POLL: Should the House of Lords be scrapped after expenses claims soar? VOTE HERE
THE HOUSE of Lords has come under fire for soaring expenses after it was revealed claims have shot up by 29 percent, in the last financial year - rising to a whopping £23million. As a result, do you think the second chamber should be scrapped? VOTE HERE
House of Lords expenses issue 'doesn't look good' says host
Peers pocketed more than £23million in expenses and daily attendance allowance in the 2018/2019 financial year, The Sunday Times reported. The average tax-free bill was around £30,827, higher than the median UK salary, with 31 peers claiming more than the £79,468 standard take-home pay of an MP. In addition, more than 110 so-called silent peers, who pocket cash despite not speaking in debates or making any written contribution, received £1million.
The analysis found Lord Paul of Marylebone claimed £48,000 in expenses despite his £2billion family fortune.
The peer only spoke in the chamber once.
Similarly, Lord Bhatia, who has previously been suspended from the Lords over expense claims, took home £44,530 in expenses – despite not addressing the House or sitting on a committee.
The news has prompted outrage as critics urge Boris Johnson to consider reforming the upper chamber.
This poll has now closed... find results HERE:
Willie Sullivan, a senior director at the Electoral Reform Society, said: “Unelected Lords are taking advantage of the lack of scrutiny in the upper chamber.
“The Lords is a rolling expenses scandal – and we’ll see this year after year unless there is reform.”
John O’Connell, the chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “These expenses are rightly meant to cover the costs of working in Westminster, not let Lords and Ladies take home more than the elected representatives next door.”
A spokesman for the upper chamber defended the rise in costs, insisting peers do an “important job” and the rise is due to peers sitting for fewer days in the previous financial year.
JUST IN: Brexit LIVE: Boris plots REMAINER CULL as civil servants face axe
He said: “The increase in the costs of House of Lords allowances in the 2018-2019 financial year is largely due to a 25 percent increase in the number of days that the House sat, rising from 129 in 2017/18 to 161 in 2018/19.
“As Members of the Lords can generally only claim allowances for days they attend the House any increase in sitting days is likely to produce an increase in the cost of Member’s allowances.”
They added the House is a “busy and effective revising chamber which does an important job scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account”.
In recent years the Electoral Reform Society has campaigned for the House of Lords to be abolished and replaced with an elected chamber.
DON'T MISS:
Lords pay FURY: Peers to hand themselves TAX-FREE £323 per day [INSIGHT]
Bercow says he is victim of Tory 'conspiracy' over peerage block [COMMENT]
BBC's Laura Kuenssberg reveals list of people set to get Lords seats [ANALYSIS]
They propose electing peers using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, which is both proportional and results in the indirect election of individual candidates.
This voting system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference.
To become elected, a candidate must reach a set quota of votes – based on the number of vacancies and votes cast.
Once elected, the campaign group suggest members of the second chamber could hold 10-year terms, to ensure the Commons holds a fresher democratic mandate.
The society also proposes cutting the members of the Lords, which currently packs over 800 peers and is set to expand further with dozens of new peerages in the pipeline following the election.
The House of Lords carried out a vital role in making and shaping laws, as peers carry out detailed scrutiny of Bills before they are passed into law.
Before a Bill is passed into law, the wording has to be agreed by both Houses.
The upper chamber also holds committees to review policy areas.