Lord Soley

As someone claimed that we hadn’t addressed the issue of expenses in the Lords I thought I should put the record straight. If you type in the search box ‘expenses’ you will find quite a few entries from me and others.

Recently we introduced a new system which will take effect from October. It is IMV a marked improvement on the previous one but we still need more changes. I pointed out in my speech on this in July that we ought to review the assistance given to Peers with disabilities as a priority but other changes are needed over time. I still favour bringing in IPSA (the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) to work on this but IPSA is remarkably unpopularat the moment and there is some justification for that. If we are not to have an independent model then my favoured option is to have continuous review with recommendations to the House  formally (and therfore publically) agreed on the floor of the House.

Meanwhile we have wrapped up the various allowances into a single one which is rather less than the total of the previous ones. It means we get £300 every time we attend BUT before you say “Yikes!” do remember that has to cover everything. So I have to pay my secretary/researcher out of that and all other expenses. I also don’t get any money if I am working but not physically in the House. There is of course no formal pay, no holiday or sick pay and no pension so don’t give up your day job if you are coming into the House of Lords!  AND we are still by far the cheapest second chamber in the world.

32 comments for “Expenses

  1. Carl.H
    16/08/2010 at 11:55 am

    “Which is rather less than the total of the previous ones.”

    Please explain where you think it less. I showed figures in the other thread of where Baroness Deech could actually see some £67.50 more over a three day period, she obviously needs accomodation because of the distance she lives.

    Lord Soley, I presume, doesn`t need accomodation. On the old system he would have received £86.50 day allowance and £75 Office Allowance….A total of £161.50.

    Under the new scheme of £300 per day I think you`ll find that a SIGNIFICANT rise.

    ” No formal pay, no holiday or sick pay and no pension”

    Welcome to the ranks of the self employed. There are alternatives if the working conditions are not suitable, McDonalds are always recruiting with all the aforementioned benefits.

    Infact because of the way things work, you could work in McDonalds most of the week, turn up at the House for one day and not actually do a thing and still pull £300 for the day. Cushtie !

    Now compare your lot with that of a soldier serving in Afghanistan, although out of this country and doing a bloomin fine job for it, he pays tax on his far less than £300 per day.

    I have no sympathy for you I`m afraid, to put it simply if you can`t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. If you think you will be happier elsewhere, earn more than (upto)£1500 a week, enjoy more freedom, coming and going as you please, then please close the door quietly on way out.

    Job Seekers Allowance is £60.50 per week. The basic state pension is £97.65 per week.

  2. 16/08/2010 at 2:08 pm

    Far too much fallacious-content is being allowed to pass through such public-discussion forums as LordsoftheBlog, and more ‘malfeasantly’ through Monarchy-and-Establishment, Parliamentary Houses and Governance Circles, Judiciary, Civil-Service, Educational-Community-Religious and Media sectors actual power-governance places.

    Therefore (in short) I intend to start upon the Posted-Topic, and upon any comment or reply thereunder, by identifying any fallacy or fallacious-looking context.
    e.g. in Lord Soley’s “favoured option is to have continuous review with recommendations to the
    House formally (and therefore publically) agreed on the floor of the House” the life-front sense of this is in no “agreed by The Public”, but only “agreed on the floor of the House and published in Hansard for The Public to read about”.

    (Please see my similar rational comments today to Baroness Murphy’s “The Graduate Tax”, and to Lord Norton’s “Peers expenses”)

    I shall “return”; either to spot a fallacy or to begin ‘encircling’ any whole fallacious-context that should be clearly and excisively set-aside.

  3. Senex
    16/08/2010 at 4:17 pm

    CH: You are being unkind to the old gentleman. Old gentlemen over the age of 65 do not pay Class 1 NI as they are exempt by virtue of age. This means that he would not qualify for contribution based job seekers allowance. This is why you are being unkind.

