Fifteen members of the House of Lords did not say a word in the chamber, sit on a committee or hold any government post during the last parliament, while claiming more than £500,000 in allowances between them.
Analysis by the Guardian has revealed the extent to which some members of the UK’s upper chamber do little or no parliamentary work.
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. All but one voted during the parliament, on average taking part in a third of voting days.
The figures cover the 2019 parliament, which sat until the summer of last year, and exclude peers who had been appointed for fewer than 50 sitting days by the end of the parliament.
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.
The non-affiliated peer Swraj Paul claimed £100,946 in allowances over the same period. He did not speak, write or hold a committee or government post, and voted only once. The 93-year-old business magnate is the seventh-oldest peer (the oldest, Tony Christopher, turns 100 in April).
Among the other less heard from peers was Elizabeth Smith, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, who stepped down from the chamber in February. The widow of the former Labour leader John Smith took part in 38% of votes in the last parliament, but had not spoken in the Lords since 1999. She had submitted five written questions since the 2019 general election, most recently in 2020, and claimed £31,224.90 in allowances and travel.
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.
A 2017 report by the campaign group said many peers simply turned up to claim their allowance and vote, without taking part in the essential scrutiny of government.
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. The process, which has no fixed rules, is designed to help those with medical or family issues, or who are taking up diplomatic or other roles. None of the peers claiming allowances were on leave of absence.
Many peers – including Lord Hameed and Lord Paul – hardly ever voted. They were among 49 peers (excluding bishops, the speaker and the lord chamberlain, who either do not vote or have irregular voting patterns as a rule) who voted fewer than 10 times. Twenty-three peers did not vote once between 2019 and 2024.
A Lords spokesperson said: “Members contribute to parliamentary work in a variety of ways which are by no means limited to considering amendments to legislation. Not all parliamentary work leaves a record in Hansard. Members of the Lords are not paid a salary and can only claim attendance allowance for days they attend the House and undertake parliamentary work.”
High-cost hereditaries
Labour has set out plans to remove the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the chamber. Since 2019, hereditary peers have claimed more in allowances and expenses on average than non-hereditary peers (£95,800 per hereditary peer, compared with £92,300 for non-hereditaries).
Hereditary peers also spoke less often (155 times on average, compared with 191 for other peers) and were less likely to pose written questions to the government (18 letters on average, compared with 45 for other peers).
The Conservative peer Lord Crathorne was the most expensive hereditary member of the Lords when compared with his debate contributions, speaking just once while claiming £118,162 in allowances. He wrote 12 questions to the government over the period.
Crathorne, 85, said he was still a committed member of the Lords, actively engaging in debates, late-night sessions and votes. He also pointed to his involvement in several all-party parliamentary groups and his extra-parliamentary work with charities as evidence of his public service.
“I would make the point that while speaking is an important part of our parliamentary democracy, so too are listening, participating and voting,” he said.
