(UPPER CRUST) SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH...A FEW THOUGHTS

The recent Times article (here) about Peers' Expenses has provoked a certain amount of comment - not least Wat Tyler over at BOM (available here - scroll down to Item 2).

As the Times says : "[P]eers do not have to submit receipts and an analysis of their expenses shows that nearly two thirds automatically claim the maximum almost every time they visit the Lords." As BOM rightly observes: "this would simply not be tolerated in the real world". And it is inevitable that this sort of 'grabbiness' leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Mind you, so far as I can tell, the practice, distasteful as it may be, is within the rules. And, as the Times infers, peers - unlike MPs - are not in receipt of any form of salary for their parliamentary duties and so claims for expenses are the only available means of defraying any costs associated with attendance. To that extent, the observation that the current expenses system represents "the best compromise possible after the 1999 reforms" is probably fair.

It's worthwhile too trying to put this in some sort of context and, thinking about it, I recalled this article from the BBC in July of 2002 which reveals the (I think staggering) fact that: "Each European MP costs taxpayers nearly £1m a year - that compares with £385,000 for a Westminster MP and £84,000 for a peer." It would be interesting to see where the numbers stack up now and whether the differentials have narrowed at all.

Now, I'm not trying to defend either the practice or the ermine-clad monkeys themselves. Nor am I opening up a debate as to whether the House of Lords represents value for money - that's a much wider issue for a different occasion. What I am saying is that occasionally one has to be careful what you wish for. I think we can be pretty certain that, should HMRC be seen to be sniffing around the issue too much, the old dodderheads would quickly resort to Plan B and demand salaries across the piece in line with Commons practice. And that, dear reader, would escalate the cost of the Red Benches very dramatically!

As I say, it may pong, but it may be an ugly stench that we would be better advised to put up with for now.