I am back on my old hobbyhorse of lords’ expenses.
I have now talked to a committee secretary, who informs me that none of their expenses are receipted.
My contact talks of “knocking back” particularly extreme expense claims from one peer who has already been named in the matter of undue housing claims.
But the central issue is that of paperwork. There is a voluntary scheme in the Lords for peers to draw a business credit card, on which they can charge flights, meals, hotels, taxis and the rest.
I have to hand those for all the Northern Ireland peers. But they are a quite extraordinary bundle of paper, because just about every entry has been redacted.
There is absolutely no knowing what the individual commercial transaction was. At times it is obvious that it was a flight.
Peers claim that their travel arrangements are so uncertain, and their need to get to Westminster fast so urgent, that they invariably have to take the most expensive option going.
So while the rest of us are spending £35 on Easyjet or Ryanair, they go for British Midland or some such. And as for buying tickets in advance, they quite simply don’t seem to do it.
All this only goes to show that if a credit card issued to the peers, funded by the taxpayer, cannot be fully and publicly accounted for, the system isn’t worth the paper it is printed on. Added to which, all this redaction is using up a great deal of printing ink.
I go so far as to suggest that, if anything, the system of expenses in the House of Lords is potentially more dubious than in the House of Commons, specifically because of the lack of receipts.
It’s worth pointing out that there is to be no comprehensive inquiry into what’s been going on in the House of Lords, and the amounts of money involved are very much larger than in the lower house.
Commentsoldest first
No receipts?! That’s shocking. It seems as if it is run on more of a ‘Gentleman’s Club’ basis rather than a publicly funded part of the British Government. I assume that steps are being taken to change this following the uproar in the House of Commons expenses row. I don’t suggest that they ought to travel by bicycle everywhere, but some type of financial accountability should be put in place.
Whats all the fuss about. Take the emotion and the noise out of this…. Its just a simple policy, process & procedures. The Private sector has had no problem writing and enforcing the rules for me over the past 38 years >>
- Follow the rules or leave the company voluntarily.
- Break the rules and be sacked.
So, the Government needs to do the following to be fair to all parties:
1 – expose the failures in the Lords system. If anyone has broken the rules then rectify and repay anything where there is no doubt of a breach, if any fraud then handover matter to police.
2 – implement the same policy, process & procedures as the Commons .. this is fair… its the same organisation just a different dept.
3 – Enforce the policy, process and procedures. Dismiss anyone who deliberately breachs the rules.
Simple. JFDI.
Keep it up, Jon. It is obvious from the currently limited exposure of dodgy accommodation claims that only the iceberg’s tip has been visible so far. To mix metaphors, it’s time to ‘get the drains up’ on their Lordships’ House and see, or more likely smell, just what disreputable activities have been going on there too.
In the absence of data leaks such as those used so effectively by the Daily Telegraph for the Lower House, it will need continuing pressure from commentators of your profile to bring about Phase Two of this essential cleansing operation. More power to your elbow, Jon.
Will anything be done about it? If so, it will also be thanks to Jon Snow.
This latest expenses scandal can’t be brushed under the carpet, especially at a time when the country is in serious turmoil.
One of the underlying problems is that the british are too proud and hanging on to an empire which disappeared many years ago.
I am both proud and ashamed to be british.
adzmundo CND
This MUST be investigated. What kind of expenses system has no requirement for receipts? This sounds like carte blanche to spend what you like – at taxpayer’s expense. I repeat: this MUST be thoroughly investigated.
£3000 a month for each peer !! and no need to show any justification? call in the police NOW !
Having glimpsed the amounts of moolah those good people at the BBC are raking in,would’nt it be interesting to see how much extra dosh they put down to expenses.Is’nt it time to spread the net a little wider ? And would anyone just confess the unspoken truth,which is the whole nation is on the fiddle,including doubtless innumerable hypocritical hacks-people in glass houses etc !
The permanent solution to public officers’ problem with public funds is to pay them a good remuneration and leave them to it. They would not need to give account. Anything less will never solve the problem. The reason for good remuneration is to ensure that worries over insuficient fund would not distract them from giving quality service to public benefit.
If they are to be given any amount to run their offices or any special affairs, they should get grant that they would not need to account for except by the quality of services they render to the public that should benefit.
