Peers queuing up for online Lords debates to claim cash

When the House of Commons returned to service as a physical chamber this week there was an outcry over the exclusion of vulnerable and shielding MPs from full participation. The farcical scenes of snaking queues – dubbed “the Rees-Mogg Conga” – filling the corridors of Westminster were widely mocked. The surreal sight of  legislators standing in socially distanced queues – not to be counted by clerks in division lobbies but by beeping their passes to vote – is dulled by its familiarity, since this reflects the daily experience endured by citizens up and down the country.

But a situation of even greater absurdity is developing in the Lords. The upper House remains virtual, purely online, though currently with no ability to hold votes, the facilities for which will not be in place until the week after next. 

A little commented on feature of Britain’s quaint and archaic democracy is that unelected peers are gently encouraged to take full advantage of having a seat in the mother of Parliaments with the offer of a daily allowance of £323 (the figure went up from £313, above inflation, in April). But how is this to work now that we have virtual lords?

The House of Lords Commission has decided to offer a half daily rate to any peer who participates online. The introduction of a hybrid chamber with virtual participation due to lockdown now presents the Lords with the option of claiming their prize for taking part from the comfort of their own homes. Predictably, scores of peers are now registering to speak in debates that are highly constricted by time and by the limitations of the technology.

The result is that in a debate on the post-Covid economy only 50 lords were selected to speak, and were forced to confine their remarks to two minutes apiece.

Peers were chosen by random ballot, meaning that senior lords such as former Chancellors of the Exchquer or the chairs of relevant Committees were not selected, as they would be during an in-person debate.

The clamour to take part – and claim the prize of an allowance – means that for an upcoming debate on Hong Kong speeches will be limited to a ridiculous one minute.

The plan is now to move to hybrid voting, with a limited number of backbench peers allowed in the physical chamber at any given time, with the rest voting electronically. Astonishingly, the current proposal will include peers being paid to vote. There is bound to be criticism of funnelling money to peers to vote on a division which they otherwise may have ignored. And it is sure to play havoc with the parliamentary arithmetic of the Lords, in which the government remains in minority. Look out for heavy government defeats. 

Pay-per-play seems like an unsatisfactory remuneration arrangement for Britain’s upper house.