    The Chancellor in a recent budget committee grilling by a Labour MP was asked if he knew the amount paid weekly as job seekers allowance. The Chancellor fumbled a bit and said it was sixty pounds something. The MP gave the exact amount and then asked if the chancellor had ever been unemployed the Chancellor replied ‘No’. The MP went on further to complain about cuts being disproportionate to those that have signed on etc. The session can be found on the BBC Democracy Live Site for July.

  4. Carl.H
    16/08/2010 at 4:40 pm

    I want to expand on this a little inpart in the hope that the members of the House can elucidate and to see if legislation is followed within the walls of Parliament or if they are a seperate case.

    A lord spends 4 days a week in the House, he is in the Home Counties and travels home nightly. He will get £1200 tax free and his travel expenses.

    Recently I came upon a report, in another blog, where it was stated Parliamentary interns/researchers/secretaries are paid below minimum wage or not at all. The report intimated that this was breaking employment law and interns should be paid at least minimum wage, which from October 2010 will be £5.93 an hour.

    If we accept a Lord pays his researcher/intern/secretary the minimum wage and deduct that from the £1200, the Lord still receives £962 tax free. At a 40 hour week the intern would recieve £237.20.

    Assuming the Lord works, as they all seem to state they do, through the recess etc.,do they still employ the intern ? If so the wage the intern receives is likely over the tax allowance threshold, 2010-11 £6475. Do they pay PAYE and NI for the intern ? As an employer, do they require Public Liability insurance etc.

    This is in NO WAY an accusation of anything. I`d just like to be clear on how employing a secretary/researcher/intern equates with legislation the public are required to follow. It may well be that the requirements within Parliament are entirely different.

  5. Senex
    16/08/2010 at 5:06 pm

    The employment status of MPs and peers continues to baffle me.

    If we accept that the tax payer is the notional employer of an MP then the subject of expenses becomes interesting. If Parliament is the place of work then MPs are being paid for the journey to work something that is prohibited by the tax authorities. The public must pay income tax, VAT, duty and NI on their journey to work.

    This would mean that MPs are engaged in tax evasion as defined by the Finance Acts so an MP cannot be an employee of their notional employer. The MP is not a director of an incorporated notional employer as defined by Companies House. The MP must therefore be a self employed sole trader and his client is Parliament. The journey to the client is allowable as an expense but is time limited for the same client.

    As MPs continue for many years to claim travel expenses to the same client they are doing something the public cannot do so are engaged in tax evasion. However, the self employed as sole traders do not pay Class 1 NI whereas MPs do. We must conclude from this that the MP is in reality an employee within the terms of the Finance Acts and that the expenses paid to them for the journey to work amounts to tax evasion.

    For peers they are not remunerated so the question of paying Class 1 NI does not arise. However, they must be sole traders in the company of soul traders and their client is the HoL. Again, the payment of expenses to the same client for an extended period of time is not allowed by the tax authorities. Peers are therefore engaged by virtue of the Finance Acts in tax evasion.

    Solution, change the Finance Acts to allow the travel expenses to the same client for any length of time. However, by doing so the government could be accused by the opposition of promoting tax evasion.

    Another solution, create another tax authority that bypasses the Finance Acts and allows MPs and peers to enjoy whatever they want and without breaking the law; one rule for them one rule for the rest of us. Holy cash cow! Moooo!

    • Carl.H
      18/08/2010 at 3:38 pm

      “This would mean that MPs are engaged in tax evasion as defined by the Finance Acts so an MP cannot be an employee of their notional employer.”

      If this is found to be so, I don`t expect it, then as per your recent link, retrospective tax law could be used.

  6. baronessmurphy
    16/08/2010 at 5:13 pm

    Carl H.
    The old rate was 330 per day, the new one is 300. It’s that simple. I’m fed up with you and others comparing us with every tom dick or harry that earns less. We don’t live in a society where everyone earns the same; we live in a society where education, knowledge, skills and experience count towards pay level but also where people who aspire to earn more as they take on more responsibility. Of course there are anomalies and one of them is that political service is underpaid. I don’t begrudge that super duper footballer earning millions, and I don’t begrudge the banker his millions either; one gives great pleasure and earns for his club; the other creates the wealth we all live on. Comparing peers with soldiers is simply emotionally loaded codswallop. The fact is that the vast majority of people who work in the lords lose money by doing so, in my case quite a substantial amount. I do my best to contribute where I can and I feel irritated that those whom I would have thought would have taken a commonsense view do the opposite. Now I realise that will enrage many of you…good, the feeling is entirely mutual.

    • Carl.H
      16/08/2010 at 6:02 pm

      Let`s look at figures then:

      Old rate:

      5 days @ 86.50 day allowance = £432.50
      4 Nights @ £174 Accomodation = £696.00
      5 Days @ £75 Office = £375.00

      Total = £1503.50

      (4 Days accomodation is the norm for most workers who work away during the week, arriving Monday a.m. Returning Friday p.m.)

      The New

      5 x £300 = £1500

      So yes you are out of pocket, by £3.50


      Let`s look at a further breakdown.

      The House sat for 147 days (2008-9)

      Earnings for full atendance under new rules £44,100 tax free

      Average sitting time per day 6 hours 32 minutes.



      My Lady no one is saying you are not worth the money but the eternal whinging grates and just emphasises the fact that it appears all politicians are self centred.

      As for the comparison with the soldier I rather hoped someone would take up the gauntlet of their taxation whilst working abroad in less than comfortable circumstances. You`re quite right though there is no comparison between a peer and a soldier. A peer makes a mistake…oh well. A soldier makes a mistake ? Perhaps a civilian dies, a comrade or he faces a charge of murder. It`s clear peers have far more responsibility.

      As a self employed person perhaps I have a simplified view of employment…If you don`t like the job or wage, it causes you hardship, don`t do it.

    • 22/08/2010 at 4:46 pm

      Baroness Murphy,
      Economy is an issue that brings to mind and old saw or joke for me. Set a few decades ago it runs: A very rural man moves to the city and has his first experience with gas, electrity and water bills and is quite disturbed by the price. His old father comes in to visit and urges him to put in a stove that will burn both coal and firewood saying he can bring or send him most of the firewood he’ll need at little or no cost. He puts this in at the start of a mid winter month and finds the costs of what we call utilities reduced by half. Excitedly he empties his savings and puts in another stove so that he will not have to pay anything at all…

  7. Lord Blagger
    16/08/2010 at 9:08 pm

    Any guesses as to what happens if you run the new expenses regime (designed to avoid scrutiny) through the old expenses figures to see if they go up or down?

    A) The same number
    B) A higher number
    C) A Lower number

  8. Lord Blagger
    16/08/2010 at 9:09 pm

    AND we are still by far the cheapest second chamber in the world.


    Completely wrong. There are far cheaper systems and you know it.

    How about the costs of a second chamber in New Zealand?

    Name the chamber that is the cheapest, or we can jump to the conclusion you are making it up

  9. Lord Blagger
    16/08/2010 at 9:11 pm

    The current system for claiming second homes for the public limits the payments for 2 years.

    Will you be bringing the Lords into line with the tax system suffered by the plebs?

  10. Lord Blagger
    16/08/2010 at 9:12 pm

    There is of course no formal pay, no holiday or sick pay and no pension so don’t give up your day job if you are coming into the House of Lords!


    So your confirming the clock in, clock off, get the expenses and go and work else where approach to life in the Lords.

  11. Carl.H
    16/08/2010 at 11:27 pm

    Page 16 is interesting, the part about expenses at 2009 prices, though I doubt it`s accuracy.


    ” 13 July 2010
    The House Committee published their report, Financial Support for Members of the
    House of Lords (July 2010, HL Paper 18), which invited the House to agree to the
    changes put forward by Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the House of Lords, on 28 June.
    The committee approved Lord Strathclyde’s proposal that the day subsistence, overnight
    subsistence and office costs elements be combined into a single rate of £300, and his
    proposal that there should be a reduced rate allowance of £150, to which members on
    certain kinds of official parliamentary business away from Westminster should be entitled
    (in addition to hotel and travel expenses), or which Peers could choose to accept instead
    of the full payment. The committee recommended that Peers be reimbursed for train
    travel up to the ceiling cost of a standard open ticket, whatever class they chose to
    travel. Members’ spouses, civil partners and dependents should be reimbursed in the
    same way, for up to six journeys per year, on days when the House is sitting.”

    I`m not sure that the £150 afore mentioned above has stayed in that context, apparently not judging by reactions so far. Most seeming to think it was only if one attended the House part time. I think that needsclarity.

    This is also interesting and very telling, though no rules were broken.

    “More than 150 peers have been claiming a £174 tax-free overnight allowance for staying in London, despite owning a property there, a report says.

    The detail is published in a report on implementing changes to the Lords expenses system.

    It says 326 members who replied to a survey claim the “overnight subsistence allowance”.

    Of those 167 own accommodation in London and 113 own their properties outright – making them mortgage-free.”

  12. baronessmurphy
    17/08/2010 at 10:45 am

    Carl H, The House normally sits 4 days and one used to be entitled to claim only for the nights one stayed over, normally 3 nights, sometimes 4.That meant the maximum clain was £335.50 per day. Now it is £300. That’s a cut.

    Now about those who own a property in London. I do. It is not mortgaged. My expenses on it, (ground rent, maintenance, council tax) are about the same as the old allowance. You could say I’m living in luxury, in fact I’ve had the same flat since 1983 and I don’t think it’s particularly wicked to wish to maintain that level of lifestyle when I’m working in politics. I’ve always been aware that as a doctor employed by the HNS and a university I have been paid by the public purse, ie you the tax payer (and me of course) has paid for my entire career, presumably in the hope of getting a useful return. Suddenly I’m in a political role and criticised for wanting proper pay for proper work. Sorry, I’m still hopping mad…. and if anyone says ‘you still don’t get it do you?’, go join the marxists.

    • Carl.H
      17/08/2010 at 12:50 pm

      My Lady, please do the math on the details you just gave, appearances are deceptive.

      At the new rate:

      4 days £1200

      At the old:

      4 @ £86.50 = £346
      4 @ £75.00 = £300
      3 @ £174.00= £522

      Total = £1168.00

      Yes if you stay on the extra night you are out of pocket but that isn`t usually the norm.

      My Lady, I think a lot of career politicians joined the Lords without looking at it properly. This is the reason we can see from expense allowance document the very big change in expenses. Party politics has entered the House in a big way, ex MP`s see it as a job, as part of a career and this was never how it was intended.

      What we have now is a state of confusion where members don`t actually know what they are supposed to be. Members of the public see that the House is being turned into similar to the other place and don`t like it. It`s a mess and mainly caused by the Governments foisting it`s members on the House who see it as an extension of the Commons, it`s not and was never intended to be.

      My Lady regards your house in London, I won`t go there, I will just say I disagree with what has been going on.

      My Lady I feel that you joined the House as part of a career, a job. Personally I think that is not how the House works or it was intended. Yes some are trying to alter it into that but if it becomes that, we change the constitution and have just an extension of the Commons which I feel is unnecessary. If that is what is proposed then better the House goes altogether.

      Am I a Marxist ? Well I certainly begrudge the football players you mentioned their millions, the game is being ruined and many a club is going to the wall. I also begrudge the bankers their millions too, especially after the tax payer bailing them out.

      I can only look on whilst Parliament makes the rules and perhaps grumble a bit, which is what my Lady is doing now. I still have to obey the rules or pay the penalty. The House passed the expenses proposals not I.

      I feel my Lady has joined something which is vague in it`s tenure and may have got it wrong but I feel she is not alone. I feel the House needs to define itself and it`s role better. It is I feel confused at present.

      • 17/08/2010 at 3:01 pm

        Am I a Marxist ? Well I certainly begrudge the football players you mentioned their millions, the game is being ruined and many a club is going to the wall. I also begrudge the bankers their millions too, especially after the tax payer bailing them out.


        So what happened to workers Ownership of the Means of Production?

        Ignoring the socialist nationalisation of failed banks (the capitalist would have let them go bust), what about bankers?

        Shouldn’t the banker get all the profit as the worker in your marxist paradise?

        What’s a fair share of the profits for the worker and what’s a fair share of the profits for the supplier of capital?

        • Carl.H
          18/08/2010 at 6:12 am

          Lord Blagger, stick, wrong end of !

    • 17/08/2010 at 1:12 pm

      It’s only a cut if we pay less for the Lords.

  13. Senex
    17/08/2010 at 3:15 pm

    CH: Let me put a proposition to you.

    Peers finance through their own personal taxation any expenses paid to them and even run a surplus that subsidises the general running of the house.

    What you seem to forget is that peers themselves are taxpayers. They pay VAT, duty, income tax, insurance tax or any manner of tax just like everybody else. So you could say they are funding their own allowances through taxation which makes them very tax efficient. On this basis it is up to you or indeed anybody else to disprove the proposition.

    If we take the Commons on the other hand, MPs are not self employed by virtue of them paying Class 1 NI so the question to be asked is why is a tax free lump sum being paid to them? The answer is that they have a job on the side as sole traders and receive an income to pay their staff and office expenses.

    The proposition given for the HoL does not hold true for the HoC because MPs cannot fund their own salaries or expenses entirely from the taxes they pay. Again, prove or disprove?

    Now the issue of protecting staff that work for peers, this is a concern. Lots of peers have only ever been employees and would not necessarily know of the legal requirements for sole traders.


    The ‘hired help’ in my view should pay class 1 NI to allow them to qualify for an eventual state pension. They have at the moment to accrue 30 years of such payments to qualify so there is some leeway. So volunteers are ok but this must be borne in mind. Then as you say there are public liability issues however Parliaments public liability insurance should cover anybody on its premises.

    If we take all these things into account it may be that peers are not being paid enough in expenses. If peers are paying staff or using volunteers they should provide proof to the house administration that staff is adequately covered by insurance, that is, if they can obtain it.

    • Carl.H
      17/08/2010 at 5:31 pm

      Senex, my argument is not what the Lords are paid in expenses but that it is different to every other sole trader/ self employed person in the Country. We follow guidance from Inland Revenue.

      It is also the fact that the House itself voted on this new expense scheme and it`s implementation. It will seem very unjust to those members without a London home who live far away.The concept of those with a London home being able to put down to expense their property whilst the members from a distance lose theirs in hotels was not right and deeply unfair. I am perhaps a little annoyed at those members who were unable to see this and I thought better of them.

      I have stated before I would rather see a salaried, taxed position but this changes completely the context of the Lords. It would be a massive constitutional change to something akin to a senate, I do not support that as it would be filled purely with political appointees.

      It is a conundrum, do we go back to original and rely on rich members or do we change ? It would seem, and I have stated, that change will be foisted upon us, I don`t believe it will be for the better for the Nation.

      Your first two paragraphs are interesting, as tax payers the members should be able to claim expenses directly from Inland Revenue. Not only does this make it more private for the members but they then have to follow IR guidance.

      Again this goes back to your job/employment description of who is actually what. What the people do not like is the one rule for them another for us. I do not begrudge the noble Baroness a days pay but lets have a level playing field.

      The whole of Parliament, as a business, is a confused one that is making up the rules as it goes instead of adhering to the existing ones they made.

