Peers in the House of Lords charged taxpayers more than £46,000 on their day of tributes to Prince Philip.
In a Freedom of Information request by Sky News, it was revealed that 162 peers in the upper chamber claimed a daily allowance for 12 April.
Only 65 of those who claimed actually made a speech to pay their respects to the Queen’s late husband.
Image: Peers paid tribute to Prince Philip in the House of Lords on 12 April
Peers are allowed to claim a £323 allowance for each day they attend the House of Lords, or £162 if they participate virtually from home.
On 12 April, following the news of Prince Philip‘s death three days earlier, proceedings in the House of Lords were dedicated solely to more than five-and-a-half hours of tributes.
Advertisement
Of the 97 peers who claimed a daily allowance despite not speaking in the chamber that day, 14 peers were deputy chairmen of committees – a role that allows them to deputise for the Lord Speaker if necessary.
A further 52 peers are either members of a Lords committee or hold a frontbench role for their parties.
More on Prince Philip
Meanwhile, 31 peers who claimed the allowance and did not speak in the chamber that day appear to have no other formal role in the Lords.
Image: The Duke of Edinburgh died on 9 April at the age of 99. Pic: AP
Campaigners for reform of the House of Lords claimed that some peers saw the upper house as a “cash cow”.
The Freedom of Information request also showed that two peers who spoke in the Lords chamber to deliver tributes to Prince Philip claimed for the full £323 allowance, despite making their speeches via video link.
And one peer claimed the full allowance despite official records showing they withdrew from speaking in the chamber that day.
The House of Lords said there were no discrepancies between the official record of peers who attended parliament in person on 12 April and claims for the full £323 daily allowance.
Darren Hughes, the chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, told Sky News: “This is the kind of expenses scandal in the unelected Lords which just seems to keep repeating itself.
“While many peers work hard, too many appear to see the Lords as a cash cow – eroding trust in the work of parliament as a whole.
“There is simply no way for voters to kick out those who fall short of the standards we need in the UK’s revising chamber.”
“Right now, the Lords looks more like a private member’s club than the effective scrutiny body Britain deserves.
“The unelected Lords is devoid of accountability, and that has to change.
“In 2021, it is outrageous that prime ministers can appoint unlimited numbers of donors, party figures and friends to claim expenses and vote on our laws for life.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Duke of Edinburgh laid to rest
Currently, there are about 800 members who are eligible to take part in the work of the House of Lords.
This means the Lords is the second-largest legislative chamber in the world behind China’s National People’s Congress.
The former Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler, last year criticised Prime Minister Boris Johnson for making a raft of new appointments to the House of Lords to increase the number of peers.
During his time as Lord Speaker, Lord Fowler had backed efforts to reduce the size of the Lords to 600 members.
A House of Lords spokesperson told Sky News that peers are “responsible for ensuring that claims they make are in accordance with the rules contained in the code of conduct” and that a “large majority of members take these duties seriously and undertake them with diligence”.
They said that “any breaches will be investigated under the code of conduct procedure”.
The spokesperson added: “The sitting of the House for tributes to the Duke of Edinburgh on Monday 12 April constituted parliamentary business and so members were allowed to claim daily attendance allowance if they qualified for it and wished to do so.
“Members who physically attended Westminster on that date would have been entitled to claim their full daily attendance allowance even if they didn’t speak in the chamber.
“Members who were unable to be in the chamber due to capacity issues, but had their attendance verified in specified parts of the estate, were also entitled to claim the full allowance if they were present when the House was sitting.
“Members of the House of Lords bring a wealth of experience and expertise from outside parliament into the various aspects of their role in scrutinising and improving legislation and holding the government to account.
“Not all the work that members undertake and which attracts an allowance is visible – much of it is done behind the scenes including select committee work, researching issues and meeting campaigners and members of the public.”
Rachel Reeves has refused to rule out breaking her manifesto pledge not to raise certain taxes, as she lays the groundwork ahead of the budget later this month.
Asked directly by our political editor Beth Rigby if she stands by her promises not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, the chancellor declined to do so.
She told Rigby: “Your viewers can see the challenges that we face, the challenges that are on [sic] a global nature. And they can also see the challenges in the long-term performance of our economy.”
