Lords say expenses leave them vulnerable

Published on Saturday 31 January 2009 18:49

MEMBERS of the House of Lords are demanding an increase in their expenses, claiming the current arrangements amount to a financial 'ball and chain' which make their colleagues easy prey for wealthy lobbyists.

A review of the Lords' expenses system has brought forward demands from all sides of the House for more generous allowances, with some claiming they are barely able to make ends meet while attending debates.

Peers say the 'low' expenses are leaving some of their colleagues 'financially vulnerable', and are warning that this is sending them into the arms of outside interests. Their call comes amid growing outrage after four Labour peers were last week accused of agreeing to place amendments while charging up to 120,000 for their time.

One, former energy minister Lord Truscott, was shown on a secret video last week laying out how he would contact fellow MPs and Lords on behalf of the "client" to ensure changes to a current law were made.

It has since emerged that more than 140 peers are taking consultancies with outside bodies, with many offering to promote their interests within Westminster. Only 10 have published full details of their contracts with House of Lords authorities, with the majority claiming their deals are "non-parliamentary".

Several peers are now calling for an increase in expenses, with some claiming that the "low" rewards which come from working there mean they have to take on outside interests "to put bread on the table".

Lords can claim up to 308 a day, amounting to as much as 37,000 a year tax-free. It includes up to 79.50 a day for meals and travel, plus 159.50 a night for accommodation and 69 a day for secretarial and research support. But as peers do not get a salary, they are now complaining that the total reliance on expenses leaves them with little left over. One peer said it cost him 25,000 simply to attend parliament on a daily basis.

Another added: "If there were better rewards then there would be less incentive for people to take up the number of consultancies. It's not a popular argument though."