      I think the new expenses scheme is as unfair as the old and will cost those further away more. As to the amount, well with the coming 2.5% rise in VAT and the wheat shortage in the world it will be a cut. Is it right though ? That isn`t for me to judge, Lord Wakenham did that. If only these Lords cried foul so much over the DEB and the wash-up.

      I`d just like to say, my first instinct was I don`t like Baroness Murphy but actually she shows more grit than the more diplomatic members. I appreciate her standing toe to toe so to speak and mean her no ill.

      Like members here, Lord Blagger, Senex, Croft, Gareth, Lady Tizzy and more I think all types and views are necessary.

    • Lord Blagger
      17/08/2010 at 8:29 pm

      Peers finance through their own personal taxation any expenses paid to them and even run a surplus that subsidises the general running of the house.


      Well la di da. Can I do that too?

      Write to the inland revenue and say, sorry, I’m not paying my full whack of taxes because I’m going to fund some of my expenses out of the taxes.

      Well, why should Lords get that right, and not the rest of us?

      Just like MPs exempting themselves from taxes by dropping clauses in pension bills so people don’t notice.

  14. Chris K
    17/08/2010 at 5:35 pm

    No-one begrudged hereditaries with their tweed jackets, draughty and cold old houses, and generally very inexpensive lifestyle, 3 guineas a day to turn up occasionally.

    Apart from decimalisation, what’s changed?

  15. Carl.H
    17/08/2010 at 8:58 pm


    “Now the issue of protecting staff that work for peers, this is a concern. Lots of peers have only ever been employees and would not necessarily know of the legal requirements for sole traders.”

    As you say this is a concern and a serious one. I would hope this is already covered by the House but I suspect not and can see some peers perhaps panicking a little.

  16. Carl.H
    18/08/2010 at 11:13 am

    Of course the other thing I must mention when talking of employees, paid or otherwise, is Health & Safety at work.

    As an Employer it is the Lords responsibility to ensure that Health and Safety guidance is adhered to. Help can be found here:


    “The law
    The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 requires you to provide whatever information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of your employees.
    This is expanded by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which identify situations where health and safety training is particularly important, eg when people start work, on exposure to new or increased risks and where existing skills may have become rusty or need updating.
    You must provide training during working hours and not at the expense of your employees. Special arrangements may be needed for parttimers or shift workers.
    You need to assess the risks to your employees while they are at work and to any other people who may be affected by the way you conduct your business. This is so that you can identify the measures you need to take to comply with health and safety law, which includes training and the provision of information”

    “What about selfemployed people?

    If a person working under your control and direction is treated as selfemployed for tax and national insurance purposes, they may nevertheless be treated as your employee for health and safety purposes. You may need therefore to take appropriate action to protect them.
    If you do not wish to employ workers on this basis, you should seek legal advice. Ultimately each case can only be decided on its own merits by a court of law.”


  17. Senex
    18/08/2010 at 1:23 pm

    LB: As you are in remission on HoL expenses.

    Your point on retrospective law; is it Ex Post Facto law? You seem to suggest that it is and as such is morally wrong?

    One of the reasons I came down so hard on Baroness D’Souza when she lunched with the Law Lords was that she thought the Supreme Court was Supreme which it is not. Parliament itself is the ‘Supreme Court’. It’s another New Labour, I want to look like a republic, cock-up.

    Although we are signed up to the EC Convention on Human Rights, Parliament can still in theory exercise the power of Ex Post Facto law something banned under this convention and overrule any laws set down by the UK Supreme Court; this by virtue of the UK being a sovereign state with a sovereign Parliament.

    The problem we seem to have constitutionally is that this Monarchy comes to us courtesy of the Scottish Monarchy and the Nobility no longer has any real connection with the nobility of conquest yet Parliament is still steeped in conquest along with its privileges and power as enshrined in the executive. Ceremonial French you must remember is still spoken in the chamber of the HoL.

