THE House of Lords was yesterday involved in a fresh expenses row after new research showed that 73 peers – almost one in 10 of the total in the upper house – had failed to speak, sit on committees or submit any written questions, and 17 of them had claimed more than £10,000 in expenses.
A report from the Electoral Reform Society said nine of those pocketed more than average UK take-home pay of £22,226 – claiming a total of £271,313. Of the 73 who were paid expenses, 34 claimed £488,010.
Scottish peers topped the list with former Labour Scottish Office minister Lord John Kirkhill, claiming £43,896, and former Paisley Labour MP Baroness Irene Adams, who took home £41,287.
Other peers with Scottish links who are prominent on the list are LibDem peer Lord John Thurso, who claimed £32,235, Lord William Howie of Troon, a former Labour MP (£29,100) and crossbencher Viscount Charles Colville (£25,500), who made 18 spoken contributions in the survey period. Lord Neil Davidson of Glen Clova, a former advocate general for Scotland, claimed £18,518.
Yesterday’s findings followed research last month that showed 115 lords – one in seven of the total – failed to speak at all in the 2016/17 session, despite claiming an average of £11,091 each, while 18 peers failed to vote but still claimed £93,162.
The ERS said the figures rubbished claims that most of the “silent peers” were working hard behind the scenes, and said that nearly two-thirds of them (64 per cent) were inactive in other key areas of work in the Lords.
ERS chief executive, Darren Hughes, said: “The fact that nearly one in 10 peers are failing to contribute to the work of the House is bad enough. But it leaves a nasty taste when a significant chunk of those are claiming more than the average worker takes home in a year.
“While many peers do work hard, it does our democracy a huge disservice when dozens of unelected peers are taking advantage of the lack of scrutiny, and appear to be gaming the system.
“To the public – and indeed to some Lords – the upper chamber has become simply a members’ club, rather than an essential revising chamber. This is no fit state for the Mother of all Parliaments. Voters are sick of scandal after scandal – ones which stems from a total lack of accountability. What we need is a much smaller, fairly elected upper house that the public can have faith in – and where voters can hold ineffective peers to account.
“This is the second expenses scandal revealed in just a month. Enough is enough. We need real reform – not tinkering around the edges.”
The research came ahead of a Lords report on reforming the House at the end of this month, with the ERS highlighting “lobby fodder lords” – peers who turn up to claim and vote without taking part in the essential scrutiny of government.
Alexandra Runswick, director of campaign group Unlock Democracy, said: “Lords getting paid for doing nothing is indefensible. The Government tells us that we don’t have enough money to properly fund public services, but we’re expected to tolerate people treating our Parliament as a subsidised drop in centre.
“The job that the second chamber does matters, particularly at the moment as Brexit is the biggest change in over 40 years. That’s why we need fundamental reform so that it is accountable to the people.”
A Lords spokesperson said: “Members can claim £300 or £150 for every day they attend the House and undertake parliamentary work. Apart from travel costs, this is the only payment peers receive.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel