The House of Lords has hit back at claims that multimillionaire peers are claiming up to £40,000 a year in perks while doing little or no work in the second chamber.
A spokesman insisted the Lords, which now has more than 800 members, was an “active and effective revising chamber,” which had considered some 3,678 amendments to legislation in the last session and that “members contribute to that work in a wide variety of ways”.
It was claimed several peers use the Lords perks while making little or no active contribution to debates, questions or committees.
One peer is said to have collected their £300 daily allowance on 136 days last year but made no contributions in the chamber or on a committee.
There is no suggestion the individual members identified have broken any house rules or the law with respect to their latest claims.
The reported findings will add pressure to calls for change as they come after a former Lord Speaker admitted some peers "make no contribution whatsoever" and even alleged one kept a taxi waiting while they clocked on.
House of Lords officials have said any members found to be abusing the system would be suspended although they highlighted that peers' work did not always appear on official records.
According to analysis by The Sunday Times of the latest expenses records and parliamentary ones for peers' contributions to debates, committees and votes, one Crossbencher, one of Britain's wealthiest individuals, last year received £40,800 in expenses for 136 days in Parliament yet made no contributions in votes or questions and was not a member of a committee.
He voted on four pieces of legislation out of a total of 114.
A Labour peer reportedly claimed £24,300 for 83 days at the Lords, but made no contributions in debates or questions and voted on five bills.
Another Crossbench peer collected £7,800 in expenses for 29 days but did not vote or make any written or spoken contribution in the chamber.
One peer chaired a House committee although it did not conduct any business during the claim period, a parliament spokesman said.
Baroness D'Souza, a former Lord Speaker, spent months investigating which peers were clocking in simply to collect their daily allowance.
She later abandoned the probe to avoid "naming and shaming" colleagues and provoking a "press storm".
The Crossbench peer said she found it was "very difficult" to quantify members' contribution to Lords activities.
Peers are not paid a salary and can only claim their daily allowance when they attend the House and undertake parliamentary work.
Their travel costs are also reimbursed and restaurants in Parliament are subsidised.
Members have to cover any other expenses associated with their work including accommodation and staff.
A House of Lords spokesman said: "All members have to certify that they have undertaken parliamentary work when claiming.
"Where members are shown to have claimed when they have not undertaken parliamentary work, the House has the power to suspend them; as in the case of Lord Hanningfield.
"The House of Lords is an active and effective revising chamber that considered 3,678 amendments to legislation in the last session, and members contribute to that work in a wide variety of ways. In the 2015-16 session, 710 members spoke in debates, 779 voted in divisions, and 321 were members of select committees.
"However, parliamentary work is not limited to these activities, and much of it would not leave a record in Hansard," he added.
Life peer Hanningfield, a former Tory member, was jailed for expenses fraud in 2011. He was later accused of wrongly claiming around £3,300 in expenses in 2013, but was cleared after Parliament intervened.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel