Annex D: Transcript of Lord Ahmed’s appeal hearing
Lord Mance (The Chair)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Cindy Butts (Lay Member)
Mark Castle (Lay Member)
Andrea Coomber (Lay Member)
Vanessa Davies (Lay Member)
Baroness Donaghy; Baroness Hussein-Ece.
Examination of witness
Lord Ahmed.
Q1. The Chair: Good afternoon, Lord Ahmed. I am the Chair of the Conduct Committee, Jonathan Mance. I am going to ask everyone to introduce themselves in a moment. There is, I am afraid, one apology, but I hope only for a short time, and that is from Cindy Butts. Her interviewing schedule has overrun, but she is going to join us as soon as she can. There will be a transcript taken and a sound recording so that she will be able to see what has been said. I hope that does not raise a problem for you.
Lord Ahmed: That is fine.
The Chair: Thank you. I gather that you are accompanied by Mr Khan. He cannot speak but he can advise you. I would remind you that all the members of the Committee have read the appeal papers. You do not need to repeat points in the papers except those that you wish to stress briefly.
Your statement, of course, can be divided between the report, the supplementary report and the issue of sanction, if it arises, as you wish, but I am sure you are aware that the test in relation to the substantive part of the report is a high one and we have to be plainly satisfied, or it has to be plainly wrong, on a key finding. The test in relation to sanctions is a different one. It is for us to decide what the appropriate sanction is, and we are not restricted in the same way.
I will ask the members of the Committee to introduce themselves in turn. Then I will ask you to give your statement. You will have half an hour from the time that begins. I will take them in random order.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Good afternoon. I am Joyce Anelay, a member of this Committee since its formation last year.
Baroness Hussein-Ece: I am Meral Hussein-Ece, a member of this Committee.
Vanessa Davies: Good afternoon. I am Vanessa Davies, a lay member of the Committee.
Andrea Coomber: I am Andrea Coomber, a lay member of the Committee.
Baroness Donaghy: I am Rita Donaghy, a member of the Committee.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood: I am Simon Brown, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am a Cross-Bencher. I was a Law Lord before that, and I was the Chair of the Conduct Sub-Committee, as it was, before this new Committee was formed, when I joined that.
Mark Castle: Good afternoon. I am Mark Castle. I am a lay member of the Committee.
The Chair: Cindy, I am glad that you have arrived. I mentioned that you were going to be a little late. I cannot see you, but would you just like to introduce yourself to Lord Ahmed, who is here?
Cindy Butts: Thank you, and good afternoon. My name is Cindy Butts. I am a lay member of the Committee.
Q2. The Chair: Thank you. Unless anyone has any further point to remind me of at this stage, I am going to invite Lord Ahmed to give his statement. We will try to give you as free a run, Lord Ahmed, as we can. We will obviously be taking notes. Any questions will probably be put, not by interruption but at the end of your statement, if there are any questions.
Lord Ahmed: Thank you very much, Lord Chairman. My Lords, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity to say a few words. I would like to read a few notes and then I will speak from my heart, which I really want to do.
I completely deny the allegation that I have exploited my position to pursue an inappropriate relationship with any member of the public or that I have breached the Code of Conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct.
The complainant has previously attempted to damage my reputation by reporting her serious allegations to the police, alleging rape, which was investigated. She pursued the matter for further investigations under the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme. Those investigations were conducted and dismissed.
The complainant took this matter to the High Court for judicial review. It was done in writing and then orally, and it was dismissed.
She reported this matter to the Commissioner for Standards in early 2018. On 12 April 2018, the Commissioner wrote to me and said that the House of Lords Code of Conduct covers Members’ parliamentary activities. It does not extend to their behaviour that is unrelated to parliamentary proceedings. The circumstances put to me by the complainant did not, in my view, engage parliamentary activities.
The complainant then reported this matter to many outlets of the media. Only the BBC “Newsnight” programme decided to report the matter. It should be noted that [U]—the reporter from “Newsnight”—is an investigative reporter of Islamic terrorism. In my view, he pursued confirmation bias and came to some conclusions.
