Last year members of the House of Lords were found to be cheating on their expenses.
Out of hundreds who treated expenses as a salary and put in false claims (the Noble Lord Hanningfield said, as he was being carted off to prison for getting caught, that around 85% of his peers [yes, I know] did it,) only two have gone to prison for the theft, a three have been suspended from parliament.
Nothing was ever checked in the House of Lords. Every claim was taken on “parole”. The Noble Lords and Ladies were assumed to actually be Noble. Big mistake, it seems. It turns out that blue bloods are just like ordinary people.
Something had to be done, so, rather than treat them like ordinary people in the employ of the government who have to provide a receipt for absolutely everything, the lords were given a flat rate of £300 a day for turning up. They don’t have to do anything and they seem to be able to claim travel expenses on top of that. Again, it’s all taken on the “parole” of the noble personage.
The top people’s salary review team were responsible for this new “tighter” control over thieving in high places. They said that it would be cost neutral.
Guess what... They were wrong. But they weren’t just a little wrong. No, they were wrong with style.
In the first three months of operation, compared to the same period last year, the scheme has cost a full 41% more expensive. That is to say, their Noblenesses have sconed us for almost half as much again as under the old scheme, where you will remember old Hanningfield reckoned that pretty much all of them were on the fiddle.
25 peers claimed more than £16,000 in the period from October-December 2010, (that’s £64,000 a year). Nine claimed over £17,000, and three more than £18,000.
Lord Sewel, Labour, claimed nearly £24,000, equivalent to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £96,000 a year. And remember his claims would be his take home pay. There is no tax and insurance on expenses. It’s not like a little cleaning job at Sainsbury’s.
The Earl of Courtown, an hereditary peer and Old Etonian (Conservatives) was next most expensive member at just under £19,000. He spoke in only one debate last year. That’s a lot of dosh for one short speech even from an old Etonian.
Other expenses junkies were Lord Rogan, ex-president of the Ulster Unionist Party (£18,515), Lord Bates, a Conservative ex-MP (£18,044), and Labour’s Lord Brett (£17,854).
The total bill for peers’ expenses was £5,541,450 in daily allowances, £502,982 for travel to and from Parliament, and £8,139 for postage.
So as the rest of us have got poorer, bankers treated themselves to massive salary increases for fear that their bonuses were going to be stopped; Prince Charles negotiated with Osborne a new deal for the royals which, it was said, was likely to make him Britain’s richest ever king (although why they need any more money is beyond me). Now we discover that lords got a 41% increase. Fair or what?
Out of hundreds who treated expenses as a salary and put in false claims (the Noble Lord Hanningfield said, as he was being carted off to prison for getting caught, that around 85% of his peers [yes, I know] did it,) only two have gone to prison for the theft, a three have been suspended from parliament.
Nothing was ever checked in the House of Lords. Every claim was taken on “parole”. The Noble Lords and Ladies were assumed to actually be Noble. Big mistake, it seems. It turns out that blue bloods are just like ordinary people.
Something had to be done, so, rather than treat them like ordinary people in the employ of the government who have to provide a receipt for absolutely everything, the lords were given a flat rate of £300 a day for turning up. They don’t have to do anything and they seem to be able to claim travel expenses on top of that. Again, it’s all taken on the “parole” of the noble personage.
The top people’s salary review team were responsible for this new “tighter” control over thieving in high places. They said that it would be cost neutral.
Guess what... They were wrong. But they weren’t just a little wrong. No, they were wrong with style.
In the first three months of operation, compared to the same period last year, the scheme has cost a full 41% more expensive. That is to say, their Noblenesses have sconed us for almost half as much again as under the old scheme, where you will remember old Hanningfield reckoned that pretty much all of them were on the fiddle.
25 peers claimed more than £16,000 in the period from October-December 2010, (that’s £64,000 a year). Nine claimed over £17,000, and three more than £18,000.
Lord Sewel, Labour, claimed nearly £24,000, equivalent to an annual cost to the taxpayer of £96,000 a year. And remember his claims would be his take home pay. There is no tax and insurance on expenses. It’s not like a little cleaning job at Sainsbury’s.
The Earl of Courtown, an hereditary peer and Old Etonian (Conservatives) was next most expensive member at just under £19,000. He spoke in only one debate last year. That’s a lot of dosh for one short speech even from an old Etonian.
Other expenses junkies were Lord Rogan, ex-president of the Ulster Unionist Party (£18,515), Lord Bates, a Conservative ex-MP (£18,044), and Labour’s Lord Brett (£17,854).
The total bill for peers’ expenses was £5,541,450 in daily allowances, £502,982 for travel to and from Parliament, and £8,139 for postage.
So as the rest of us have got poorer, bankers treated themselves to massive salary increases for fear that their bonuses were going to be stopped; Prince Charles negotiated with Osborne a new deal for the royals which, it was said, was likely to make him Britain’s richest ever king (although why they need any more money is beyond me). Now we discover that lords got a 41% increase. Fair or what?
Pics: A selection of noblemen and women with very dubious records on honesty, one of which must have been expendable and we sent down as an example pour encourager les autres, maybe. More likely fed to the lions to keep the plebs happy.
