There was an item on the BBC Today programme this morning on peers’ expenses. It was a rather unusual report. It opened by saying that “this programme has learned” that two peers are being investigated over their expenses, as if this was something not previously known. Perhaps no one at the BBC reads The Sunday Times. They also broadcast part of Gordon Brown’s statement on constitutional renewal in which he said he had referred the issue of peers’ expenses to the Senior Salaries Review Body. They omitted his preceding words: “So following a meeting of the House Committee of the House of Lords, and at their request,” he had written to the Senior Salaries Review Body. He was acting after the Lord Speaker, on behalf of the House Committee, had written to him: referrals to the Senior Salaries Review Body have to be channelled through the Prime Minister.
The House has moved expeditiously to address concerns about peers’ behaviour and conduct. The House has suspended two peers. The Leader of the House has set up a Group on the Code of Conduct and the rules relating to members’ interests. It is chaired by former Archbishop Lord Eames and submissions from members have to be in by 26 June. The House Committee decided that expenses should be considered by an external body. There was a strong feeling on the part of many peers that the review should be conducted as a matter of urgency. The House Committee decided that it should be referred to the SSRB, hence the Lord Speaker’s letter to the PM. The review is expected to be completed by the end of October. In short, the House is very alert to the issue.
My own view, shared by many peers I have spoken to, is that we should move to a system of taxable per diem allowances, plus coverage of travel costs, and leave it at that. The allowance would need to be sufficient for those who do not live in London to find accommodation. They could then claim the expense of doing so against tax, but that would be between them and the Inland Revenue. Anyone resident in London would not be able to claim. This is probably as transparent and as equitable a system as we are likely to find – unless, of course, anyone has any better ideas.
The difficulty is that it’s absolutely no use trying to fix the system unless your are also seen to be trying to fix the system. To find the corrective actions of the Lords in the press is near impossible and continues to convince me the Lords needs a major increase in media savvy 24hr press officers.
I don’t entirely follow your argument on expenses. If you can’t justify your expenses with legitimate costs incurred then they aren’t expenses they’re pay. Taxed or not that’s a shift in the basis of service in the Lords.
Your point about London residence is not entirely clear. Part of the problem seems to be that people presently are able to claim their primary residence is not in London while maintaining a London (secondary) property on which they can claim expenses. Alternatively you appear to be able to rent out your London residence and claim expenses for a non London primary residence. If residence continues to be defined by where peers choose to declare as their primary residence rather than any objective and official test then the system would seem likely to continue to be abused.
If you (or your spouse) own any property in London then I don’t see you should be able to claim expenses for overnight stays. If you choose to rent such a property out then that is entirely your choice and not for the taxpayer to subsidise a further property.
I wholeheartedly agree with Lord Norton about how we should be remunerated, a per diem taxable fee plus reimbursement of actual travelling expenses, with no distinction made for where we live. But I would have no more expenses, no allowances, just fair recompense for a contribution to the work of the house. And of course how much that fair recompense should be must be decided by an external body such as the Senior Salaries Reveiw Body.
Any better ideas out there?
Croft: I was thinking of receipted hotel accommodation. Those of us with our own London property would not be able to claim.
Baroness Murphy: Many thanks for your support. I think it is the best way to proceed unless, as you say, someone has a better idea.
I think Noble Lords who engage in ignoble behaviour should be expelled if the House of Lords members demand it on a vote. They would forfeit their titles and rights to sit in the House. For those members who claim hereditary peerages, their heirs may reclaim them upon the death of the Lord.
I don’t know if there’s anything in this that would violate the traditions of the House too much, if there is I take back my suggestion.
Kyle Mulholland: There is no provision for expulsion at the moment. However, it is likely that the forthcoming Constitutional Renewal Bill will include a provision for a peer to be expelled automatically if convicted of an offence and sentenced to one year or more in prison. We don’t know yet about the power for the House to expel a peer for misconduct. We have the power to suspend a member until the end of the Parliament, but some peers would certainly favour having the power to expel in cases of proven and gross misconduct.