I take my duties as a parliamentarian extremely seriously and would not act so as to undermine my personal or professional reputation.
On 27 May 2020, the Commissioner completed her investigation and found a possible breach of the Code of Conduct, which I refute in its entirety.
On 2 October 2020, the Commissioner provided her supplementary report in relation to the fresh evidence. As you know, I am challenging the integrity of the investigation as the Commissioner is duty-bound to respect the principles of natural justice. You should note that I raised the issue of integrity and impartiality in early December 2019. I do not know, my Lord, whether you remember, or Ms Mawson can confirm, that last year in December 2019 I copied my complaint, which I sent to the Commissioner—her email—to you and the Committee, that I had objections to the procedure on the basic principle of fairness and natural justice.
I could go on and read 10 pages that I have written, but I really want to concentrate, first of all, on what my lawyers have told me. The way this investigation has been conducted is a breach of human rights and some articles of the European convention.
I understand that when the Commissioner first dismissed this complaint, and then it went to the BBC, there was a lot of pressure on the Commissioner. I can understand that. After the BBC’s 19 or 20 minutes of documentary, she approached the complainant, because the complainant had already contacted the Commissioner, and asked her about it. I now understand that the Commissioner may have visited the complainant on a number of occasions at her workplace to discuss her complaint. Throughout that investigation—I am not talking about the subsequent investigation but the original one—I was only invited for one meeting. I do not know whether it was one hour or one and a half hours, but it was for one meeting.
Here I think it is important to say that the principle of natural justice and fairness was overlooked. I was not given any statement or any allegations, apart from general allegations. I was not told what the complainant had said. I did not know the details. Later on, I was told that it is customary for the Commissioner to pass on the information.
I only got to know that when my statement was tagged to the judicial review papers by the complainant. I received those documents. I know that other people received those documents. Incidentally, it is very important, because this has had a devastating effect on my personal life and my family life. The community and everyone else got to know about it because there were journalists present, and because the complainant has written to many Urdu and Pakistani TV and newspaper journalists and told them these stories.
I simply wrote in December 2019, and, Lord Chairman, that is why I copied the full complaint to you. It is quite detailed, and I do not want to repeat it word for word. I am sure you will have a reference to 5 December 2019, when I emailed the Commissioner and I also copied you in.
As I said, I honestly think that the Commissioner was put under pressure. Of course, Lord Carlile was the one who made a lot of comments in the BBC documentary and criticised the Commissioner. Maybe she was trying to show her fairness, or rather impartiality, in investigating this matter. Therefore, I believe that the Commissioner treated my witnesses—those who supported me—differently from the complainant’s.
I will give you an example. For instance, in her recent report—and I have said this in my response as well—she said, “I know all Asian men get together and they support each other”. This was when she was investigating [D], the reporter or the president of Pakistan Press Club in Manchester in the north.
My Lords, ladies and gentlemen, if you look at how the Asian journalists were questioned—I mean those whom the Commissioner first interviewed: Farid Qureshi and the other gentleman, and then [L] and [D]—it is almost as if they have been led into a certain way of answering in the way they have been questioned. The Commissioner has not even mentioned the missing evidence: for instance, the Mayor of Rochdale’s, Mr Zaman’s, and [D]’s allegations that he went to see her. The complainant’s sister said that it was at their house. He said it was outside the town hall. [D] was never questioned on that. The Commissioner did not invite him back to ask these very important questions.
Similarly, if you look at all those four Asian journalists and every bit of the questioning, and you look at the way she questioned the reporter from the Sunday Times and [U], it is very different. It is almost, “Yes, you are telling the truth”. If the story was so good, why did the Sunday Times not actually report this matter in its own newspaper? It was the BBC only and nobody else. Everybody else, of course, reported it on the back of the BBC, but the Sunday Times had this story before. They were not questioned in the same way as [D] and [L] were. In my view, it was treating Asian men differently.
