71H
Mr Calvert: We’re doing a story about a woman called Baroness Uddin . . .She claims she’s be living here
for the last four years, in that flat there. . . E
p.72D-L
Mr Calvert: She actually lives in Tower Hamlets, in London, and has lived there, the same place, since 1993,
but claims this is her main residence, because it means she can live outside London and claim and allowance
Mrs Adams: Yeah there’s a lot of this going on isn’t there?. . . F
Mr Calvert: You are bound to know whether you’ve got an empty flat next to you aren’t you?. . .
Mrs Adams: . . .That’s so bloody greedy isn’t it?
p.74F
Mr Calvert: We’re trying to find the person who supposedly lives there but she doesn’t seem to be there at G
all. . .
There is no record of what was said to Mr Allcock at the start of his first or second interview [p.74F; 75F].
p.77D
Mr Calvert: I think she’s pretending she lives in there. Because it helps her. . .
H
p.77D and L:
Mr Allcock: . . .If I’d known I’d have been out and got my photography equipment.
Mr Calvert: I know, what we’d love to do is catch them putting all the furniture. . .
Mr Allcock: How rife is this? You do read it in the papers and everything. Perhaps I’m in the wrong job. I
should have been doing something else. Perhaps I’m missing out. . .. J
p.80D-F.
Ms Newell: . . .We were just looking for the people that live in number 3. Do you know if anyone is living
there?
Mr Dunn: Haven’t got a clue, sorry. . . K
Mr Calvert: We’re journalists from the Sunday Times and that flat there somebody claims is there main
residence. So everyone else in the building tells us they’ve never seen anybody in there.
Mr Dunn: Right
Mr Calvert: In fact if you agree we’ve got a full house. . ..
L
p.81B
Ms Calvert: . . .I actually work for the Sunday Times . . .but there’s a woman called Baroness Uddin who
says that is her main residence and she is claiming £30,000 a year. . .
p.81J-l
A
Ms Newell: . . .I’m actually from the Sunday Times. . ., a journalist. And we’re writing a story about, well,
a woman who claims she lives in number 3. She’s actually a woman called Baroness Uddin. She says number
3 is her main residence. . .
Mr Calvert: What everyone tells us about this place is that they can’t remember anyone ever living in
B there. . .
p.82D
Ms Newell: It was totally empty, that’s what the neighbours say, which is surprising if someone says they’re
living there as their main residence, but obviously if there was no bed
Ms Storey: Yeah. . .No I mean, I have no idea when the curtains went up. I’ve never seen anyone in there.
C Ever, ever, ever. . ..
26. When the journalists received answers they did not want to hear they were plainly regarded as unwelcome
and were not pursued. See Mr Dunn above. See also eg:
p.82F-J:
D Ms Storey: My friend who lives opposite her said that there’s an Indian couple. . ..
Ms Calvert: Yes we’ve talked to Yvonne
Ms Storey: . . .an Indian couple who lived there. Because I actually asked her. . .
Ms Newell: Who lives there?
E Ms Storey: In this flat. . .
Ms Storey: Yeah exactly and that’s why I asked Yvonne. But she said that she’d seen an Indian couple there
a couple of times but it is not their permanent residence. . .
Mr Newell: Yeah that’s interesting. Just so you know the, if your friend’s still interested, that bottom one
F is up for rent. . .
p.83G
Mr Brown: Yeah well I think someone came here occasionally and stayed for perhaps a weekend. . .
Ms Newell: But sometimes you saw people come and go did you?
G Mr Brown: Yeah but nothing over the long term really
Ms Newell: No, I see what you mean. . .7
p.83L-84A
Ms Newell: But as far as you know you never really saw anybody for more than a couple of hours or so?
H Mr Brown: Yeah. . .
Ms Newell: OK, but you thought it was empty did you, the flat?
p.85L
Mr Rahman: Uddin is she still here? I didn’t know. I thought she lived in London always.
J Mr Calvert: Well, she owns this flat here and she should be living there. . .
With Mr Ryan the plumber.

27. This hardly starts in the most auspicious fashion. There is no recording of the initial discussion. This
apparently includes some discussion about Mr Ryan’s slightly uncertain agreement that the people he met in
K the flat said they were just moving back in. . .[p.87G]. This is clear because there is no reference to this earlier
in the transcript. Then:
p.86J
Mr Ryan: So what do I get out of this then?
L 28. He was an inconsistent and unreliable interviewee. He started by saying that someone had basically just
left all of their junk behind [p.87A] but then said he did not know what sort of junk and explained I didn’t pay
much attention. . .[p.87C]. He quickly went round [p.87E].
29. He was cut off when trying to qualify his statement that they said they were moving back in [p.87G].
7 Mr Brown’s meaning is more obviously rather unclear and worthy of further questioning.
A
30. As with other witnesses the conversation was quickly moved on with (with a leading question) when the
answer was helpful to Baroness Uddin:
p.87K
Mr Ryan: . . .there might have been a couch but I didn’t pay no attention.
Mr Pollard: It didn’t look like a family home? B
Mr Ryan: No definitely not. . ..
With Baroness Uddin’s husband

31. The following question and answer in this telephone interview exemplifies the slanted approach of the C
journalists.8
p.88L
Mr Calvert: . . .Am I also right in thinking you have a place down in Kent?
Mr Uddin: Sorry?
D
Mr Calvert: Do you have a place in Kent?. . .
Mr Uddin: No. . .
With Baroness Uddin’s sister in law (Toni Hayhow Khan)

32. Ms Newell suggested first that Baroness Uddin may have lived at the address before the Khan family E
[p.93G]. Then she asked Has she ever lived here? To this Ms Khan replied Not that I can recall. Then Ms Newell
suggested that Baroness Uddin may have claimed ownership of the property [p.93L]. In response to this rather
confused observation Ms Khan said:
. . .Well it’s a mystery to me.
F
Ms Newell then asks a leading question which does not follow from the previous answer.
Ms Newell: So she’s never lived with you?
This question is never answered or commented on by Ms Khan, apparently for the very good reason that she
resented being door stepped and asked questions about her private life [p.94K]. This did not prevent Ms
Newell from representing to a next door neighbour of the Khans that Yesterday I spoke to Toni and she said, G
look we live here, I don’t recall her ever having lived here. . .[p.97F].
The police statements [p.120-

33. These only relate to Maidstone, not Frinton. They contain positive9 evidence that:
(a) There was a light on in the hallway of the Maidstone flat for months [Mr Revell p.120E; Mr Allcock H
p.123K].
(b) Since the Sunday Times put the story to Baroness Uddin a number of witnesses had seen Baroness
Uddin/the large black car at the flat carrying items in [p.121E-G (Sarah Dunn); p.122L (Mr Hollis);
p.123L-124E (Mr Allcock)].
J
(c) The right hand bedroom was apparently devoid of furniture when seen from outside [Mr Allcock
p.123J]. See also Mrs Revell at p.127F.
(d) Five or six Indians, looking like a family came in to air the flat every few weeks [Ms Adams p128B].10
(e) Occasionally mail protruded from the letter box of No 3 [p.128D].
34. The witnesses contradict each other: K
(a) Contrast the light which was on for months (above) and Ms Fox’s lights on timers [p.129K] with Ms
Constable’s assertion that she has never seen any lights on the flat which would be visible from the road
when we arrive or leave home at p.122L).
(b) Ms Adams says there were sheets over the windows which fell down [p.128E]. Others saw net curtains
[p.120D] or nothing at all [p.123G]. L
8 Nb Mr Calvert apparently knows that Baroness Uddin owns the flat in Madistone. See p.99L. He would presumably have established
this through a Land Registry search at the outset of his investigation.
9 As opposed to assertions as to things people did not see/hear, were not the case etc. For example Mr Hollis says he knows no one has
lived in the flat before the last few months because he has heard banging around in flat 3 below during this period [p.121L].
10 NB none of the other neighbours saw anything like this.
A
(c) Mrs Adams said she could see all the way to the back of the flat [p.128F]. No one else claimed to be
able to do this. Although it is unclear this paragraph in her police statement seems to be saying that
there was not furniture at all in the flat.
35. They also seem to contradict themselves as against their Sunday Times interviews eg:
B (a) Mr Hollis who thought an Indian guy lived in the flat in his first Sunday Times interview [p.70L] but
by the time of his police interview could categorically say that no one had occupied the flat [p.122E].
(b) When Mr Allcock was interviewed by the Sunday Times he said there was absolutely nothing in either
of the bedrooms, not even a bed [Mr Allcock p.76K]. Yet he only referred to the right hand bedroom
in his police statement.
C (c) When asked by Mr Calvert whether she was saying there was no furniture at all in the whole flat, Ms
Adams said I don’t know p.84 G].
36. Mr Ryan’s police statement is again a little uncertain on the suggestion that the people he met at the flat
said (in this version) that they were thinking of moving back in. . .[p.125F].
D The Sub-Committee’s reasoning on the facts
The “unfurnished flat”

37. The Sub-Committee misrepresents the evidence against Baroness Uddin in suggesting her neighbours and
others. . .state that the flat was unfurnished [R49]. It is not apparent who the others are as only one other (Mr
E Ryan) is cited but only Ms Adams suggested to the police that she could see the whole of the flat from the
front. But her statement is not clear as to whether she is saying she could see there was no furniture anywhere
in the flat. Also she suggested to Mr Calvert that she could not say this. See above. Mr Brown’s view through
the letter box [R50] was self-evidently not a view of the whole flat. If he was claiming to be able to see into the
kitchen / living room area to the right or the bedrooms to the left he was claiming the ability to see round
corners through a letter box [see Mr Ryan’s diagram at p.167].
F
38. The Sub-Committee’s reliance on Mr Ryan’s evidence in support of this proposition, at R52, is selective.
He told Mr Pollard, for example, that there was a cabinet, a unit in the living room and that there might have
been a couch [p.87C, D, L].
Occupancy
G
39. None of the positive pieces of evidence referred to above are inconsistent with Lady Uddin’s account of
quiet occupation of the Maidstone flat, sometimes with her adult son, at weekends. The Sub-Committee
therefore placed emphasis on the fact that neighbours’ police witness statements indicated that they did not
see/hear Lady Uddin in the flat during Period 2. See R60/61. But this evidence, even if accepted, is again not
inconsistent with Lady Uddin’s account of her occupancy. The Sub-Committee also relied on the fact that
H some washing had fallen onto her rear balcony from a flat above and had remained there. Yet Lady Uddin
had made clear to the Sub-Committee that she had not seen this. She did not go out onto the balcony and if
you just open the first couple of doors . . .then you would not necessarily see [p.178 Q160].
40. The Sub-Committee correctly understood that the electricity usage at the Maidstone Flat was consistent
with light occupancy at weekends [R67].
J 41. The Sub-Committee appears also to have placed some reliance on the witness statement of Hazel Wallis
of South East Water [p.148]. This suggests approximate average usages of water per month for the flat in the
first two years of between 0.17—0.38 cubic meters. There was then a period when no usage at all was recorded
by the water meter (23.8.07—9.6.08). Then a period of approximate average usage per month of 0.83 cubic
meters (9.6.08—10.12.08). Then another period of no usage at all being recorded whereupon the meter was
K replaced by South East Water because it was suspected that it had stopped working [p.148H]. The Sub-
Committee compared this evidence, without comment, with average person usage figures taken from the South
East Water Limited annual report and accounts for the years ended 31 March 2008 [R69]. These suggest an
average for a low usage person is 0.85 cubic meters in a month.
42. This approach is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. The figures obtained by the Sub-Committee are
L averages. They are presumably therefore based on figures obtained from all of the company’s users—ie
including those who bath (which uses a lot of water) rather than shower, as Lady Uddin did when at the flat.
Lady Uddin was not asked by the Sub-Committee in any detail about her water usage at the flat. See p.172
Qu 120-122. In order to decide whether the metered water readings for the flat, when the meter was working,
were consistent with Lady Uddin’s actual usage when there expert evidence would be required. An expert
would need a detailed account of the Baroness’ pattern of usage when in the flat. How long did she shower
A
for and how often? The likely usage would have to be assessed by reference to the appliances in the flat. For
example “power showers” use more water than ordinary showers. What was the cubic capacity of the toilet
cistern? How often did she refill the kettle etc, etc? The Sub-Committee was not in a position to do any of this.
Other reasons why Ms Wallis’ statement should not be relied upon were discussed in the Sub-Committee
meeting. The long periods of blank readings are inherently unlikely to be correct and have to be disregarded
in light of the suspected fault in the meter. Lady Uddin had received water bills which corresponded to the B
same period, from more than one company [p.173 Q131; p.172 Q133]. Indeed she described a history of chaotic
billing by the water companies [p.174 Q141].
43. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Hazel Wallis’ statement was ignored altogether by the Sub-
Committee. She testifies that the water meter recorded five cubic meters of usage in the six months between 9
June 2008 and 10 December 2008 [p.148G]. This equates to 0.83 cubic meters per month. This is in turn South C
East Water’s average figure for a low usage person. This shows that the flat clearly was being occupied during
this period and suggests that the usage equated to that of full time occupant but low user of water. If this is so
how could the Sub-Committee reject Lady Uddin’s account of her weekend occupancy during this period?
Moreover does this not demonstrate that it was possible for Lady Uddin to visit the flat as she explained to
the Sub-Committee and not, if their evidence is accepted, be noticed by those neighbours who said D
categorically that no one had ever lived in the flat (see eg Ms Adams at p.128D)? This is not a six month period
during the early years of Lady Uddin’s ownership of the flat. On the contrary, it ended only four months before
the neighbours were questioned in April 2009 by the Sunday Times reporters. So their inability to recall anyone
in the flat cannot be explained by passage of time and fading memories.
Lady Uddin’s cars E
44. At R71-78 the Sub-Committee considers the neighbour evidence that they did not see Lady Uddin’s cars
at the property. These were “sport utility vehicles” namely a Honda (2003—2008) and a BMW after May 2008.
The neighbours did see the BMW after the Sunday Times journalists had been down and interviewed them.
But they were looking out for it then. The primary basis on which it is concluded that they ought to have
noticed her cars before then is apparently that they are “large” [R72]. But there are many large cars and they F
are, in general, no longer noteworthy. There was no evidence as to how many similar types of cars there were
in the vicinity over the years in question. The more there were, the less likely it was than the neighbours would
have noticed the Baroness’ car. The fact that the neighbours could not remember such a car being in the correct
bay (bay 8) in the parking area is not weighty evidence. There was clearly confusion about the bays, Lady
Uddin was not there during the week and this was not the only place she could park [p.186 Q246]. G
Grounds of appeal
The Maidstone property

45. However translated into the language of the House, this part of the case is about whether Lady Uddin H
committed a serious criminal offence in falsely representing to the House that she spent enough time at her
Maidstone flat for it to qualify as her “main residence” within the meaning of the Reimbursement scheme, and
claiming allowances on this basis. This was the original complaint. The Director of Public Prosecutions looked
at exactly the same police statements which the Sub-Committee considered and decided not to prosecute,
applying the evidential test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, namely is there:
J
. . .sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. . .?
As the Code itself points out this is a different (ie lower) test than that applied in the Magistrates Court or
Crown court in determining guilt. See para 4.6 which states:
A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test based solely upon the prosecutor’s assessment of the
evidence and any information that he or she has about the defence that might be put forward by the suspect. K
It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case
alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the
defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must
apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.
Baroness Uddin contends that the Director’s evidence was correct. It is indeed unlikely that a reasonable L
criminal tribunal would convict her on this evidence.
46. The statement in the Report on procedure that the Member has the right to procedures as rigorous as those
applied in the courts and disciplinary bodies was plainly not respected in this case. There was no clear
formulation of a case the Member had to meet when she gave her evidence. She was not entitled to be legally
A
represented. Although her oral evidence was tested at length in questioning by the Sub-Committee she was not
given the opportunity to challenge the contentious witnesses of fact against her. Nor did the Sub-Committee
do so. Although searching questions were asked of Lady Uddin by the Sub-Committee to test her account of
events, the Sub-Committee did not test the evidence of any of the witnesses against her by asking them such
questions. This is self-evidently unfair.
B
47. It is no answer to this unfairness to say “but there are a number of them” as the Sub-Committee has done.
These basic rights would have been respected in either a court or a disciplinary tribunal, trying the issues in
this case, however many witnesses there were against the defendant.
48. These procedural rights are especially important in this case because of the background, the apparent bias
C of some of the witnesses against Parliamentarians making expense claims, the vague and unreliable nature of
some of their evidence and the gravity of the potential sanction and damage to the Baroness’ reputation.
49. Contrary to the Sub-Committee’s view, it is open to Lady Uddin to suggest that some of the neighbour
witnesses were subtly influenced against her by the initial questioning of the Sunday Times reporters. She can
D also fairly complain that they may have been influenced in what they said to the police by everything that had
happened up until then. They had been responsible for high profile newspaper story revealing that a Peer was
over-claiming public money. There is a momentum behind a story such as this that makes it difficult for a
witness to take stock and give clear, certain evidence when subsequently questioned by the police. Even in these
statements there is evidence of possible bias—see Mr Hollis at p.122D-E: I am outraged at Baroness Uddin’s
claims. One can only look at this with reference to oneself. If I had claimed for something that wasn’t true I would
E be sacked and potentially investigated criminally.
50. The fact that the Sub-Committee has not respected the guarantee which the House gives to its own
members in the Report on procedure, of procedures as rigorous as those applied in the courts and disciplinary
bodies, should in itself be sufficient to invalidate its reasoning and conclusions. It would be sadly ironic if an
Upper House which passes legislation to ensure such guarantees are respected in criminal and civil courts,
F tribunals and disciplinary bodies cannot achieve the same when disciplining its own Members.
51. The Sub-Committee should have applied the criminal standard of proof in this case. If ever there was a
case for the highest standard of proof to be applied it is this one. This is because in the public eye the decision
of the House will be tantamount to conviction for a criminal offence, with the consequent damage to Lady
G Uddin’s reputation. It is also because, on the basis of the Sub-Committee’s suggested sanction, she is to be
suspended for at least three years. It is interesting to note that when an MP faces disqualification for three
years for illegal practices the case must be proved to the criminal standard.11
52. Again the Sub-Committee’s failure to determine the case to the criminal standard of proof means that the
reasoning and conclusions of the Sub-Committee cannot stand.
H
53. Even applying some lower standard it is submitted that this Committee should re-open the investigation
or decline to endorse the conclusions of the Sub- Committee. The issue is whether Baroness Uddin was in the
flat when she says she was and living in the way she says she did. There is no evidence of her not being there
on any of the occasions she says she was (for example evidence that she was in another part of the country on
one the days or from a neighbour that there was no answer to her doorbell on one of those days). To say that
J one day you can hear “banging” does not mean that a person is not in the flat (not “banging”) on another day.
Lady Uddin is a person of good character and a Member of the House. Such evidence might be expected before
disbelieving her.
54. It is accepted that she was seen by neighbours at The Chenies after the Sunday Times reporters had been
K down questioning the neighbours. But the contrast between these two periods could not be more stark. Before
the interviews they had no particular reason to notice Lady Uddin visiting the flat. Afterwards they had every
reason to do so. This evidence should therefore be treated with a great deal of caution. It is difficult to see how
it can be given any great weight without cross-examination of the witness as to how the events of April—3
May changed their attitude to No 3 The Chenies and its occupant.
L
Frinton
55. Again there is no evidence to contradict Lady Uddin’s evidence of her visits to her brother’s home. The
exchange between the reporter and her sister-in-law on the doorstep is in the circumstances plainly not enough.
11 See Representation of the People Act s.160(5) and at Mainwaring v Rowe [1992] ! WLR 1059 at 1067.
A
If Lady Uddin erred in thinking that the visits she has described were sufficient to entitle her to designate it
as her main residence, under the rule as it stood without the January 2010 clarification, then this was an honest
error. There is no evidence to contradict her evidence as to the advice she received from Lord Carter to the
effect that she could so designate it in these circumstances. If the reasoning of the Sub-Committee in relation
to the Maidstone flat is flawed it cannot be relied upon to draw adverse inferences as to Lady Uddin’s
credibility in relation this property. B
Sanction
56. Baroness Uddin does not have the means to repay £125,349.10. In practice therefore the proposed sanction
will result in her indefinite suspension from the House. Baroness Uddin is unaware of any precedent or
guideline which might be relied upon to justify such an extreme sanction. None was referred to by the Sub- C
Committee. It therefore appears arbitrary. The appearance of arbitrariness is compounded by the fact that the
Sub-Committee made no enquiry of Lady Uddin’s means before recommending this sanction.12 They
therefore had no way of knowing whether they were proposing just three years suspension or effective
disqualification from the House. It is also wrong in principle that the length of a suspension should depend
upon the Member’s means. D
57. Any sanction imposed should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and supported by
adequate reasoning to show how it was arrived at. The outcome should be consistent with, and in proportion
to, sanctions imposed by the House in other conduct cases. It is not for Baroness Uddin to say why this is not
the case. It is for the House to demonstrate that it is the case. It is hoped, in the light of everything said above,
that this Committee will reverse the finding of bad faith. If it needs to consider sanction on any other basis, E
ie for a period of innocent breach of the rules it is urged to consider only a sanction than can be justified in
the terms set out above.
5 October 2010
Witness statement by Baroness McDonagh, dated 5 OCTOBER 2010 F

