He paid women in prostitution for their services in a grace and favour flat in Dolphin Square for which he pays £1,000 a month instead of the going rate of nearly £3,000. This man’s “private life” is subsidised to the hilt by the taxpayer, and that is what really sticks in the craw. That, and his comments about Asian women. He asks if there will be any “nice little young Asian women” at the party, before adding, “they sort of look innocent but you know they are whores”. As he was the guy in the Lords responsible for making sure that his colleagues, his fellow public servants, behaved properly, the notion of “double standards” covers him much less impressively than that unfortunate bra. His awful moaning to the women who charged him £200 a night about how he can’t get by on a Lords allowance of £200 a day is the worst element of the whole scandal. “I do spend it on wine and different things,” he remarked.
In reality the allowance for peers is £300 a day, though it does not apply to Sewel. He is paid £120,000 a year, made up of his salary for his part-time work chairing committees in the Lords (£84,525) and his allowance of £36,000 for maintaining a home in London. He complains that he is struggling, and when one of the women asks if his £200 allowance pays for his lunch, he replies: “it’s not lunch luvvie darling, its paying for this”. Wow. Is there any real question that he should remain in the House? That he should not be expelled? He certainly can’t be put back in charge of the conduct committee, or appointed to any others. His behaviour and his sense of entitlement have clearly prospered in the context of the Lords. This is six-figure scrounging.
A benefits cap is a good idea, after all!