Lord Chairman, honestly, the Committee can go and see [D]’s two sons. One is about 22 or 23, and the other one is about 20 or 21. They are both in a wheelchair. Yes, of course they have made videos to put on Facebook to give them good morale, but these boys cannot eat by themselves—they are fed. I have seen them at events with [D], because he is a journalist. Sometimes he brings them in a wheelchair. They are carried into the car and into the wheelchair.
The Commissioner asked for evidence. The National Health Service doctor and the nurses’ letters are there to say that they have been dealing with these boys since birth, they have these problems and need 24/7 care, but she said she did not believe it. There are many other things from funeral photographs, where the Commissioner questions me and [D] in relation to why I was at his house or he was at my house.
I have said this before, my Lords, ladies and gentlemen: Asian culture is very different. Yes, I am a Member of the British House of Lords, but when I am in Pakistan, and when I go to Kashmir, I adhere to those cultures. I have given a video recording to the Commissioner, with photographs, to show that in one day I visited at least four people in their homes to do al-Fatiha—to do prayer—and this has not been because there was some sort of funeral going on a week before or even a month before. It is just a tradition that, whenever you go to see them, you go and sympathise. The Commissioner questioned all that and brought in an imam for advice. Lo and behold, this imam is from Bangladesh. The Muslim culture from Turkey to Pakistan to Bangladesh is very different in relation to these customs.
Sometimes I feel this is why I have to say this, moving away from my notes. I have to express it. This investigation has devastated my family life and almost even my public life. Since the BBC “Newsnight” programme, my Lord, I have not been to the House of Lords. Yes, my wife is not well; she has cancer. Yes, I have been looking after her, but I did not attend a single session.
I have not been to Pakistan or Kashmir since then, because it was reported widely, and until I clear my name I cannot appear in public. I have attended a few events in Europe. I have not attended many events in this country, but just to show my face. I have kept away from all these normal events because of this.
My Lords, I believe that the victims of sexual misconduct deserve sympathy and support. When they are making false allegations, however, it undermines the system and the process, and it affects the credibility of genuine witnesses. I genuinely believe that.
As I have said, this complainant has been everywhere, just to destroy me. She made no secret of it. She went to every newspaper. She was more interested in Pakistani TV channels and Pakistani newspapers, because she knows that that is where I appear quite a lot, but she also contacted many Members of this House of Lords, for instance. I can tell you that Lord Dholakia once stopped me in the corridors and said, “You know, somebody has made a serious allegation”. Members of Parliament in the House of Commons have told me very similar things. There was a deliberate attempt to affect my personal reputation and affect my family life.
Of course, this comes from the fact that this lady was caught having an affair with my [X] in my house. There are about 4,500 or 5,000 text messages. I was told first that they were not available. Originally, the police looked at them. The police had all the information, and that is why they did not take any further action. I understand that the Commissioner had them, but I do not know whether they have been passed on or not.
I think I have spoken enough now. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer my Lords. I am sorry I have gone on for too long.
Q3. The Chair: I do not think that you have gone on too long. I would just ask you one question on the last point you made. You say, do you, that the 4,000 or 5,000 texts are different from the texts which the Commissioner produced in her report and are further texts that she got hold of or was not able to get hold of?
Lord Ahmed: My Lord, I understand that some were downloaded with some special app. I think in these common days they call them “sexting” or something, because they are of that nature.
Q4. The Chair: Pause a moment. I am simply trying to clarify the point. There are a lot of texts included in the Commissioner’s report. As I understand, she sought to get further information from the gentleman [X], which he said at one point that he had but which he has not disclosed.
Lord Ahmed: There are text messages. The whole issue in relation to this process is that the Commissioner has forbidden me from contacting that gentleman, these journalists or anyone in relation to the inquiry. She questions me and she questions other people separately, but I am told not to contact those people and ask them for anything or even discuss this matter. That is the issue, really.
