Peer’s £300 a day just for turning up
… before swanning off to give £10,000 speeches
A MILLIONAIRe peer has been clocking in to the Lords to claim hundreds of pounds in allowances, then leaving to give lucrative after-dinner speeches.
Digby Jones, former directorgeneral of the CBI, billed the taxpayer £2,400 for attending Parliament on eight occasions in one month last year – plus £634 in travel costs.
But on four of the eight days, the 61-year- old registered his attendance to claim £300, then left to give speeches elsewhere for tens of thousands of pounds, according to records for the 2015/16 financial year.
Cross-bencher Lord Jones did not make any speeches in the Lords chamber on the four days he gave after-dinner speeches in June 2015, nor did he submit any written questions.
On three of those days, the house rose after 9.40pm, meaning it is unlikely he attended the full Parliamentary session.
The former minister also gave two after-dinner speeches in July 2015 on days when he claimed money for attending the Lords.
According to his profile on the website of JLA, Britain’s top after- dinner speaking agency, Lord Jones commands fees of between £10,000 and £25,000 per speech. he spoke only once in the Lords last year, when he said he was concerned a Brexit debate would be reduced to ‘a grubby little debate about immigration’.
Lord Jones defended his record, claiming ‘people want the Lords to do other things with their lives’ and ‘the nation gets the benefit of my experience’.
he added: ‘It should be encouraged that peers have other posts and jobs, paid or pro bono.
‘It is often the case that I will be in the chamber on the same day that … I am also speaking at an event, either for a charity or for a fee, or attending a board meeting for one of my paid or unpaid roles.’ Yesterday it emerged that some peers are claiming up to £40,000 a year while making little or no contribution to debates, questions or committees.
Lord Paul, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, last year received £40,800 in expenses for 136 days in Parliament but made no contributions in votes or questions and was not a committee member, the Sunday Times found.
Peers are not paid a salary but can claim up to £300 as a tax-free daily allowance when they attend the house and undertake Parliamentary work. There is no suggestion they broke any rules or the law in these latest claims. house of Lords officials said any members found to be abusing the system would be suspended, although they highlighted that peers’ work does not always appear on official records.
The Sunday Times analysed the latest expenses records and cross-referenced them with the parliamentary record of peers’ contributions to debates, committees and votes.
Lord Paul, who voted on four pieces of legislation out of a total of 114, told the paper his allowance claims were ‘more than representative’ of the work he had done in Parliament. Lord han- ningfield was said to have claimed £3,300 for 11 days’ attendance when he contributed to no votes and only one debate.
The life peer was jailed for expenses fraud in 2011. he was later accused of wrongly claiming around £3,300 in expenses in 2013, but was cleared after Parliament intervened. he said: ‘People are making a mountain out of a molehill. I may have made a mistake in the past but I am still being penalised for it.’
Crossbench peer Lord Carswell was said to have claimed £7,800 for 29 days’ attendance, but did not vote or make any written or spoken contribution in the chamber. he said he had surgery during the recorded period, which restricted his activities.
Baroness D’Souza, who stepped down as Lord Speaker last year, told a BBC documentary earlier this year that many peers ‘contribute absolutely nothing’.
She revealed she once saw one peer keep a taxi waiting outside Parliament so he could dash inside to qualify for the £300.
Baroness D’Souza spent months investigating peers who clock in without making any contribution, but scrapped the probe to avoid ‘naming and shaming’ offenders.
A house of Lords spokesman said: ‘Where members are shown to have claimed when they have not undertaken parliamentary work, the house has the power to suspend them.’
‘Nation gets the benefit’