Their performance becomes the yardstick of assessing their benefit and holding them to accountability. As long as the give quality service to the public they should be left to whatever they do with the grant they get. The other solution is to ask for volunteer public servants. It would not help much because they would still need public funds to run their affairs as volunteer publc servants. And there is no assurance that the aides that would administer the operational funds provided would not be guilty of the same misuse of public funds.
Surprise surprise!
While peers may be claiming some unreasonable expenses, you fail to mention that peers do not receive a salary. They are paid a small attendance fee and reimbursed for expenses. Many things can be said about the inappropriateness of the Lords. But the vast majority of the working peers work very hard to scrutinise Government legislation that the Commons fails to do. As with MP’s expenses, the real problem is that individuals are not properly paying for the work they do governing our country.
The structure of this society needs brought to its knees, rebuilding anew with moral justice in mind.
DOWN with the LORDS!!!
and who would you trust to rebuild it
Not sure the Great British Public are ready for another expenses saga yet.
M P’s expenses are still an on going issue with many doing their best to water down Kelly. Apart from a few high profile cases little seems to have been achieved to date. However someone needs to look at the Lords expenses. What rules do they operate by and why no receipts?
We need a cull on the number of MP’s and Lord’s, we have too many. They are costing the tax payer too much.
And we wonder why there is so much hate toward these corrupt scum.
Keep up your excellent work on this, as in other matters, Jon.
I am frightened of the consequences of any further destruction and disembling of the UK’s infrastructure. I am not convinced that destabilisation is the best way forward, although I do agree with your sentiment.
Jon, you know that there are so many considerations to take into account when talking about equality. Equality is so misunderstood. For instance here in the north equality means that everybody is treated exactly the same whether they have put their whole life into a quest or have just begun. The disparity between say for example your life as a journalist and an aspiring journalist who has blogged on the side ,should not be given equal financial remuneration, for that would be ‘taking the Mick’ out of your life’s work.This is the type of stance we have to endure though in the name of equality.
Perhaps the superinquisitiveness into the Lord expenses will trigger the Lords’ to check themselves.
margaret i agree with you about the consequences of furthe destruction of our institutions . why spoil your argument with waffle
I object to the expression ”Taking the Mick”as it is ”taking the micturate” out of the original expression. It is disrespectful to the thousands of people named Mick, and only the original should be used
Well, at least it’ll be a relief to new member of The Lords Michael Martin to find that he can carry on in the same old unaccountable expences claiming way… and he will find some good company there with the likes of convicted arsonists and high court perjurers.
And we are paying for all that redaction ink, too!!
We must take on another Expenses issue. If not whole discrediting saga will take even longer to sort. MPs Expenses report and must not be watered down -tax payer paid for it, it required doing because of corruption by some. Until system adjusted – stop ALL expenses, tell MPs to live within salary even if means a meagre lifestyle similar to large proportion of earners in UK. Lords, as Lords job not salaried they given a sum around £250 pwk. This until re-analysis what is required for remuneration of these posts. This done not by MPs and ‘ Lords’ but a separate proven Body. Here add about MoD bonuses – when did this misguided culture of remuneration start? It a way in some cultures of lazy, disempowered, uninspired workforce to get them working (legitimate bribery) so how is it in the Civil Service and so MoD? I in my time as a nurse never got a bonus for saving life or getting a bad wound to heal – in fact if had accepted a reward outside my salary it could be interpreted as unethical , so how is it MoD gets rewarded for making war, death and war machines? All these Expenses and bonuses have created a tier of overinflated prices, egos, skewed thinking .
Expenses are a necessary feature of many jobs and the Legislature or public services are no different.
However, the simple key is to qualify all such expenses as being “wholly, exclusively and unavoidably incurred in the conduct of the role” – “unavoidably” being the key definition.
If that simple approach were implemented (and monitored by genuinely independent audit), not only with the Lords and Commons, but also with the BBC and others, no reasonable person should then have any problem with that type of reimbursement.
So how do we get there ? If we don’t do it soon, then the level of disrespect for all public officers will assume such proportions that their capacity to govern and administrate by consent will be irretrievably compromised.
So we bring the lot down.. divide and rule .
Who rules? the hot headed, the arrogant ,, the hurt, The terrorists.
Perhaps you give to little respect to individuals who have anger or pain at how society has treated them. It might be the case that you would see compassion and equality delivered with ease.