    So when you make your criticism of Parliament you are essentially a Saxon ‘Lord’ complaining about the overarching power of the Normans. The distinction between the two disappeared many centuries ago but is still evident within Parliament itself.

    Ref: United Kingdom; HM Revenue & Customs
    Will retrospective taxes affect us all?

  18. Lord Soley
    Clive Soley
    18/08/2010 at 11:00 pm

    Carl H. Have you ever thought about saying something positive about anyone or anything? Or is anger and vitriol your only reason for living? Answer please!

    • Carl.H
      18/08/2010 at 11:18 pm

      My Lord, I see no anger in my posts nor have I felt any. There are many facts there and some opinion.

      If my Lord thinks I am angry that it seems that Parliament has one set of rules and us another, it is nothing I haven`t known for years. It doesn`t anger me in the least, nor do I think anything I will ever say will change it.

      I would be grateful if my Lord has any serious input to the discussion rather than simply commenting on what he sees as my mood. What are the points that he feels I am angry about. Does he perhaps feel I am making personal attacks ? Not intended I can assure you.

      I apologise profusely if any of the facts or my opinions have caused him distress.

    • Carl.H
      19/08/2010 at 1:39 pm

      My noble Lord Soley, I am still completely at a loss to understand your comments. I have read and re-read the whole blog several times. It obviously bothers me and has done you. I can only presume that in this media there is some misunderstanding.

      Having read your speech 20 July 2010 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-07-20a.915.1&s=speaker%3A10556#g933.0

      I feel you are unsatisfied with the new system and seem to state whatever is passed will be unsatisfactory in someway. I have previously stated, even in this thread, that perhaps the position should be salaried. I do not go into figures as I feel that is not my position to do so.

      My Lord one of the things I have noted from your speech and previous statements is that you value privacy in your personal and domestic life. My suggestion in this thread was that you be obeyance of the same rules as the rest on the Nation. That you deal only with Inland Revenue in terms of expenses, this would give you the privacy you desire.

      I have agreed that with upcoming VAT increase that the new system will be a cut but tried to show through figures that the new system is on par with the old, in usual circumstance.

      I put up a document showing the expenses in the House over the last 100 years, doubting it`s accuracy in trying to show those figures in terms of upto date amounts.

      I put up helpful links to sites that members should be aware of in their position of being employers.

      I looked for the anger and vitriol and can find none, perhaps I come across wrongly or my grammer is lacking tact, not one of my forte`s. My Lord the blog is what it is, it allows the public a view in their own voice on equal terms with of course an option of the blogger moderating anything untoward.

      If however I have got it wrong and I am expected to bow and scrape as I would have had to do in the past, I`ll leave. I am peturbed by your remark and do not understand where your stance comes from.

      Not everyone is everyones “cup of tea”, I do not live my life to make friends and influence people, I am at times tactless and blunt but I have never been accused of being permanantly angered and vitriolic.

  19. Lord Soley
    Clive Soley
    08/09/2010 at 3:39 pm

    Carl, you say:
    “If we accept a Lord pays his researcher/intern/secretary the minimum wage and deduct that from the £1200, the Lord still receives £962 tax free. At a 40 hour week the intern would recieve £237.20.”

    I don’t know any Lord who pays an employee as little as you say but they could and that is the reason I argue for reform. In the Commons I did get it changed so that MP’s did not pay the staff themselves. They were paid by the House. I prefer that system.

    I pay my secretary/researcher slightly less than she could earn else where. I pay £25ph -that is NOT the minimum wage. Much of what I pay comes out of my pocket. My purpose in writing these posts on expenses is to try and get them right in future. The amount is obviously important but so is the structure.

  20. lord.blagger@googlemail.com
    08/09/2010 at 8:48 pm

    I’m sure there are plenty that don’t.

    Letts say the expenses are switched. What’s the betting its the next scandal?

    Get in touch with Lord Blagger. He’ll pay the intern, and refund you 50% of the money.

    There are plenty of interns on zero.

Comments are closed.