Non-voting peers claimed more than £100,000 in expenses in last parliament

Electoral Reform Society says David Cameron’s expected plan to appoint 50 more peers could cost taxpayer at least £1.3m annually

Peers who did not vote in a single debate in the last parliament claimed more than £100,000 in expenses allowances, a study by the Electoral Reform Society has found.
The report found that a small number of peers were not voting at all but proving expensive because they still claim allowances.
It said David Cameron’s expected plan to appoint another 50 peers – including a number of Tory advisers – could cost the taxpayer at least another £1.3m annually.
The prime minister is likely to bring in dozens more Conservative peers over the course of the parliament in an attempt to erode the ability of Labour and the Liberal Democrats to act together to defeat the government in the House of Lords.
Cameron is also facing calls to reform the Lords, having said he regrets not having done so earlier. Critics argue that the upper house has grown too big and the current crop of peers do not represent value for money.
However, Cameron is unlikely to have enough of a majority to push such reforms through the House of Commons given that a previous attempt to do so under the coalition was squashed by a threatened rebellion from his own backbenchers.
One argument that has been made in favour of the House of Lords is that it contains a wealth of independent experts who are good at holding the Commons to account. However, the Electoral Reform Society study found that independent crossbenchers were the least likely to be active participants in the Lords, with 45% taking part in 10 or fewer votes, compared with 8% of party political peers.
A quarter of appointments to the House of Lords between 1997 and 2015 were former MPs and just over a third had previously worked in politics, while just 1% came from manual backgrounds. An analysis found more than half were older than 70 and 44% were based in London or south-east England.
Darren Hughes, deputy chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said the research showed the House of Lords was “growing out of control, with the government set on appointing hundreds more peers at a cost of millions”.
He said: “We have shown that far from being a bastion of independence, non-partisan crossbench peers turn up far less frequently than party-political peers. On top of that, we have found that over a third of lords previously worked in politics, compared with less than 1% of the British public. This is not a chamber of experts, it’s a chamber of professional politicians.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/16/non-voting-lords-expenses-electoral-reform-society-david-cameron

It's getting stupid and no longer fit for purpose.  It used to hold the Government to task.  No longer.

The whole expenses thing needs a big shake up. I thought they were dealing with this after the expenses scandal where people were claiming for cushions and things.

It doesn't just need tweaking, it needs a massive rethink, and this business about being "entitled" and being "within the rules" doesn't cut it any more - it needs some common sense applied.

Raggs, there's been no "common sense" in our Goverments for at least years!

Insert 30 between least and years.

nicko wrote:Raggs, there's been no "common sense"  in our Goverments  for at least years!

Good point nicko.

Seriously, during the expenses scandal, it got on my nerves when some of them said their claims were not against the rules. Anyone should be able to see when expenses are justified and when they are not.

I don't know if they're allowed to claim general expenses or not without having to actually list them?

Raggamuffin wrote:The whole expenses thing needs a big shake up. I thought they were dealing with this after the expenses scandal where people were claiming for cushions and things.

It doesn't just need tweaking, it needs a massive rethink, and this business about being "entitled" and being "within the rules" doesn't cut it any more - it needs some common sense applied.

Unfortunately it's not just about expenses.  The whole point of the Lords was that, they were almost impartial and mostly cross bench, and acted as a block of legislation that they considered going too far, having it sent back to be rediscussed.  Both sides have now filled it up with their own people, and very few are cross bench.   It means it not only costs us a fortune, it no longer does it's job.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The whole expenses thing needs a big shake up. I thought they were dealing with this after the expenses scandal where people were claiming for cushions and things.

It doesn't just need tweaking, it needs a massive rethink, and this business about being "entitled" and being "within the rules" doesn't cut it any more - it needs some common sense applied.

Unfortunately it's not just about expenses.  The whole point of the Lords was that, they were almost impartial and mostly cross bench, and acted as a block of legislation that they considered going too far, having it sent back to be rediscussed.  Both sides have now filled it up with their own people, and very few are cross bench.   It means it not only costs us a fortune, it no longer does it's job.

I think that opinions on that would depend on what they were blocking Sassy. If it was a law which I didn't like, I would be pleased, and yet of course I was cross when they tried to block the ban on hunting with dogs. They can't block legislation for ever though can they?

To be honest, I don't really like the idea of the House of Lords anyway. Why are they qualified to make decisions on legislation just because of a title?

The population of the Lords should be reduced by at least 50%, most are just "free loaders" any way.



A reduction will save the lives of scores of "ermine" i.e stoats that go round their necks!!