Botham’s daughter rallies to his defence over ‘aggressive’ Lords no-show jibe
Sarah Botham points out her peerage parent ‘always stated he would not be clocking in simply to get his allowance’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The daughter of former cricketer Lord Botham has batted away an “unnecessarily aggressive and accusatory attack” on her father over his failure to turn up at Westminster.
Sarah Botham said it had “never been a secret” the independent crossbencher’s attendance in Parliament would be limited due to living in the North East and his diary commitments.
She also pointed out her father had “always stated that he would not be clocking in simply to get his allowance” and highlighted his ongoing work through Beefy’s Charity Foundation, which supports a range of good causes.
These included Blood Cancer UK and the Batten Disease Family Association (BDFA), which raises awareness and funds research into the fatal genetic condition.
Ms Botham rallied to the defence of her father after Labour peer Lord Foulkes of Cumnock argued Lord Botham never attends because he is “in Australia all the time making money from foot massagers”, a reference to his appearance in TV adverts.
He levelled the criticism during a debate on reform of the unelected chamber, which has shone a spotlight on participation by members in proceedings.
But in a rebuke to “the unnecessarily aggressive and accusatory attack by Lord Foulkes on my father”, Ms Botham said: “This appears to be a rather petulant approach for an 82-year-old to take.”
She added: “My father is currently rather more active with the House of Lords than Lord Foulkes appreciates, albeit not by physically attending the Westminster building.
“It has never been a secret that his actual presence in the house would be limited due to his overwhelming diary and the fact that he lives in the North East of England.
“He has always stated that he would not be clocking in simply to get his allowance.”
Ms Botham highlighted her father’s charitable efforts also included working with MPs on issues and said he would be involved in relevant all-party parliamentary groups, including on blood cancer and cricket.
Pointing out some of the work was of a sensitive nature and took place behind the scenes, she added: “It’s not all about what is happening in the public domain which is why what Lord Foulkes has said publicly is really disappointing.
“It is probably best that going forward if anyone is to try and discredit another peer they should fact-check first.”
Under the current rules, there is no requirement to take part beyond attending just once during a parliamentary session for a peer to maintain their seat.
Lord Botham was made a life peer in 2020 after being nominated by former prime minister Boris Johnson, and was also appointed a trade envoy to Australia, an interest that ceased in July this year.
According to the parliamentary record, he has only spoken twice in the chamber, the last time in November 2020, and has not voted since July 2021.
During the last four years he has tabled a total of five written questions, of which three were in the last month relating to the taxation of private schools.
A participation requirement by members of the unelected chamber had been proposed by Labour as part of a package of Lords reforms in its election manifesto, alongside a mandatory retirement age of 80 and the removal of hereditary peers.
However, only the latter proposal is currently being taken forward in the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has been backed by the Commons, but faces a bumpy ride through the upper chamber.