I think the Lords expenses need looking at.If only because expenses are paid without receipt.
What i can not understand about both the Commons and Lords expenses is where were the auditors and have the accounts been passed by them If so how and why???
Go on Jon – a fine job as always.
Maybe that spreadsheet I suggested a while back will come in handy now eh?
Heres an idea- once you have collected the figures a handy Return On Investment calculation would be I think an excellent way of showing the public what we are up against.
Find out how much the “Lord” gave to their party and then see how fast they are claiming it back from our pocket! A return on investment in power I suppose.
You could have some real fun with it- who is on course to get their money back fastest- who has made the most against how much they gave- and so on,
I’d love to see that
Thats something Id really like to see.
The Peers allowances are nothing more than State sponsored corruption. When I say ‘State’, that is the honest taxpaying hoi polloi – you and me. The Telegraph has reported on numerous Peers who have claimed allowances of
over £250,000 between 2002/08. Let us not forget, these allowances are intended to meet ‘the reasonable, and actual, out of pocket expenses incurred’. Yes, and pigs may fly ! One Peer cited in the Telegraph has lived in Chelsea since the early 70’s, and worked as a dentist in his Wimpole Street practice for the same period. If an egg is an egg then Chelsea is this Peer’s main family home and residence. Yet, he informs the Lords Fees Office that his ‘main residence’ is his cottage in deepest Cotswolds, where the locals say they “never see him”. In so doing, he is able to extract the maximum daily allowances of over £300, every time he makes an appearance. That appearance incidentally can be for no more than 5 minutes !
MAKES THE HARD PRESSED TAXPAYER, IN CASH STRAPPED BRITAIN, FEEL WARM ALL OVER – DOESN’T IT !
Lord Burden (8:45 pm on November 12, 2009) advises that Peers ‘are not paid a salary’. Yes we know that, rather like the RNLI, the Charity Shop workers, the Parish Councillors – I could go on and on. It is not well undertood that the Peers’ allowances are triggered by their attendance. That DOES NOT have to be a full day’s sitting, it can literally mean walking in and walking out again, and many are known to flagrantly abuse the system in this way. The allowances are also paid to those Peers enjoying a few zzzzzzzzzzzzz’s on the red leather. Not many people get paid whilst dozing off on a bench ! The House of Lords is a ghastly anachronism that needs to be closed down. These Peers still act as if they have their fiefdoms, and a henchman to collect the subserviant serf’s taxes !
I believe we need the Lords as there is no other check on the commons, except every 5 years.There is a vast difference between remuneration and usefulness .
The remuneration needs to be urgently sorted, and malpractice severely punished .
I think the country ,thanks to the Telegraph is beginning to realise just how our public bodies are ripping us off . No doubt if the investigating continues we will find the same in Quangos and councils throughout these islands
Yes a few doze after sitting for a few hours on the red leather seats,; MOST HAVE SERVED THEIR COUNTRY AND ARE A LITTLE OLDER.
Over the last few weeks I have been watching on the box the Commons and the Lords. It is surprising how few there are in chamber in the Commons. Perhaps if their were more bums on seats for a few hours then they would fall asleep too, but alas many can be seen texting on their mobiles laughing at the messages whilst debates are in progress.
It only take 40 members to amend a policy and frequently no more than 10 are in chamber BUT they can vote from afar..
All it takes is one speck of kindness to all and then we have a chance to improve humanity. Dont spoil this rare chance to reach out.
Jon
The last time you raised this, I wrote to my MP and asked him what is being dome about the Lords’ expenses. He passed it on to the Leader of the Lords but so far I have heard not a word.
I just hope the taxman is content when I tell him that I’m just following government policy when I produce no receipts for my expenses claims.
SHows how useful our freedom of information law is dosent it? I presume you have already complained to the information commisoners office – not that i expect it will do us any good.
Again I look at the comments the next day to see if all this anger is purely a way of the bloggers to self carthasis .
Can someone not project a little dignity into the equation instead of this animalistic attack on some very moral people, who have lived their lives trying to better Laws for the sake of you who are attacking them.
Whilst objectively there may be an expenses cover up, it may be pertinent not to find people guilty until it is proved.