I, MARGARET McDONAGH, SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1. I agreed to accompany Baroness Uddin in the role of “friend when the Committee for Privileges and
Conduct (Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct) took her evidence on 15 July 2010. I am familiar with this role
and have previously undertaken such roles. I appreciate that being a “friend is not the same as being a
“representative. During my working life I’ve also had to attend many disciplinary, quasi judicial and court G
hearings. The following are my observations.
2. I was extremely surprised with the arrangements that were made. I booked a meeting room in the same
building as the Hearing so Baroness Uddin had somewhere to wait and leave her bags. Both the Clerk and the
Chair came and told us we were not allowed to use it and we had to stand and wait in the corridor. They were
worried we might be able to over hear them speaking but no alternative provision was made. I therefore refused H
to move. It was distressing to go through this before the Hearing even began but the process did not improve.
Baroness Uddin was not given sufficient time or breaks. On the one occasion she did get a break she was twice
asked to hurry up in the toilet.
3. This case has a couple of telephone directories of papers and documents. Too many for a lay person to cope
with alone especially if English was not their first language. I thought as a “friend I would be able to find J
documents or specific sentences and to hand them to Baroness Uddin or that she would be able to ask me to
locate things for her. This was refused. If I did pass her a paper I was heckled and panel members would hiss
“coaching.
4. I was shocked that the panel appeared to display little or no cultural understanding of being a muslim
woman born outside the UK and consequent wider family relationships. Neither did they show much K
understanding of what it’s like for a mother of five to juggle work and home in a densely populated area of
London. There was much tutting, rolling of eyes and smirks through out the session. I was very troubled by
this experience and can only say that I have never been spoken to like this or witnessed other Peers ever being
spoken to in this manner. Although, a small number of Peers have said it happens to them. Baroness Uddin
was less shocked.
L
5. This case emanates from a Sunday Times article and subsequent newspaper, radio and televsion exposure,
which led to a letter of complaint. Most questioning arose from third party statements. No explanation was
given as to how these would be verified. All in all the procedure was poorly explained.
12 Again this was a serious procedural shortfall. In a court the legal representative would provide the court with information as to means
before any decision of this sort.
A
6. Given the severity of potential punishment and reputational harm I was shocked by every aspect of this
Hearing.
5 October 2010
B Letter from Christopher Johnson to Baroness Uddin, dated 5 October 2010

Many thanks for your email to Michael Pownall dated 5 October, which he has forwarded to me. I shall ensure
that the Members of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct have all the papers which you have submitted
before them when the Committee meets on 11 October.
C
You have also indicated that you wish to appear in person before the Committee at its meeting on 11 October.
The meeting will be held in Committee Room 2A. Although the meeting will start at 3.30, I do not expect the
Committee to be ready to see you 5.00 pm. I would be grateful if you could come to the Committee Corridor
at that time, and wait until I come out of the Committee Room in order to show you in. A Doorkeeper will
be in attendance in the corridor, and will I am sure be able to help you if you need anything while waiting.
D
I hope it will be useful if I remind you of what I said in my letter to you dated 21 September, regarding the
conduct of the meeting. You will first be invited to make an oral statement, and this may be followed by brief
questions for clarification. However, the Committee will not seek to reopen the Sub-Committee’s investigation
by means of detailed questioning. The meeting will be held in private, but a verbatim transcript will be taken,
and will be published with the Committee’s report.
E
You have indicated your wish to bring a friend or adviser to the meeting. Your adviser may sit next to you,
and you may consult him or her in the course of the meeting, if necessary seeking a short suspension of
proceedings to allow you to do so in private. However, I must remind that you will be expected to speak and
answer any questions for yourself.
F 5 October 2010
Letter from Baroness Manningham-Buller to the Chairman of Committees, date 11 October 2010
MEMBERS’ REIMBURSEMENT SCHEME

