UK (Parliament Politics Magazine) – A Guardian analysis revealed that 15 Lord members received £585k in allowances without actively participating in debates or committee work.
Despite making no parliamentary contributions, no speeches, no committee work, and no government positions, 15 peers still collectively claimed more than £500,000 in taxpayer-funded allowances.
What did the Guardian analysis reveal about silent lords?
A Guardian analysis exposes how some peers in the House of Lords contribute little to no parliamentary work, despite claiming allowances.
It reveals that fifteen members of the House of Lords collected £585,985 in allowances and expenses without participating in speeches or committee work during the last parliament. Only three submitted written questions, while all but one voted, averaging a third of voting days.
The analysis focuses on the 2019 parliament, which continued until last summer. It excludes members appointed for fewer than 50 sitting days by the session’s end.
Only 10% of House of Lords members were responsible for more than half of the debates. The study indicated that removing the least active peers would have had minimal effect on discussions but could reduce the allowances and expenses by 28%.
How did some House of Lords peers claim thousands without participating?
Khalid Hameed, a former private wealth CEO before entering the Lords in 2007, had no recorded parliamentary activity beyond attending sessions. Over the 2019–2024 elections, he did not deliver speeches, submit written questions, join committees, take up a government role, nor cast a single vote. Yet, he received £27,628 in allowances for showing up 98 times.
A non-affiliated peer, Swraj Paul received £100,946 in allowances over the same period. He did not deliver speeches, submit written questions, or serve in a committee or government post. He voted only once. At 93, Mr. Paul is one of the oldest peers, with Tony Christopher, who will turn 100 in April.
Among the lesser active peer members was Elizabeth Smith, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, who resigned from the chamber in February. The widow of ex-Labour leader John Smith participated in 38% of votes during the last parliament, though she had not spoken in the Lords since 1999. She had submitted five written questions since the 2019 general election, with her last submission in 2020, while receiving £1,224.90 in allowances and travel costs.”
Llin Golding was the highest claimant among the 15 peers, receiving £129,143 in allowances and travel expenses. She voted on 81% of the voting days, but did not contribute to any debates. Among the least active voters in the House of Lords were Lord Hameed and Lord Paul, who rarely participated.
The analysis shows that 31 other members of the House of Lords also remained silent and did not hold any committee or government roles, but they did claim allowances during this period.
How are “lobby fodder lords” impacting parliamentary scrutiny?
The Electoral Reform Society called members of the House of Lords who cast their votes but failed to actively engage in speeches or committees as “lobby fodder lords.” These individuals are used to advance a party’s agenda in parliament, while offering little to the legislative process.
The 2017 report from the campaigning group revealed that numerous members appeared only to claim allowances and vote, neglecting their role in the essential scrutiny of government.
What concerns did Jess Garland raise about the House of Lords’ accountability?
The society’s policy and research director, Jess Garland, called the House of Lords “ludicrously bloated.” She stated, “Even though many peers put in hard work, the overwhelming number of members in the upper chamber means it lacks accountability, with too many peers slipping by without contributing.”
Ms Garland added, “Those who sit in parliament shaping our laws should be chosen by, and accountable to, the British people who live under those laws. That way, all peers will be accountable for fulfilling their roles, not just those who choose to play an active role.”
How often did peers claim allowances without voting or participating?
Members of the House of Lords are permitted to request a formal leave of absence if they are unable to contribute to parliamentary proceedings. The process has no standardized criteria. It is meant to accommodate those facing medical or family challenges, such as health concerns or diplomatic roles.
However, none of the peers who claimed allowances during this time were on leave.
Labour’s plans mean for hereditary peers in the House of Lords
Labour has proposed to eliminate the last 92 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Reports indicate that hereditary peers, on average, have claimed higher allowances and expenses than their non-hereditary counterparts, with figures standing at £95,800 and £92,300 per peer, respectively, since 2019.
On average, hereditary peers spoke 155 times, fewer than the 191 times by other members. They also submitted 18 written questions compared to 45 by non-hereditary peers.
How are House of Lords members profiting from political advisory roles?
Last month, a report revealed that 91 peers in the House of Lords had earned money from businesses for political advice.
The analysis shows that more than one in 10 members have been paid by lobbyists and firms in banking, defense, and energy. Some earn tens of thousands of pounds yearly for these positions.