Correspondence from Sir Gulam Noon
Letter to the Chairman from Sir Gulam Noon,
dated 11 August 2006
I hope that the Committee does not mind that
I send it this personal letter. I write to the Committee because
it is investigating the honours system in this country, because,
some time ago I was asked to give oral evidence before it and
because my profile in relation to a potential peerage is very
much in the public domain.
I had hoped that, by now, I would have appeared
before the Committee. For reasons of which I, of course, understand,
that appearance has not taken place. In the circumstances, I think
that it is right to provide this letter. I do not regard what
I set out below as confidential.
I first of all would like to set out my background
and my present life and business. My reputation is of great importance
to me. It has been built up over 50 years of which 37 have been
spent in this country. Through what I consider to be no fault
of mine, I now find myself in the invidious position of having
to defend it.
I have always acted honourably in my working
life. I am in the business of ready made meals and I think I can
claim the credit of creating Britain's favourite dish, chicken
tikka massala. My factories are in the Ealing and Southall area
and I employ over 1000 people in what is a semi deprived area.
I serve on various public bodies. The Covent
Garden Market Authority from 1995-2001, London TEC and presently
the Transport for London Committee appointed on 1 March 2004.
I am on the board of certain charities—CARE International
UK from 2002-2006 and The Advisory Council of The Prince's Trust
since 1996. I am also a member of The Advisory Board on Nationalisation
and Integration (ABNI) since November 2004.
I believe that every individual has a responsibility
to give back to society, both in terms of time and money. That
is our social contract. My own charitable trust, the Noon Foundation,
was created in 1999 with a personal contribution of £4 Million.
We do not actively raise any funds from the public. The Foundation
has been engaged in several projects. As one example, it supported
a mentoring scheme for young people at Tower Hamlets College for
over three years—2000-03 with a contribution of £200,000.
I do not limit myself to my own charity. I actively support the
Prince's Trust.
I do not limit myself to charitable or political
giving. I gave Norwich City Football Club £100,000. Delia
Smith, a director, is a personal friend. I gave the same amount
to Surrey County Cricket Club towards a new stand and underwrote
a further £400,000 for the India Room. I hope these facts
put my political loan in some context. The labour party needed
funds before the next election. I was asked to help and was able
to do so. To my mind, there is no connection between that loan
and the eventual approach in relation to a peerage.
I would have been immensely honoured to be granted
the opportunity to work in the House of Lords. I, perhaps immodestly
feel that I have made a good contribution to society and, at now
70 years of age and at a stage in my business life where I would
have devoted considerable time to the House, I would have been
pleased to do the work. Certain issues would have been close to
me. For example, although I am a Muslim, after the July 7th bombing,
I wrote articles which criticised terrorists. There are a number
of areas where I feel that I could have made a contribution to
the work of the House.
Having said that, I am very anxious to make
entirely clear that I have never made a political or any other
donation or loan with a view to any kind of honour. I have been
honoured before. In 1994, I was awarded the MBE under the Conservative
Government, in 2002, I received a Knighthood and, in January this
year, the President of India gave me a "Gold medal"
award for my contribution to that society. I was involved in charitable
projects such as the building of hospitals and schools in my native
state of Rajasthan, India. I am quite certain that none of these
honours was in any way connected to any loan given by me at any
time. I hope that in the past, and, now in relation to the recommendation
for a peerage, it has been my work over the years which is the
real reason why I have been awarded or put forward.
My loan to the Labour Party came about because
the party's need for general election funds. Lord Levy asked me
if I could help. I was in a position to do so and offered a gift
which would have been in the region of £50,000. Lord Levy
indicated that he would prefer more and a loan of £250,000
was agreed with interest. The loan was repayable and the agreement
contains terms as to interest which I regard from my point of
view as commercial and the Party described it as such. The matter
was agreed before the election and only arose when interest fell
due. After correspondence and discussion, I added the interest
to the capital sum.
I emphasise, there was no connection between
this loan and the eventual recommendation of my name for a peerage.
When I was approached in relation to the possible
peerage, I completed what I understand to be the usual form and
disclosed on an attached document my schedule of donations including
the £250,000 loan. I was, thereafter, reminded by Lord Levy
that this should not have been declared because it was a loan,
not a donation. At his suggestion, I telephoned Richard Roscoe,
the appropriate civil servant at 10 Downing Street, and, following
discussion, I wrote enclosing the revised schedule. I thought
that I was correcting an error and am embarrassed and upset by
the nature of some of the publicity which has resulted.
I have done absolutely nothing wrong with regard
to any donations or this loan.
It takes years to build a reputation but only
a few hours to destroy it. It is very hard to explain to my international
business associates, particularly in India, what has happened
in Britain in the past few months. I felt that, when the publicity
became so great, it would be right for me to withdraw my consent
to nomination for a peerage. I hope that the Committee will understand
how I felt.
I hope that the above information contained
in this letter assists the Committee. I regard this as an open
letter and I make it in the spirit of cooperation and an attempt
to help. I have intended to do that from the start. I am only
sorry that I have not yet been able to assist the Committee by
an attendance before them.
| 