THE CONDUCT OF BARONESS UDDIN
G APPEAL: STATEMENT BY BARONESS MCDONAGH
1. I am replying to your letter of today’s date which invites me to respond on behalf of the Sub-Committee
on Lords’ Conduct to a statement by Baroness McDonagh about the conduct of our oral evidence session with
Baroness Uddin. The Sub-Committee have agreed the following response to that statement.
2. Lady McDonagh says: “I booked a meeting room in the same building as the Hearing so Baroness Uddin had
H
somewhere to wait and leave her bags. Both the Clerk and the Chair came and told us we were not allowed to use
it and we had to stand and wait in the corridor. They were worried we might be able to over hear them speaking
but no alternative provision was made. I therefore refused to move.”. We chose to conduct the hearings in 1 the
Abbey Garden for the sake of the witnesses: it is a more private and informal environment than the Committee
Corridor. The two meeting rooms in 1 the Abbey Garden interconnect and are not soundproofed between
J each-other. The Sub-Committee thus reserved both rooms with the intention that the second room remain
empty to ensure privacy. Lady McDonagh is correct that there was no suitable place where she and Lady
Uddin could prepare for the session and to which they could withdraw: we had not anticipated the need,
thinking that the session would be continuous. It was an administrative error that Lady McDonagh was able
to book the second meeting room and unfortunate that we had to ask her not to use it. I did not however resist
when she sought to retain its use; and she, Lady Uddin and a third person used the room before and during
K the session.
3. Lady McDonagh says: “Baroness Uddin was not given sufficient time or breaks. On the one occasion she did
get a break she was twice asked to hurry up in the toilet.”. There were two adjournments in the evidence session.
I volunteered the first (p 178); and the second took place when Lady Uddin broke down (p182). On the first
occasion, first the clerk and then I encouraged Lady McDonagh (but not the absent Lady Uddin) to resume
L the session, but we did so only after twice the agreed length of adjournment had elapsed. Lady Uddin did not
ask for a further adjournment.
4. Lady McDonagh says: “This case has a couple of telephone directories of papers and documents. Too many
for a lay person to cope with alone especially if English was not their first language. I thought as a ‘friend’ I would
be able to find documents or specific sentences and to hand them to Baroness Uddin or that she would be able to
A
ask me to locate things for her. This was refused. If I did pass her a paper I was heckled and panel members would
hiss ‘coaching’.”. On 18 June the clerk supplied two copies of the tabulated bundle of evidence to Lady Uddin,
one explicitly for her friend (letter attached13, not printed in evidence). The evidence session took place on 15
July and Lady McDonagh was free to help Lady Uddin navigate the bundles during the session, as she did.
Lady McDonagh also passed Lady Uddin a succession of manuscript notes: we did not prevent her from doing
so (QQ3–5; Q130) despite the obligation on Lady Uddin “to answer for herself”.14 B
5. Lady McDonagh says: “I was shocked that the panel appeared to display little or no cultural understanding
of being a Muslim woman born outside the UK and consequent wider family relationships.”. The transcript of
evidence needs to stand for itself in relation to this allegation. I detected neither racism nor sexism on the part
of any member of the Sub-Committee. Lord Dholakia, a member of the Sub-Committee and former member
of the Commission for Racial Equality, has asked me to state on his behalf that he detected no discrimination C
in any of the Sub-Committee’s work and was completely at ease with the process.
6. Lady McDonagh says: “There was much tutting, rolling of eyes and smirks throughout the session.”. The
members of the Sub-Committee treated this case with professional objectivity. I regret that I have to state that
there was no hissing, tutting, rolling of eyes or smirking on the part of the Sub-Committee: there was not. We
cannot however escape the fact that our task, principally delegated to Lord Irvine of Lairg, was to cross- D
examine the witness. The transcript shows the nature of the questioning.
7. Lady McDonagh says: “Most questioning arose from third party statements. No explanation was given as to
how these would be verified.”. We address this issue at paragraph 104 of our report.
8. Lady McDonagh says: “All in all the procedure was poorly explained.”. The procedure was explained to
Lady Uddin in three ways: the Registrar sent her a copy of the report on procedure15 at the outset of the E
inquiry (p57K); the clerk wrote to her on 18 June to provide the bundles of evidence and explain what would
happen in the evidence session (letter attached,16 not printed in evidence); and I summarised the process at
the outset of the evidence session (QQ1–8).
9. I hope you will find this response helpful to the Committee’s deliberation on Lady Uddin’s appeal.
11 October 2010 F
L
13 The date of the evidence session was later changed from 1 to 15 July 2010.
14 4th Report from the Committee for Privileges session 2007-08 HL Paper 205 paragraph 25. Report agreed to by the House on 18
December 2008.
15 4th Report from the Committee for Privileges session 2007-08 HL Paper 205. Report agreed to by the House on 18 December 2008.
16 The date of the evidence session was later changed from 1 to 15 July 2010.
Minutes of Evidence
TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT
B
MONDAY 11 OCTOBER 2010
Present Baroness Anelay of St Johns Lord Howe of Aberavon

Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord McNally
C Lord Brabazon of Tara (Chairman) Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Scott of Foscote
Baroness D’Souza Lord Shutt of Greetland
Lord Eames Lord Strathclyde
Lord Graham of Edmonton
D
Examination of Witness
Witness: Lady Uddin, a Member of the House of Lords, examined.
Q1 The Chairman: Thank you, Lady Uddin, for there should be no linkage between the duration of
E coming to this meeting to speak to your appeal any suspension and the repayment of money wrongly
against the findings of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ claimed. I hope that this is helpful as it relates
conduct. You probably know all the members of the particularly to the points made in paragraph 56 of
Privileges and Conduct Committee, but in case you your appeal, and I thought it would be helpful if I
do not they have their names in front of them. You clarified that point at the outset. I invite you to make
should also be aware that two members of the any opening remarks that you wish to make.
F
Committee who also sit on the Sub-Committee, Lord Baroness Uddin: Thank you Lord Chairman and
Irvine and Baroness Manningham-Buller, have members of the Committee. Before I proceed, I have
excused themselves from taking part in hearing or a statement that I would like to read. My friend who
considering your appeal. You will have been told, I accompanied me to the Sub-Committee was
think, that there will be a Hansard reporter present, Baroness McDonagh, who is not able to be here. I
G and for today’s meeting, we are meeting in private, understand, although I was not aware of this, that she
but they will be preparing a transcript for publication has asked the Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr Pownall,
with the report. I see that you have brought an to circulate a letter that she has sent with Lord
adviser with you—Lord Kennedy, I think it is. You Kennedy, who has kindly agreed to step in at the very
are welcome of course to consult him during the last moment because she is away.
H meeting before answering any questions that may be
put to you, but you are expected to speak on your Q2 The Chairman: Is that letter to be circulated
own behalf. We have your written appeal, which is now?
extremely clear and helpful. As you know, the Baroness Uddin: I understand that that is what
purpose of this meeting is not to cross-examine you Margaret McDonagh has asked. My apologies, had I
in detail but to give you a chance to present your been aware I would have informed the Clerk.
J appeal in person and to give members of the
Committee the opportunity to clarify any Q3 The Chairman: Lady Uddin, the statement
uncertainties that they may have as to your grounds accompanying this letter has in fact already been
for appealing. I expect this meeting not to take too circulated to members of the Committee, so I think
long, but of course there is no strict time limit. Before that we have already seen that. The contents of the
K I invite you to make an introductory statement, I letter do not actually bear on the contents of your
would like to inform you of one important decision appeal either. Would you like to make any opening
that the Committee has already taken. We have remarks?
decided that there should be no linkage between Baroness Uddin: Yes please. Thank you, Lord
suspension and repayment. We have come to this Chairman. I honour this House; it has been a part of
decision without any reference to the Sub- my life for 12 years and I have hoped that all my
L
Committee’s findings in your case—in other words, actions have been according to its best interest. I am
we have come to no view as to whether or not you deeply sorry that the public perception of Parliament
wrongly claimed the sum identified by the Sub- has been damaged by the issue of expenses. I bitterly
Committee and, if you did, what should follow from regret and apologise unconditionally and
that—but we are clear, as a matter of principle, that unequivocally for any part I have played in that.
11 October 2010 Lady Uddin A
While I may not be alone in having made claims that well as supporting a number of women’s groups. At
are open to challenge, I should have maintained a the same time I have continued to fulfil my
higher standard. If I have broken House rules, I did commitments and responsibilities to the communities
so inadvertently. I only sought to claim what I to which I have devoted my working life. When I B
understood to be my allowances, consistent with came to the Lords in 1998, I was one of the youngest
what I understood to be the rules and principles of the women in the House, the only female Muslim and the
House as they were at the time. The new allowances only Bangladeshi Member. The House that I entered
regime is much clearer. I welcome its simplicity and was very different from the House today. The Peers I
regret that past arrangements were not. My personal joined were, almost without exception, from a very
C
good faith and honesty have been the subject of the different social and cultural background from my
severest public scrutiny for almost a year and a half. own. My training was as a social worker and I had
I have been repeatedly subjected to deeply hurtful very little prior personal or working experience that
public comment. There have been times when my prepared me for life as a working Peer, and for the
physical safety and that of members of my family has procedures and practices of the House. More than
been threatened and I have files full of hateful racist others, I believe, I have been reliant on, and always D
letters and e-mails. I am in front of you today in very grateful for, the advice, both formal and
circumstances where the Sub-Committee has made informal, of colleagues and officials of the House in
findings that would carry the most serious relation to numerous aspects of my life as a working
consequences imaginable for me. In this appeal, I ask Peer, including in relation to the Members’
no more than that I be treated in accordance with the reimbursement scheme. All the claims I submitted
E
principles of natural justice and the procedural and that have been the subject of such scrutiny were,
safeguards applicable to all Members of the House I understood, consistent with custom and practices of
and in a way which is consistent with the treatment of the House. I made the claims based upon the rules as
my fellow Peers. After the initial Sunday Times article they were explained to me by people of great
was published on 3 May 2009 the Clerk of the distinction in public life, with much longer service
Parliaments initiated an investigation, but that was and experience in the House than my own. Custom F
put on hold to await the outcome of the investigation and practice has now changed to ensure greater
by the police. In March this year the Director of clarity and accountability, and I welcome these
Public Prosecutions decided that I should not be changes. However, I am being judged on a previous
charged, but I had to confront the evidence that had set of rules that were loosely defined. Main residence,
been gathered by the police and the Sunday Times which has been subject to differing interpretations,
G
and give my own account when I went before the has been redefined, but I am being judged on the old,
Sub-Committee. I was numbed by the sanction loose interpretation. I believed that I was acting in
proposed by the Sub-Committee, which will accordance with the advice and guidance I had
undoubtedly get widespread media coverage. It is not received and what I understood to be the practice of
simply a financial penalty which would be discharged my fellow Peers. It is inconceivable, my Lords, that I
on payment. The reaction from the public will be the would knowingly take any steps that broke the rules H
same as if I had committed a criminal offence. The of the House that I have come to love. I made each
effects on my life both personal and professional, let claim openly and it was never suggested to me by any
alone on the lives of my family, would, without the official or anyone else that any aspect of any claim
slightest doubt, be utterly devastating. This hearing was inappropriate. So far as I can tell, no official, in
today is the culmination of the most extraordinarily considering any of these claims, has acted under any
J
traumatic and protracted process of personal misunderstanding, still less any misrepresentation, of
scrutiny that I believe a Peer can be subjected to in either the basis upon which the claim was made or
their life in the House. Of course I am both nervous what I was allowed to claim. The allegations that I
and deeply upset, so please indulge me in my reading had misused the expenses system came as a great
of this statement. I came to London from Bangladesh shock to me and without any warning from my
with my family when I was 13 years old. Since then seniors, and my life since then has been in constant K
my family settled in East London, and my working turmoil. The difficulty that I have is that while I now
life has been dedicated to the service of others. Many completely understand that all Members should be
of you may not know my work on human rights or held to higher standards, I feel I have been singled out
the issues of forced marriage and domestic violence and the sanctions that have been suggested for me are
or my work on disabilities, but I hope that you may neither consistent with those faced by others nor
L
at least know me as a committed, diligent and hard- proportionate. The hearing that I went through on 15
working member of the House. Over the past 12 July was both upsetting and disorientating. I am not
years, since coming to the House, I have attempted to a lawyer, and I am simply not accustomed to cross-
contribute on a wide range of matters in respect of my referencing and recalling the large quantity of papers
duties to the House and government committees as and statements that you see before you today. I
A 11 October 2010 Lady Uddin
thought that I would be able to confer with Baroness not pay proper attention to the procedural guarantee
McDonagh and rely on her to find specific given by the House to its Members. There is definitely
documents and parts of evidence and statements. no need for a modern House to conduct its inquiries
B However, whenever Baroness McDonagh tried to do in this way, and I would suggest that it is an affront to
this for me, this was refused by the Sub-Committee. the values of natural justice and fairness for it to do
When Baroness McDonagh did try to pass me papers so. Surely those appearing before a committee with
and references, this was met with expressions of utter punitive powers deserve to be given a fair hearing. I
disapproval by members of the Sub-Committee. respectfully suggest that I was not. In my view, the
Baroness McDonagh’s description of the hearing is Sub-Committee failed in my case to ensure that the
C
absolutely correct. I was left feeling distressed and procedural guarantee was respected. This is
humiliated by it. The evidence considered by the Sub- particularly so because of the severity of the sanction
Committee, in addition to my own, consisted of proposed by it. In proposing the sanction, which
transcripts of interviews conducted by Sunday Times would amount to an indefinite suspension from the
journalists and statements taken subsequently from House for me, the Sub-Committee made no reference
D some of the same witnesses by the police. The to any guidelines or comparison with other cases. I
journalists interviewed with a view to getting a story, thought that the Sub-Committee was required to give
my Lords, and I believe that their initial line of an adequate explanation as to how it arrived at a
questioning, which I am sure you have read, followed particular sanction and to explain why it was
by the highly critical articles they published on me, as proportionate in the circumstances of the case, but to
well as the mass media coverage on the whole issue of date I have not been given any such explanation. I
E accept, of course, that all cases vary, but it seems to
parliamentary expenses, influenced what the
witnesses subsequently said to the police. It is me that I have been pilloried when others have been
inconceivable that the witnesses were not influenced treated with much more leniency. I find the language
by the public anger surrounding parliamentary of the report, which is consistent with the sentiments
expenses, and I have made known my concerns about expressed to me and Baroness McDonagh during the
F the reliability of the evidence of the witnesses since hearing, is both extremely upsetting and excessive. I
the start of this process. In my view, the evidence used cannot see any reason for the difference in treatment
by the Sub-Committee to find against me as strongly other than my very different social and cultural
