Calls for a radical overhaul of the House of Lords grew last night over the scandal of peers being paid to turn up and contribute little or nothing to debates and votes.
Over a year, 115 claimed £1.2million of taxpayers’ cash in expenses without saying a word during upper chamber discussions. And £4million was handed to the 277 who spoke five times or fewer.
They were all given their £300 daily attendance allowance, despite their lack of involvement in debates or votes.
It sparked accusations a “something for nothing” culture was rife among peers as the Government slashes public services while subjecting millions of workers to pay cuts.
Among those in the line of fire was former Tory peer Baroness Flather who claimed £37,932.00 in expenses for 2016/17 but failed to vote even once.
The shock figures came from an analysis of voting, speaking and expenses records for the Lords carried out by the Electoral Reform Society. Chief executive Darren Hughes said: “These figures are a damning indictment of the state of the House of Lords.
“There appears to be a growing something for nothing culture in our upper house, with tidy sums being claimed by those who barely contribute. And there are a worrying number of couch-potato peers and lobby fodder lords. It’s unacceptable that peers can claim thousands without even speaking or voting in the House and it highlights the reality that there is no accountability for peers.”
Labour MP David Hanson added: “Whether people speak or not, the Lords as it stands is no longer fit for purpose.
“I have been pushing for the Government to remove the hereditary peers once and for all. It is wrong that an individual is given the right to pass and amend laws and question the Government by accident of birth.
“We need people of merit in our legislature, not those who happen to be the great grandson of an earl.”
Lib Dem leader in the Lords Dick Newby said: “Whilst the vast majority of peers provide good value for money to the taxpayer, these figures show that there are exceptions. It’s clear the House of Lords is in need of radical reform.”
Campaign group Unlock Democracy branded the House of Lords “neither representative nor accountable”.
Policy lead Sarah Clarke said: “The scandal of silent peers claiming vast expenses will irk many members of the public, particularly at a time when the Government is tightening its belt in many other areas of public finance.”
The ERS also found £7,3million was claimed by 394 peers who contributed to debates 10 times or fewer. More than half of all peers claimed more in tax-free expenses than the average Brit’s wages, which is £22,226.25. Among them were Lord Laird who claimed £48,279.00 in expenses and only voted twice.
Lord Paul raked in £38,100 for seven votes. Baroness Afshar claimed £34,966 but only voted three times.
But the leeching peers last night defended themselves over accusations they have once again been found with their noses in the trough. Lord Paul even arrogantly declared: “I deserve the money without any question. The Lords is not about speaking or voting only. There’s a lot more contribution people have and the House of Lords are paying on the basis of attendance. I participate. I don’t understand what the fuss is about.”
Ulster’s Lord Laird, 73, said he is considered disabled in Westminster due to a heart condition which leaves him often unable to get to the chamber in time to vote. He also claimed many of the issues are not relevant to Northern Ireland. The peer added: “I am the largest supplier of written questions. About 14,000 in 18 years. People have a right to ask about the money, but I work very hard for it.”
Baroness Afshar also blamed poor health for her voting record. She said: “My health is rather precarious and I cannot stay overnight in London.
“Since voting is often done late in the evening I tend to be on the train to York. However when I am well enough I have a good record of attendance.”
Peers do not have to offer proof they have contributed in order to claim their £300 allowance expenses.
A House of Lords spokesman said: “The Electoral Reform Society’s calculations are undermined by their narrow focus on spoken contributions. Speaking in the Chamber is only one of the ways Members hold the Government to account and this research ignores Members’ contributions including amending legislation, asking the Government written questions and serving on Select Committees – more than 320 Members served on Committees in the last session of Parliament - as well as Parliamentary work away from the Chamber.
“It is inaccurate to describe a House that tabled 5,608 amendments to legislation, asked Government 7,395 written questions and published 170 Committee reports in 2016/17 as a ‘part time’ House. The Lords is an active and effective revising Chamber.”