The new House of Lords definition of a 'main home'

This is a joke, a very very bad joke.

It appears that the House of Lords Lords authorities have cleared: Baroness Barker, Lord Colwyn, Lord Hayworth, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, Lord Morris of Manchester, Baroness Northover, Baroness Thornton and Baroness Whitaker over their expenses claims. Clerk of the Parliaments, Michael Pownall, has declared that as there was no clear definition as to what constituted a main home in the current expenses scheme, he had asked a Lords committee which rules on peers' allowance to come up with some "essential criteria". This committee had decided that the minimum threshold for visits to a property designated as a "main" home for expenses purposes should be "at least once a month" when Parliament is sitting. Time spent there during recess was "also a relevant factor". So the House of Lords definition of a 'main home' is one where the 'noble Lord' spends at least one night a month during the time Parliament is sitting. So a 'main home' is one where a 'noble Lord' spends as little as 3.23% of their nights during the time Parliament is sitting.

Is this some sort of sick joke. How can a 'main home' be one where someone spends 3.23% of their nights? If a 'noble Lord' spends the remaining 30 nights in one abode elsewhere, that is now acceptable to be called a second home. As Bob "Bulldog" Briscoe would say: "This is total B.S." 'Noble Lords' can now legally claim nightly expenses even if they are not staying at the property that the claim should only arise for.


I also note per the BBC that:

"In Baroness Scotland's case, Mr Pownall said he had not considered the complaint because she was a minister "throughout the period for which we hold records and so not entitled to claim" under the reimbursement scheme."

Did I read that properly, Baroness Scotland was not entitled to claim and so her case was not considered? Does that make sense?

The BBC report continues:

"Under reforms proposed by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body the old allowances system for peers would be replaced.

It favours a £200-a-day attendance allowance for peers, who are not salaried, but says they should have to prove they have been at Parliament.

The plans were criticised by some peers who agreed to back the reforms in principle, but not the detail in a vote in December."

Peers should have to prove that they are where they say there are in order to claim expenses; how iniquitous! Does this infringe their human rights?