as it did had not come from an independent and background and the media profile that my case has
rigorous source. Yet the evidence of none of these attracted. When considering the appropriate
witnesses was tested at all by the Sub-Committee. sanction, consideration should have been given to the
G public humiliation and abuse that I have already had
None of the witnesses were asked to appear before it.
It seems to me that the Sub-Committee accepted the to suffer. None of that obvious mitigation appears to
evidence of highly influenced witnesses in preference have been applied in the way that it would in all other
to my own, and used that evidence as the basis to jurisdictions. I conclude before you, as I did before
conclude that I had acted in bad faith. The Report on the Sub-Committee, with a sincere and abject
H Procedure says that a Member has the right to apology if I have in any way, without any intention,
procedures “as rigorous as those applied in the courts by following what I thought was the right thing to do,
and professional disciplinary bodies”. The report broken the House rules. If I have, I ask that I am
says that “in order to find against a Member, the Sub- treated with fairness, in comparison to others and
Committee requires at least that the allegation is with natural justice. Thank you very much.
proved on the balance of probabilities”. If the Report The Chairman: Thank you. I shall now ask the
J Committee members if they would like to ask any
on Procedure is an accurate expression of how this
House determines to conduct its hearings, then I questions.
believe mine was in flagrant breach of that. I was not
given a clear formulation on the case I was expected Q4 Baroness D’Souza: Thank you so much, Lady
to meet before I gave my evidence. I was not Uddin. I think all of us are genuinely sorry that this
K permitted to be legally represented. I was not even has to take place. Thank you so much for your
allowed to confer properly with my accompanying statement. I realise that you have lots of questions
friend. Although my own evidence was tested at great about the way in which the Sub-Committee behaved,
length, I had no opportunity to challenge evidence but I wonder if I could clarify one point with you,
gathered by the Sunday Times and the police. These which goes back to the evidence that came out during
are basic human rights that would be respected by the questions put to you by the Sub-Committee. As
L
any court or disciplinary body. They are even more I understand it, you expressed your understanding of
important in a case such as my own, because of the what a main residence was. Your understanding of
high profile media accusations that a Peer was the scheme was that you could designate as your
claiming public money to which she was not entitled. main residence anywhere where you were staying at
I am deeply concerned that the Sub-Committee did weekends. Also, by your own admission, you did not
11 October 2010 Lady Uddin A
stay every weekend at Maidstone, and you visited at was simply financial, my brother having said that he
odd times, maybe sometimes at night, and maybe could adequately support me in the way that he
stayed for a few hours. Nevertheless, the dates of the subsequently did. So I chose to take his very gracious
travel documents suggest that you did actually stay at offer and I stayed with him. It is not very unusual in B
the weekends. So there is a kind of contradiction, many circumstances. Some of the expenses matters,
whereby you think that if you stay the weekend it as reported by Members of both Houses, will bear
could be designated as your main residence, but you that out. Families have become part of the process
then say that you did not stay every weekend and that when Members have been supported, whether by
you often stayed there only for a little while, but your providing residence or otherwise. The second point is C
travel records say that you did stay there every whether I was aware about what would be published.
weekend. I wonder if you could just clarify that. It was made clear to me that it was a private hearing
Baroness Uddin: Thank you. I cannot recall exact and that the Committee was not interested in my
details of what I had said. Please forgive me, I do not private details, but you will see that I was asked a
have that statement. I believe what I said was that I great deal of questions about my personal details. I
had designated Maidstone following a discussion and had said very clearly that I was before the Committee, D
as far as I knew the rules were met. It was my place not my children. I am not sure whether other
and I had gone on the designated weekends, as Members who were before the Committee would
claimed on the papers that are before you. What I had have been asked those questions. I certainly felt
said, I believe, is that frequently I had gone to stay almost compelled to answer a number of questions,
there but I would do other things in the weekends although I have been a very private person. By any
which sometimes brought me to London or maybe to E
account, anyone who knows me would know that I
Bromley, or wherever, because that was part of my do not wear my family in the public arena. So, no, I
routines. I believe I had never said that I had not gone did not know. That is something that I would
there or I had gone there just for a few hours. I had definitely ask the Committee to consider. I
said that I would maybe spend some time there and respectfully request that when I am judged on
then go somewhere else, perhaps to stay with my anything, I hope that the Committee will ensure that F
mother. That is my recollection. For all intents and my children or my family or anything that makes
purposes, I was absolutely categorical that it was my
reference to them should be redacted. With regard to
place, that I had gone there at weekends, that I had
your first question about the impact, I think that you
stayed there at weekends. Not only that, but I had
know both the context within which I have operated
stayed there on a number of weekends, and some time
and contributed to the House and the community, G
during the week, when it was holiday. I hope that I
and some of the pressures I have been under. Some of
have made that clear.
the work that I have done, particularly with regard to
violence against women, has been very controversial
Q5 Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Baroness Uddin, in many ways. I hope that you accept that, on behalf
you have clearly outlined for us the impact that the of the Government, my colleagues have been more
process thus far has had on you in terms of public than brave on many occasions. Many of those who H
perception in the press and threats to your safety. Can would have liked me to have fallen much earlier will
you outline the impact that such a report would have find every excuse to reiterate their beliefs, but I think
on you in terms of your own community, but just in it would be very difficult. I say no more and I trust
very basic details? And could I ask you two further your judgment to make that assessment yourself.
questions? I do not want to have any details about J
your relationships or your private life, but were you
aware when questioned by the Sub-Committee that Q6 Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Lady Royall has
intimate details relating to your marriage, for referred to the fact that you used the term bolthole
example, were likely to be published? I realise that the throughout your evidence for personal reasons. On
case in question dates from the time when you lived what basis did you decide that a bolthole constituted
in your brother’s home and then subsequently in a main residence that entitled you to claim public K
Maidstone, but when you first had a second residence funds?
in Windsor, you decided to find a bolthole, as it were. Baroness Uddin: I saw the term bolthole almost as
That was the primary purpose of your decision to though I had been abusive towards the term, but for
find somewhere outside your home in London; it was me it was very significant. It was a place of sanctuary,
to have a bolthole outside. When you decided to give a place of home, a place where I felt safe—all those
L
that up, you subsequently went to live with your things. Maybe I did not give sufficient weight to the
brother. terminology, but the way that the Committee has
Baroness Uddin: I will take the last question first. I used the word bolthole is not the way I inferenced it.
went to my brother’s house after having rented a I took it to be important—a place of safety, a place
place in Windsor for quite a considerable period. It that was critical to my survival.
A 11 October 2010 Lady Uddin
Q7 Lord Bassam of Brighton: Given the allegations quoted, and one of the references made in the Sub-
that are made in many of the police statements and Committee report—although it does not form part of
newspaper interviews, it is your contention, is it not, the police evidence, as far as I recall—I certainly had
B that you regularly used the accommodation in not visited my neighbour’s house for the best part of
Maidstone and that you regularly went to stay with ten years. In fact that concurs with almost all the time
your brother in Frinton? I had been in the house. The life that we have here and
Baroness Uddin: Yes, it is. I would just draw your the commitment elsewhere do not allow for us
attention to some of the inconsistency in the necessarily to be as neighbourly as we should. Also
neighbours’ statements. I had the privilege of culturally, neighbours are not something critical to
C our way of life. I recall at least two cases during the
listening to the initial interviews that were conducted
by the Sunday Times. We were all issued it on a stick. summer when an elderly person and another person
So I had heard some of the questions and then I read with a disabled daughter were left dead for the best
some of the newspaper articles. Then I read the police part of three or six weeks—forgive me I do not
statements. I believe that there are huge discrepancies exactly recall. None of the neighbours had seen them.
D and inconsistencies. Neighbours in many of those So I contest what is being suggested. I contest that the
instances said that they had seen me and at other neighbours did not see me. Respectfully, Lord
times they had said that they had not. I hope that Graham, if you just look at the evidence, they will say
some weight would be given to the details of some of that they had seen me in some parts, when they have
then not said that in the police statement finally. So I
the evidence that was given and the fact that I was not
do contest it.
at all able to challenge it at any point. I did not even
E
challenge it in the public arena, because I wanted the Q9 The Chairman: Are there any other questions
process to complete before I could challenge from any other members of the Committee? In which
anything. case, thank you very much, Lady Uddin. Would you
like to make any final remarks? Do confer if you like.
Q8 Lord Graham of Edmonton: Lady Uddin, I am Baroness Uddin: Thank you, Lord Chairman. I do not
F necessarily need to make any additional comments
interested in the almost uniformity of the response by
your neighbours along the lines that they very rarely except to say that I leave it up to you to ensure that I
if ever saw you. That is their opinion, which has been am treated fairly. Thank you very much.
uncontested, because you are unable to find a means
Q10 Lord McNally: Is Lady Uddin going to leave a
to contest it. We all have experience of this. I live in a
copy of her statement with us?
G little cul-de-sac with four houses and very often I can The Chairman: The statement that you read out at the
go for three months and not see my neighbours, and beginning.
they may not have seen me. Are you saying that, Baroness Uddin: Would you like me to? There may be
untutored, your neighbours collectively concocted some discrepancies between what I said and what is
their attack on you in order to malign your here.
reputation? Lord McNally: That would not matter.
H
Baroness Uddin: Eerily, they are very similar in their The Chairman: It is our intention, if possible, to
stories. They have switched a number of references publish our report setting out our conclusions and
they had made to whether or not they had seen me or recommendations to the House later this week. The
my family in numerous different statements. I Clerk of the Committee will be in touch with you to
question whether what they said was their individual make arrangements for providing you with an
J opinion, and not one that was led by the questioning embargoed copy of the report an hour or two before
of the journalists and then subsequently some of the publication so that you can have some time to
paper trails. With regard to neighbours, and prepare yourself. Thank you once again for coming
definitely one of the neighbours who has been to talk to us.