She went on: “As chancellor, I have to face the world as it is, not the world as I want it to be. And when challenges come our way, the only question is how to respond to them, not whether to respond or not.
“As I respond at the budget on 26 November, my focus will be on getting NHS waiting lists down, getting the cost of living down and also getting the national debt down.”
‘Each of us must do our bit’
More on Budget 2025
Related Topics:
Ms Reeves’s comments to Rigby came after a highly unusual pre-budget speech in Downing Street in which she set out the scale of the international and domestic “challenges” facing the government.
What did Labour promise in their manifesto?
Rachel Reeves has refused to say whether she will hike taxes, but what exactly was her manifesto commitment last year?
She said: “We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible.
“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase national insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of income tax, or VAT.”
She also hinted at tax rises, saying: “If we are to build the future of Britain together, each of us must do our bit for the security of our country and the brightness of its future.”
Despite her promise that last year’s budget – which was the biggest tax-raising fiscal event since 1993 – was a “once in a parliament event,” the chancellor said that in the past year, “the world has thrown even more challenges our way,” pointing to “the continual threat of tariffs” from the United States, inflation that has been “too slow to come down,” “volatile” supply chains leading to higher prices, and the high cost of government borrowing.
She also put the blame squarely on previous Tory governments, accusing them of “years of economic mismanagement” that has “limited our country’s potential,” and said past administrations prioritised “political convenience” over “economic imperative”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:09
Sky’s Beth Rigby said there will be ‘almighty backlash’ after budget, as chancellor failed to rule out breaking tax pledges.
Ms Reeves painted a picture of devastation following the years of austerity in the wake of the financial crisis, “instability and indecision” after that, and then the consequences of what she called “a rushed and ill-conceived Brexit”.
“This isn’t about re-litigating old choices – it’s about being honest with the people, about the consequences that those choices have had,” she said.
‘I don’t expect anyone to be satisfied with growth so far’
The chancellor defended her personal record in office so far, saying interest rates and NHS waiting lists have fallen, while investment in the UK is rising, and added: “Our growth was the fastest in the G7 in the first half of this year. I don’t expect anyone to be satisfied with growth of 1%. I am not, and I know that there is more to do.”
Amid that backdrop, Ms Reeves set out her three priorities for the budget: “Protecting our NHS, reducing our national debt, and improving the cost of living.”
Cutting inflation will also be a key aim in her announcements later this month, and “creating the conditions that [see] interest rate cuts to support economic growth and improve the cost of living”.
She rejected calls from some Labour MPs to relax her fiscal rules, reiterating that they are “ironclad,” and arguing that the national debt – which stands at £2.6trn, or 94% of GDP – must come down in order to reduce the cost of government borrowing and spend less public money on interest payments to invest in “the public services essential to both a decent society and a strong economy”.
She also put them on notice that cuts to welfare remain on the government’s agenda, despite its humiliating U-turn on cuts to personal independence payments for disabled people earlier this year, saying: “There is nothing progressive about refusing to reform a system that is leaving one in eight young people out of education or employment.”
Image: Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivered a highly unusual pre-budget speech from Downing Street. Pic: PA
And the chancellor had a few words for her political opponents, saying the Tories’ plan for £47bn in cuts would have “devastating consequences for our public services,” and mocked the Reform UK leadership of Kent County Council for exploring local tax rises instead of cuts, as promised.
Concluding her speech, Ms Reeves vowed not to “repeat those mistakes” of the past by backtracking on investments, and said: “We were elected to break with the cycle of decline, and this government is determined to see that through.”
‘Reeves made all the wrong choices’
In response to her speech, Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride wrote on X that “all she’s done is confirm the fears of households and businesses – that tax rises are coming”.
He wrote: “The chancellor claims she fixed the public finances last year. If that was true, she would not be rolling the pitch for more tax rises and broken promises. The reality is, she fiddled the fiscal rules so she could borrow hundreds of billions more.
“Every time the numbers don’t add up, Reeves blames someone else. But this is about choices – and she made all the wrong ones. If Rachel Reeves had the backbone to get control of government spending – including the welfare bill – she wouldn’t need to raise taxes.”