These people who update the laws and look into the ethics in order to make it fair for the general public are also protecting the many gainst the lynch mob attitude displayed on this blog site. I would rather have them than these attitudes.
here lies hope – a sane voice ,
the image of a house full of angry Us and Themersas seem to be main commenters here frightens me more than the unsurprisingly absurd blocks of black ink from the gentlemens club.
Easy to criticise ,and yes if anyone is going to claim expenses at the expense of the tax payer ,those costs should be proven , audited and agreed and transparent.I hate to ask what jon ’s salary is , and what expenses he claims ,but i think we are entitled to know . If you criticise others you must be whiter than white yourself
A few years ago plans were made to improve the relationship between the Lords and the Commons “The Governance of Britain ”
The goal was to invigorate democracy, by shaking up the Lords to a majority.. all elected chamber.
That plan was based on principles that the Commons were whiter than white and knew what they should do to promote fairness and justice.
It has probably gone pear- shaped now. It looks like the’ pot calling the kettle black’.
No credibility at this point in time and as one blogger pointed out , the Lords do not get high salaries .To press the expenses issue , looks more like spite thana sound reason to continue.
[...] am depressed by those comments in my Lords Snowblog of last week, that we are in danger of letting in “terrorists” and the rest if we go too far with reform. I [...]
Does parliament,Commons and Lords need reforming .If so .why and how?
Certainlt the expenses saga needs to be addressed,for both houses .There needs to be total transparency and no chance of corruption.I do believe that will come.
The next problem is parliament itself.It needs to rule by concensus,not by the big stick(i have a majority, i will do as i wish) nor necessarily by agreement in Parliament, but with the agreement of the British people.Other than tax and war legislation needs to be discussed in the Commons(the legislature) amended in the Lords (the amending chamber) and then put to the British people by referendum .Then we would have a true democracy where the will of the majority prevails
One Peer interviewed by the Telegraph last week said ‘I am an impoverished Peer, and this is my only income’, when referring to the allowances claimed against a relatives home (aka ‘main residence’) in which he has never lived. Let us be reminded that these payments to the Peers are made TAX FREE. Why, many would ask, are they not taxed as unearned income, as they clearly bear no relationship to the actual and reasonable expense of the Peer, and many treat them as income ? I have no time for those who act as apologists, for this greedy and deceitful behaviour. As Milke Gatting once famously remarked on the cricket pitch “there’s one rule for them, and one rule for us”. Says it all really.
It is not a case of being an apologist. It is clearly a fact that justice without corruption , without prejudgement , objectively and calmly should take pressident. There is also a right time and a period of time which needs to be considered . I am not in favour of bringing my own Country to its’ knees for the sake of investigative journalism.
There are degrees of corruption .. There are priorities which if not met will usurp our own safety.
What one man considers impoverished another man may perceive as rich.
e.g. At present my profession gives me £5oo per month.. yet it is reported that people of my status bring home £30.- £40, 000 pounds PA .Lets analyse the facts.
I personally have time to listen to all views without anger, unless that view is irresponsibly acted upon.
Thre isn’t a reply part to Adrians, comment. SO HERE GOES
That is my freedom of expression Adrian.
Sometimes by making a blunt statement, meaning is actually changed.
Again I state the obvious and am saying that I state it in order not to undermine myself or appear to condescend to others.
The ” waffle” helps to ensure that I don’t offend.
Succinct journalese is not always the best type of writing to represent an individuals nature.
We are blogging here , not reporting news or trying to create poetry. We are expressing our views in the awareness that our views, if we are lucky or unlucky enough, will represent our persona.
I love reading your views Margaret. All i was meaning by waffle , is that sometimes the solidity of your arument is lost in the verbage
Margaret says ‘what one man considers impoverished another man may perceive as rich’. Yes, I understand as much, however, the point is missed. These allowances are intended to reimburse actual out-of-pocket costs, NOT provide an income. Whatever perceived quality of life that ‘income’ brings is quite irrelevant. It should merely be covering the costs of Parliamentary duty, and not providing, either an impoverished income,or, a ‘rich’ income. I am tiring of this argument, that so few appear to grasp. As for Margaret’s professional fee of £500 pm, many Peers would scoff at such pepper corn. They can make that in 2 attendances, which can last as long as it takes to walk into and out of the Lords Chamber. Now there is an interesting perspective on one’s worth !
Leave a comment
* Required field.