Lording It Up
The Sunday Times has an excellent editorial today - on the abuse of expenses in the House of Lords.
It really does beggar belief that these people still have anything to do with running the country - instead of recovering the tax payers money and showing these 'nobles' the door - the political establishment effectively covers their tracks.
And because their Lordships are not elected - voters have no say in the matter either.
"A shameful day for the House of Lords"
"When the history of the parliamentary expenses scandal is told, several names will feature prominently, including David Chaytor, Jim Devine, Elliot Morley and Lord Hanningfield, three MPs and a peer who sat in the dock on Friday charged with theft. One name that should also be on the roll of dishonour is Michael Pownall, clerk of the parliaments. By his actions he has allowed peers who abused expenses to escape legal action.
For months this newspaper has investigated peers who abused the expenses system. They included Baroness Uddin, the first female Muslim peer, who claimed an empty flat in Kent as her main residence while she lived in Tower Hamlets, just four miles from Westminster. Before she bought the two-bedroom flat in Maidstone in 2005, she told the Lords authorities that her brother's house in Essex was her main home. This allowed her to rack up £200,000 in expenses by claiming the £174-a-night allowance.
It was cut and dried until Mr Pownall’s intervention. Extraordinarily, he issued a statement saying it was up to peers to choose what they designated as their main residence “as they see fit”. In further guidance in February, Mr Pownall said peers need visit a property only once a month for it to qualify as their main residence.
The Sunday Times established that Lord Paul, Labour’s multi-millionaire non-dom donor peer, claimed as his main residence an Oxfordshire flat where he had never stayed the night. This enabled him, like Baroness Uddin, to claim tens of thousands of pounds in overnight expenses. He, too, was let off the hook. Not only did he get off, but he also claimed that critics of his non-dom status had been “caught with their pants down”.
Mr Pownall will claim he did not act alone. The Lords committee at which this new and generous interpretation of peers’ main residences was decided was chaired by Baroness Hayman, the Speaker. Readers may recall she has claimed £200,000 in expenses by having a “main residence” in Norfolk, despite having lived in the same house in London for 35 years.
Anger about this establishment stitch-up is not confined to the public and media. Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, could barely contain his frustration at his inability to prosecute Baroness Uddin thanks to the Lords authorities.
“In any criminal proceedings it would almost inevitably be necessary for the prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard, that any peer in question had not even visited the address they deemed their ‘only or main’ residence once a month,” he said. “That presents a very real difficulty and we considered whether it would be open to the Crown Prosecution Service to advance a different definition of ‘only or main residence’. However, after careful consideration, we concluded that such a course would not be open to us.”
The story will not necessarily end here. Baroness Uddin will still be investigated by the Lords authorities. Given the whitewash so far, however, it would be a minor miracle if anything emerges from that.
Britain’s political leaders are keen to show that the House of Commons has entered a new era. Most of the more obvious expenses abusers will step down at the election. New rules will be in place to ensure duck houses, moats and dodgy videos no longer appear on claims. The Lords will no doubt say their reforms will also clamp down on abuses. They, however, will still be there following the election, after fiddling while respect for parliament burns."
It really does beggar belief that these people still have anything to do with running the country - instead of recovering the tax payers money and showing these 'nobles' the door - the political establishment effectively covers their tracks.
And because their Lordships are not elected - voters have no say in the matter either.
"A shameful day for the House of Lords"
"When the history of the parliamentary expenses scandal is told, several names will feature prominently, including David Chaytor, Jim Devine, Elliot Morley and Lord Hanningfield, three MPs and a peer who sat in the dock on Friday charged with theft. One name that should also be on the roll of dishonour is Michael Pownall, clerk of the parliaments. By his actions he has allowed peers who abused expenses to escape legal action.
For months this newspaper has investigated peers who abused the expenses system. They included Baroness Uddin, the first female Muslim peer, who claimed an empty flat in Kent as her main residence while she lived in Tower Hamlets, just four miles from Westminster. Before she bought the two-bedroom flat in Maidstone in 2005, she told the Lords authorities that her brother's house in Essex was her main home. This allowed her to rack up £200,000 in expenses by claiming the £174-a-night allowance.
It was cut and dried until Mr Pownall’s intervention. Extraordinarily, he issued a statement saying it was up to peers to choose what they designated as their main residence “as they see fit”. In further guidance in February, Mr Pownall said peers need visit a property only once a month for it to qualify as their main residence.
The Sunday Times established that Lord Paul, Labour’s multi-millionaire non-dom donor peer, claimed as his main residence an Oxfordshire flat where he had never stayed the night. This enabled him, like Baroness Uddin, to claim tens of thousands of pounds in overnight expenses. He, too, was let off the hook. Not only did he get off, but he also claimed that critics of his non-dom status had been “caught with their pants down”.
Mr Pownall will claim he did not act alone. The Lords committee at which this new and generous interpretation of peers’ main residences was decided was chaired by Baroness Hayman, the Speaker. Readers may recall she has claimed £200,000 in expenses by having a “main residence” in Norfolk, despite having lived in the same house in London for 35 years.
Anger about this establishment stitch-up is not confined to the public and media. Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, could barely contain his frustration at his inability to prosecute Baroness Uddin thanks to the Lords authorities.
“In any criminal proceedings it would almost inevitably be necessary for the prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard, that any peer in question had not even visited the address they deemed their ‘only or main’ residence once a month,” he said. “That presents a very real difficulty and we considered whether it would be open to the Crown Prosecution Service to advance a different definition of ‘only or main residence’. However, after careful consideration, we concluded that such a course would not be open to us.”
The story will not necessarily end here. Baroness Uddin will still be investigated by the Lords authorities. Given the whitewash so far, however, it would be a minor miracle if anything emerges from that.
Britain’s political leaders are keen to show that the House of Commons has entered a new era. Most of the more obvious expenses abusers will step down at the election. New rules will be in place to ensure duck houses, moats and dodgy videos no longer appear on claims. The Lords will no doubt say their reforms will also clamp down on abuses. They, however, will still be there following the election, after fiddling while respect for parliament burns."