The Conduct of Baroness Uddin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Conduct of Baroness Uddin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOUSE OF LORDS

Committee for Privileges and Conduct

6th Report of Session 2010–11

The Conduct of Baroness

Ordered to be printed 18 October 2010

Published by the Authority of the House of Lords

London : The Stationery Office Limited

The Committee for Privileges and Conduct

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

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

Baroness Uddin’s Claim Forms

Letter from Ms Maureen Buck, House of Lords Finance Department to

Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Ms Claire Newell

Transcript of a covert recording of an interview between Mr Chris Pollard

Witness statement of Jonathan Smith, Head of Finance House of Lords

Summarised witness statement of a journalist for the Sunday Times

Letter from the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct to

Evidence submitted to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct

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

The Sub-Committee’s findings

to be particularly crucial. The Sub-Committee concluded that the

Lady Uddin’s appeal

the decision of the House will be tantamount to conviction for a criminal

Lack of evidence in respect of Frinton

Evidence taken before the Committee for Privileges and Conduct

Conduct of the Sub-Committee

The views of the Committee

The standard of proof

11. The standard of proof we have adopted in deciding whether to

Procedural failures and bias

1 2nd Report, session 2008–09 (HL Paper 88-I).

1 House Committee minutes, quoted at paragraph 87 of the Sub-Committee’s report.

APPENDIX: REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS’

Members’ reimbursement scheme: the conduct of Baroness Uddin

Introduction and summary

The allegation, complaint and process of investigation

Allegation and complaint

4. Mr Angus Robertson MP complained about Lady Uddin’s alleged conduct on 3

Procedure for investigation of allegations about expenses

Procedure in this investigation

Investigation by the Sub-Committee

8. Our investigation was interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament on 12 April

“complex or serious” category and so required the Sub-Committee’s assistance 1.

1 Report on procedure, paragraphs 26 to 28.

The members’ reimbursement scheme

The resolutions of the House and published guidance

Allowance Scheme is governed by Resolutions of the House. Rules for the

4.4 Night Subsistence

Lady Uddin’s designated main residences, claims and circumstances

Lady Uddin’s designated main residences

1 HL Deb 26 July 1979 col 1135-37.

designated XXXXXXXX, Wapping, London, E1W XXX as her main residence

Period 1: Frinton: 3 May 2005 to 31 July 2005

Facts relating to the Frinton property: circumstances

Facts relating to the Frinton property: travel and frequency of visit

Facts relating to the Maidstone property: circumstances

Description of The Chenies

Description of Lady Uddin’s flat

Usage and frequency of occupation

4m3 1 August 2005

5m3 0.45m3 or 450 litres 9m3 20 June 2006

1m3 0.17m3 or 17 litres 10m3 13 December 2006

3m3 0.38m3 or 38 litres 13m3 23 August 2007