Lords' expenses: it's a wonderful life

I am reliably informed that when new peers arrive in the House of Lords, there is a kind of informal induction process.

Baroness Helena Kennedy of The Shaws tells me that when she arrived in the house, a peer came up to her and almost immediately opened the question of “second homes”.

Lady Kennedy has a family home on Loch Lomond. The friendly peer suggested she tell the “authorities” that that was her “principal residence” – rather than the home she has lived in for 20 years, 20 minutes from Westminster.

“You then charge all travel and the rest as from the Scottish address,” added the peer helpfully.

And, of course, the overnight allowance is £174 per day, the attendance allowance £86 per day, and the secretarial allowance £75 per day. It all adds up, doesn’t it?

Additionally, although there is a list of Lords’ interests, at no point does a peer have to reveal what he or she earns from whom.

One of the under-explored aspects of government is the extent to which peers in the governing party can benefit in the Lords from their proximity to power. A peer on the governing benches can expect to earn very much more than an opposition peer.

It is no coincidence that a number of ex-ministers and senior Labour peers find themselves on the boards of major public companies. Because of their skills? Or is it because they can “use their influence on Minister” and charge for it? It’s probably legal, but is it ethical?

And should there not now be a freeze on further membership of the House of Lords until this entire debacle is resolved? David Cameron has spoken of reducing the House of Commons by 10 per cent. Others have talked of the need to reduce it by as much as a half.

If the “other place” is being reduced, what can the sense be of an ever-expanding House of Lords – the largest expansion of which comes after a general election (see previous blog)?