Shamed peer's allowance withdrawn

12 July 2011 Last updated at 19:25 GMT Lord Hanningfield was jailed for nine months Essex County Council is to withdraw the ?11,500 annual allowance paid to former leader Lord Hanningfield, jailed for fiddling his parliamentary expenses.

The 70-year-old peer, jailed for nine months earlier this month, was still eligible to claim the basic allowance.

But on Tuesday members voted to change the rules and suspend the allowance.

Meanwhile the BBC has learned the authority spent nearly ?700,000 on chauffeur-driven cars over the past five years.

Lord Hanningfield, who appeared in court under his name Paul White, was convicted in May of six counts of false accounting relating to nearly ?14,000 of claims.

He fraudulently claimed for overnight stays in London when he had actually returned home to Essex, and also for train fares and car mileage.

The Tory peer, who led the Conservative-controlled council from 2001 until his arrest in 2010, was jailed at Maidstone Crown Court on 1 July.

A police investigation is now under way into his expenses at the council.

'An abuse'

His use of a chauffeur-driven car to ferry him from the council to the House of Lords focused attention on the authority's chauffeur service.

A Freedom of Information request by BBC Look East revealed the council paid ?677,733 to run chauffeur-driven cars over the past five years.

Liberal Democrat MP for Colchester Bob Russell said: "Frankly, I think it was an abuse. Essex did not need three chauffeur-driven cars.

"We know that because they've now cut it down to one."

Mike Mackrory, Liberal Democrat deputy opposition leader, said: "I find it quite extraordinary and one really wonders what on earth the journeys were and how that could be justified?"

The council now has one chauffeur-driven car, a Jaguar, used mainly by chairman Rodney Bass.

He told the BBC that if the prime minister could have a car, so should he, because of the number of functions he attends.

'Watertight system'

Essex County Council said it would continue to review the costs of the chauffeur service.

Peter Martin, its new leader, said: "We're certainly not a profligate council.

"We are extremely tight with our money. We are offering extremely good value for money to our residents."

He said the council had a new constitution and a new system for claiming expenses.

"I'm now confident that with all the action I've been taking we have a watertight system that is as good as, and probably better than, any council in the country," he said.

Essex County Council says it will continue to review the cost of running a chaffeur-driven car

View the original article here

Peers attack Lords reform plans

22 June 2011 Last updated at 20:24 GMT The Lords currently has nearly 800 members entitled to attend Government plans to replace the House of Lords with a largely elected second chamber have come under sustained attack from peers of all parties.

Lib Dem peer Lord Rodgers said the plan, spearheaded by his party leader Nick Clegg, would "run into the sand".

And ex-Cabinet Secretary Lord Armstrong said he foresaw "much blood in the Thames" as a result of clashes between the Commons and any new assembly.

Ministers say an elected chamber would have proper legitimacy.

Peers have been discussing proposals to dramatically reduce the size of the Lords to just over 300 people and elect 80% of its members, starting in 2015.

On the second day of a two-day debate about the future of the Upper House, Lib Dem peers were among those to criticise the deputy prime minister's blueprint.

'No consensus'

Lord Rodgers said he had opposed an elected second chamber for 20 years despite his party's longstanding support for it and he had not changed his mind.

Continue reading the main story

I foresee serious breakdowns in the relationship between the Commons and the Lords”

End Quote Lord Armstrong Former Cabinet Secretary "I fear this Bill, as it stands, will run into the sand," he said. "With the coalition's heavy legislative programme for this Parliament, Lords reform will inescapably block or delay more important issues.

"There will be no consensus, which there ought to be in a very major change in the nation's constitution."

Fellow Lib Dem Lord Glasgow, one of 92 remaining hereditary peers in the Lords, said his party's proposals "made no sense at all".

"I have always believed, and I thought this was a fairly general view, that the House of Lords justified its existence by being a very effective revising chamber.

"Its primary purpose was to scrutinise and improve government legislation, not, like the House of Commons, to be a party political slanging shop. It succeeds in being an effective revising chamber largely due to the quality and variety of its inmates."

'Serious breakdown'

And Lord Armstrong, the former head of the civil service, predicted frequent disagreements between the Commons and the new assembly in the event of its members being able to claim a democratic mandate.

Continue reading the main story About 300 members80% to be elected but with a provision for a fully elected chamberMembers to be elected for single 15-year terms under the single transferable vote system of proportional representationA third of members to be elected in 2015, a further third in 2020 and 2025Number of bishops to be reduced from 26 to 12Small number of appointed government ministers"I foresee serious breakdowns in the relationship between the Commons and the Lords and the River Thames running under Westminster Bridge with much blood," he told MPs.

All three of the UK's largest parties committed themselves to changing the make-up of the Lords in their 2010 general election manifestos but there has been little sign of agreement on the way forward.

Mr Clegg has asked a committee of peers and MPs, to be led by Labour MP Lord Richard, to examine the proposals - which would see a largely elected "senate" with members serving 15-year terms.

Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the House of Lords, has made clear the government is committed to seeing the first elections to the new body taking place in 2015.

'House in order'

And in an impassioned defence of the plans on Monday, former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown said constitutional reform was needed to "bridge the dangerous gap between the government and the governed".

"This is not about what the public wants," he said. "It is about us putting our house in order."

The current House of Lords lacked legitimacy, he argued.

"We have to be part of a reform that reconnects politics with the people of this country. And if we are not, I believe our democratic institutions will fall into atrophy and may suffer further in the decline in confidence of the people in this country

Labour have said they will oppose the proposals as they stand while many Tory MPs also object to them.

View the original article here