A SCOTTISH Labour grandee claimed more than £30,000 in expenses from the House of Lords during the last parliament despite not speaking in the chamber at all.
Elizabeth Smith, the widow of former Labour leader John Smith and mum of both BBC journalist Sarah Smith and the UK Government's Advocate General for Scotland Catherine Smith, has not spoken in the Lords since 1999.
However, analysis has revealed she still claimed £31,224.90 in allowances and travel during the last parliament.
Before stepping down in February, she had submitted five written questions since the 2019 General Election, most recently in 2020.
She took part in 38% of votes in the last parliament.
According to The Guardian, Smith was one of 15 members of the Lords who claimed more than £500,000 in allowances between them despite not saying a word in the chamber, holding any government post, or sitting on any committee during the last parliament.
Peers can claim an allowance of £361 for every day they turn up. They do not have to vote, speak or do any work beyond entering the building in order to be able to claim this money. They can also claim back money for certain travel expenses.
Fifteen peers claimed a total of £585,985 in allowances and expenses during the last parliament despite not speaking or doing other committee work. Only three of the 15 sent a written question to the government over the period.
Just 10% of Lords made more than half of all debate contributions. Removing the quietest half of peers would have had little impact on the numbers contributing to debates but would have reduced the allowances and expenses bill by 28%, the analysis suggests.
Khalid Hameed, a former private wealth company chief executive who became a peer in 2007, appears to have done nothing at all beyond turning up. He did not speak, send a written question, sit on a committee, hold a government post or vote in the House between the 2019 and 2024 elections, while claiming £27,628 in allowances for turning up 98 times.
Llin Golding claimed the most in allowances and travel of the 15 peers over the period: £129,143. Like Smith, she voted relatively often (on 81% of voting days), but did not contribute to any debates.
A further 31 peers also never said a word or held a committee or government post but did not claim an allowance over the period.
The Electoral Reform Society has described those who vote but do not otherwise participate as “lobby fodder lords” who are used to help push a party’s agenda through parliament but otherwise contribute very little.
Jess Garland, the society’s director of policy and research, described the upper chamber as “ludicrously bloated”.
She said: “Despite many peers working hard, the vast size of the House of Lords means it lacks accountability and too many peers get away with not contributing.
“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.”
Peers can claim a formal leave of absence if they are unable to contribute but none of the peers claiming allowances were on a leave of absence.