Q5. The Chair: Is there anything you want to say if we uphold all or any of the core findings, which one might summarise as relating to: first, the incident at or after the dinner at the Sahara Grill, which you say is an incident that would not have been remembered but for subsequent events; and, secondly, when she deals with sanctions she refers at the end of that passage to the critical period of July to November, which is when she finds that you induced the complainant into a sexual relationship under a promise to help in your capacity as a Member of the House of Lords?
Is there anything you want to say specifically on either the substance of that or the sanction that is appropriate following it? If we upheld those allegations, we would have to consider sanction and consider it against the background that the Commissioner has held that you do not have, effectively, the mitigation that might come from accepting what happened or apologising, and indeed you do not have the mitigation that might come from truthful answers there, because she has found that your answers were not truthful.
Lord Ahmed: My Lord, as to the allegations the complainant has made, in the BBC documentary it is accepted that this was consensual. There is absolutely no evidence that I persuaded her in any way for these sexual favours. Her original complaint was that I allegedly promised her that I would get her a meeting with the Commissioner of Police. I allegedly showed her a letter from the Commissioner of Police. The police have confirmed that there was no letter. There was one letter from an inspector of police, in which he said that he wanted to know the identity of this lady. Categorically, in writing, which I have given to the Commissioner, she said that she did not want to be named. She did not want to disclose her identity.
Q6. The Chair: Just pause there. I do not think I have in mind the material you are referring to when you say that she categorically said she did not wish to be identified. The letter you drafted for her of 2 March 2017 said that she was an informant and wished to remain anonymous. Is that the letter you are referring to?
Lord Ahmed: She wrote to me first. There is her letter in the report that said that she did not want to be named or for her name to be disclosed. Yes, in my letter too, I said the same thing, because she did not want to be named. In any case, when she said—she has been going on about this—that I promised her, I never did, because there was not a letter from the Commissioner of Police. There has never been a letter from the Commissioner of Police. It was an inspector who wrote and wanted her ID.
Q7. The Chair: When you say that she wrote, I think you are referring to her email. Is that right?
Lord Ahmed: Email, sir, yes.
Q8. The Chair: That is clear. Thank you. It was on 22 February.
Lord Ahmed: Yes.
Q9. The Chair: We have that in the report. Do you want to say anything more on the subject I invited you to address, which was: on the hypothesis that we were to uphold all or any part of the complaint, what should we do? The Commissioner has made a recommendation that we would have to consider at that point.
Lord Ahmed: My Lord, obviously, so far, for two years, I have suffered a lot. All my charitable work and all my community work throughout the United Kingdom has benefited from various activities, whether it is fundraising, charitable causes or even social cohesion in European communities. I have lots of organisations which I support throughout Europe. This will all stop if there are any sanctions as such.
I believe that I have suffered a lot already from what has happened. Of course, it is a matter for your Lordships and ladies and gentlemen on this Committee to recommend, but this would have a devastating effect. It would completely destroy my public life and it will also have a lot of effect on my personal life, too. As I have said, I have suffered for the last two years. If you were to uphold some of it, then that is a penalty I have already suffered as a result of anything that you may find.
The Chair: Thank you. I am going to ask if there are questions from any other members of the Committee, other than myself.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood: Speaking for myself, not at the present time. Might it be a good idea to ask Lord Ahmed to withdraw, and we can perhaps discuss whether any of us would like to ask questions at that point?
The Chair: Lord Ahmed, we were going to do that. We are going to ask you to stay, if you can. You will have to be taken out of this link, but would you please stay at the end of an email? I imagine that you receive emails on a mobile, do you?
Lord Ahmed: Yes, I do.
The Chair: If you could stay there, if we would like you to re-enter this conference call, the email will tell you. So would you please wait for at least the next half an hour or so?
Lord Ahmed: Yes. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Would you and the lawyer accompanying you withdraw?
The Committee continued in private. Lord Ahmed was not called back to the conference call.