The way we are paid expenses in the Lords is sleazy, embarrassing and I hate it. A lot of crossbench colleagues feel the same way and I daresay others do too. There are a number of peers who are sufficiently rich (or are paid as Ministers) they don’t feel the need to draw expenses but the vast majority do, not being able to manage without the income or feeling as I do that my main work now is the Lords and I can’t take on many paid employments outside the House without compromising my contribution to the Lords. You can see exactly how much everyone claims because its posted on the web at http://www.parliament.uk/about_lords/holallowances/hol_expenses04.cfm
To claim these tax free expenses you need to visit the Chamber in person during the day or take part in an official committee. Almost everyone slides in and out of the Chamber for a few minutes at a time in order to claim attendance allowance; does everyone feel as uncomfortable as I do about this? It is quite common for me and others to be having a meeting with various people in the Lords about a forthcoming bill, perhaps entertain an official guest to lunch and participate in the business of the house in the chamber for maybe no more than an hour on a non-voting day but can’t cover any costs without being ticked off the register. How childish this feels.
There is of course some sense in only paying those who attend but what about the active peer who suddenly becomes ill? One Lib Dem working peer was off for some months last year with a tricky hip operation; suddenly his pay went down to nil. No sick pay here. And there is of course no pay for the half the year’s days that are not sitting days. And there is a serious disadvantage for those who live in London because they can’t claim overnight expenses like those of us who live in other parts of the country. Then there are those vague office expenses to help with secretarial and research assistance. Some people have offices (often just a desk in a multi-occupancy room) in the Lords, others do not. Some claim for office assistance (I do now that I can’t get it for free from the NHS as I used to), some have it paid for by other organisations they are associated with. Lots of other public and private bodies therefore quietly subsidise the Lords, some probably without realising it. That isn’t a comfortable thing in my view although sometimes one can guess from the Register of Interests and the list of sponsored passholders who assists whom.
And why are these allowances tax free? Because, it is said, they represent payment against real expenses and aren’t ‘pay’, but who are we kidding? I would much rather have an honest wage, even if it were a small one, and pay honest taxes. But I would expect to be provided with a proper office, secretarial assistance and the normal facilities to carry out my work, not have to provide for myself. Parliament is no longer for amateurs and we shouldn’t be paid any more as if we were.
One good reason for reform of the Lords is to ensure the costs of the second chamber are explicit, seen to be fair, readily monitored and can be properly audited. As long as we have this system of obfuscation we will be open to criticism and apparently escaping taxes. The Commons rightly comes under fire for their system of expenses; they too should be paid a proper rate for the job with a transparent and accountable system which everyone can understand.
My experience of talking about this issue is that the general public looks at our expenses, realises they are more generous than they thought and tells us not to make a fuss but I’ve come to realise that our blog partcipants are a pretty sophisticated lot out there, so your thoughts and ideas about what would be fair would be welcome.
Can I wish you all a good summer break from your own endeavors and I’ll be back soon.
I’m a little confused by your comment “And there is a serious disadvantage for those who live in London because they can’t claim overnight expenses like those of us who live in other parts of the country”
Why is this a disadvantage? Surely those of you who live in London don’t need the overnight expenses, while those outside of London do need to find somewhere to stay. Assuming the overnight expense covers the extra cost of staying in London incurred by non-Londoners then no peer is out of pocket for attending the house and it seems quite equitable.
On the other hand, if overnight expenses are actually healthily more than the cost and are essentially some extra cash then your comment makes sense. Those outside London would then be getting extra money compared to those in London and a disadvantage would exist for London resident Lords.
This presumably means that overnight expenses need to be examined and either made more representive of the cost, or claimants need to be checked that they are incurring the cost.
As a business owner, I don’t get paid when ill, nor do I get paid more for working more than there are days in the year. I don’t see this as sleazy or embarrassing – it’s what I choose to do.
What is s & e is having staff who are better off on the sick for 5 days a week every month so they can claim even higher working tax credits the following year (yes, that does mean I don’t pay them for not turning up – burn me at the stake).
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the expenses peers can claim, but they aren’t likely to make any one of you rush to become a peer in order to buy a Ferrari. Have a chat with a well known supermarket if you want to know what tax avoidance really means. Else, give a donation to me if you want to feel better.
If you want a second House that brings in direct experience from as many sections of the real world as possible then they will have to already have recompensed jobs, or at least a decent pension. As I’ve said before, similar to a magistrate.
Take the money, have a good holiday, don’t feel guilty when there is no need.
Surely this is just an overhang from the days when the hereditary peers also had significant interests in land and/or business? Doubtless this will be one of the first things clarified when Lords reform is finalised.
Elaine
First, I’m not doing any of that deferential ‘Baroness’ business, especially as I trained at St George’s as a nurse and learnt pretty quickly not be deferential to any ‘management’ like you!
Second, yours is the best post by far that I’ve seen on this new multi-blog. I’ve noticed you don’t post that much, but you might reckon posting well-thought out stuff rather than for the sake of it is better; I’m interested in some of Phil Norton’s stuff, but some of it is self-indulgent nonsense – no different from most blogs, mind. To my mind this Lords bloggery should be about engaging people in stuff that might affect what gets delivered in or by the Lords – not little titbits thrown to us plebs to show us you’re all nice people really in spite of the funny clothes you have to wear. While the post I comment on here is about ‘internal’ stuff i.e. about how the Lords is run, rather than what you actually do for a bit of a living, it’s a start.
On the substantive issue of your post….it’s great to get this inside view, and I’m astonished to see the anachronism going on. Local government worked out years ago that the ‘attendance allowance’ militated against decent councillor work and got rid of it in favour of a basic taxable salary. Of course your main work is done outside the House itself, just like it is in any board/committee, and to tie payment to attendance is absurd. You get an agenda of sorts, I assume, and you know what you need to turn up to. To think that peers briefly turn up just to get their dosh when they could be on be other side of the country, or wherever, doing other proper representative stuff!
The question is what you’re going to do about it. Your post suggests you are powerless to change stuff, but you are after all a Baroness. I’m a pleb, with no power whatsoever, but if you want help in mounting a public campaign to change the allowance system to something sensible, you know where I am.