New House of Lords expenses scandal as peers claim tens of thousands of pounds despite doing NOTHING

Calls to reform the House of Lords grew tonight in the wake of the latest expenses ­scandal , where greedy peers have pocketed tens of thousands of pounds each for turning up and doing nothing.

Sixteen claimed £399,137 of taxpayers’ cash between them in the last year, despite failing to speak, sit on a committee or submit a written question.

Labour peer Lord Kirkhill trousered the most, with £43,896, followed by Baroness Adams on £41,287.

The news comes just weeks after we revealed 115 lords claimed £1.3million in the past year despite not speaking once in the upper chamber.

In the wake of that report, a spokesman insisted peers contributed in other ways such as by providing written ­questions or being on a committee. But today we can reveal 72 of those 115 did neither.

And 16, at least four of whom are former Eton public ­schoolboys, each claimed more than £10,000. Eight made more in expenses than the average Briton’s pay of £22,226 a year.

Campaign group Unlock Democracy branded the cash-for-nothing scandal ­“indefensible”.

Director ­Alexandra Runswick said: “The Government tells us we don’t have enough money to fund the NHS but we’re expected to tolerate people treating Parliament as a ­subsidised drop-in centre. We need fundamental reform so the second chamber is accountable to the people.”

Electoral Reform Society chief ­executive Darren Hughes added: “This is the second expenses scandal revealed in just a month. Enough is enough. We need real reform.

“The fact that nearly one in 10 peers is failing to contribute to the work of the House is bad enough. But it leaves a nasty taste when a significant chunk of those are claiming more than the average worker takes home in a year.

“While many peers do work hard, it does our democracy a huge disservice when dozens of unelected peers are taking advantage of the lack of scrutiny, and appear to be gaming the system.

“To the public, and indeed to some lords, the upper chamber has become simply a members’ club. This is no fit state for the mother of all Parliaments. Voters are sick of scandal after scandal, ones which stem from a total lack of accountability.

“We need a smaller, ­fairly elected upper house that the public can have faith in and where voters can hold ­ineffective peers to account.”

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow has previously said the 798-member chamber could be halved.

The latest figures came from an ­analysis of expenses records for the Lords in 2016/17 by the Electoral Reform Society and seen by the Mirror.

The full data is expected to be published later this week.

Expenses figures are released every three months. They were drawn from the House of Lords official records.

Data for May 2016 was excluded as the parliamentary session began halfway through the month. It means the real figures will be slightly higher than reflected here. Data includes daily attendance allowance of up to £300 per day and travel expenses.

There is no suggestion any of the peers broke rules or the law. They are not required to speak to claim their £300 allowance.

The Mirror contacted each of the 16 peers for comment. None responded.

Lord Gold is currently sitting on a committee but was not during the period analysed by the ERS. A House of Lords spokesman said: “Members can claim £300 or £150 for every day they attend the House and undertake ­parliamentary work.

“Apart from travel costs, this is the only payment peers receive.”

And added: “They are expected to pay any costs ­associated with attending the House such as their London accommodation, as well as any staff costs from this. One of the principal functions of the House of Lords is to scrutinise and improve legislation. Members do that by voting.

“In recent years votes in the House of Lords have asked the Government to think again on issues such as cuts to tax credits, stopping adults from smoking in cars with ­children present and taking in more unaccompanied child refugees fleeing war zones.

“These changes made a real ­difference to some of the most ­vulnerable people in society.”

This article originally included references to Viscount Colville due to errors in official information provided by the House of Lords. It has since been corrected.