From the BBC:
The Lib Dems’ Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott said he would be asking Lords authorities what address Lord Taylor claimed for between 2001 and 2007.
Lord Taylor told the newspaper he regarded the property in the West Midlands as his main home.
The Sunday Times alleged Lord Taylor claimed more than £70,000 in overnight allowances between 2001 and 2007 on the basis that his mother’s home in the West Midlands was his main home.
The paper claimed the house was in fact sold in 2001 after his mother’s death – but Lord Taylor said he regarded it as his home base even after she passed away.
The paper said he declined to give addresses for any of his homes after the House of Lords advised him not to make his domestic circumstances public because of previous racist abuse.
Lord Oakeshott told the BBC that Lord Taylor should pay the money back if the address was not made known.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A wicker rabbit
A DVD A Day: Doctor Who — Castrovalva
Unwelcome guerrilla Covid-19 signs in Ludlow, scarecrow strangers, and ambiguous signs that lead to fines
Unorthodox
Why Liberal Democrat members should look at their email inbox
Mr Trump, remember the Falls Road, 1969!
WINNER FOR AGEING BETTER Logo Competition
The Milk of Lions
Michael BG
JohnMc
Joseph Bourke
Lorenzo Cherin
William Francis
11 Comments
And Lord Taylor’s a barrister! I love it. His website says his mother, Enid, passed away at Christmas 2001, after a long illness. I would have thought someone could find her address from electoral records and the date when it was sold from the Land Registry in minutes. By the way isn’t it great news that the official in charge of parliamentary expenses is getting a generous pay rise? Reward success!!!
If we’re so worried about dodgy claims in the Lords then why didn’t we sack Rennard?
Well done Matthew Oakeshott would be my first point.
My second is here
The more evidence that comes to light of peers abusing the overnight subsistence allowance, the more obvious it is that there needs to be a thorough and rigorous investigation of the claims that have been made by all peers. It’s no good referring two or three of the very worst offenders to the police and trying to turn a blind eye to the rest.
If someone has made a false statement about where their main residence is in order to claim public money they’re not entitled to – perhaps running into tens of thousands of pounds – I think they should be punished every bit as harshly as a claimant who commits benefit fraud.
Sadly, the party seems more inclined to try to cover up for its own offenders. A high-risk strategy, as well as plain wrong.
Incidentally, according to Paul Staines’s “Sunlight Centre” website, they have received a response to an enquiry to the Clerk of the Parliaments, Michael Pownall:
“We have been told that Lord Rennard is under investigation by the House of Lords authorities and we will be made aware of the outcome in due course.”
http://www.sunlight-cops.org.uk/2009/08/03/response-to-lord-rennard-investigations/
More on this <a href="http://rainbowherbicide.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/parliament-had-no-regulatory-definition-of-a-main-residence-says-scott/"here, Baroness Scott has responded. Broadly claiming Parliament had no ‘regulatory’ or written definition of what a ‘main residence’ might be.
That explains the party’s curious ‘within the rules’ position on all our peers, but I’m not convinced by the thoroughness of it, I can only hope more light is shed by Lord Shutt. He really should just publish his findings.
It will be interesting further to see if the House of Lords investigation into Rennard concludes differently, and whether their findings are any more transparent. They are at least subject to freedom of information if not.
I still find though it somewhat beyond belief that the defence of several peers of the realm against potential fraud charges rests on the notion that the words ‘main residence’ do not have a clear meaning within the House of Lords rules. They certainly have a reasonable meaning outside Parliament.
People whose main residences are glasshouses…..
Sadly, it’s been rather obvious for some time that the party line of defence ran something like this:
“The rules don’t define what ‘main residence’ means, so peers are free to interpret the phrase in any way they see fit, and however they interpret it, no one can say that they have broken the rules.”
Equally, the fact that this is the line of defence – rather than “We are satisfied that Lord Rennard’s main residence was in Eastbourne” – makes it painfully obvious that Lord Rennard’s main residence was not – in any reasonable sense of the phrase – in Eastbourne.
Anyhow, the one thing that is clear is that the party is not fit to carry out any meaningful investigation into the matter. Let’s hope “the House of Lords authorities” are capable of doing so. But given that the problem seems to be so widespread, I am not optimistic (unless the press can shame them into it).
@ David Allan
should not lightly throw around a ton of bricks?
Some further confirmation that Rennard is being investigated, from the Sunday Times:
“The House of Lords is looking into complaints about the expenses claims of Lords Rennard, Taylor and Bhatia, although the inquiries into the latter two will be postponed if the police decide to investigate. “
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6788669.ece
Confirmation, too, of the extreme unwisdom of senior party members saying things like “There is no reason to “clear” Liberal Democrat Peers of impropriety because no-one has been accused of impropriety”.
Any Peer guilty of an offence of fraud should be removed from the House and charged under the same law as anyone else.